Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[leroy]

Living in water is not the definition of a fish to anyone who has graduated beyond My First Reader.

Ok then help us.....what is the definition of fish ?

 

[leroy]

You are not talking about biology in your scenario, you are just using colloquial terms and imagination to create a sci=fi something.

Yes because fish*is* a coloquial term ....like bug or worm.


There is no scientific definition of fish

 

[leroy]

There may not be actual classification for fish, alone, but like I said, they do have some numbers of classifications with fishes that have specific physical traits that have in common, and below are the major groupings for what we used colloquially as the fish:

• Agnatha - fishes without jaws, eg hagfish, lamprey, etc
• Gnathostomata - fishes without jaws, which include all the ones below -

• Chondrichthyes - all fishes with cartilage for skeleton, eg sharks, rays, etc
• Osteichthyes - all fishes with bones for skeleton, see below -

• Actinopterygii - all fishes that have ray-fins, eg swordfish, salmon, tuna, goldfish, seahorse, and so much more,
• Sarcopterygii - all lobe-finned fishes, eg coelacanth, lungfish; the rest are extinct, eg Eusthenopteron, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc.

You talk of clades, so I have listed above and in my previous post, those major classifications that are “monophyletic groups”, hence “common ancestors”, and their respective descendants…that’s what clades are about.

Tunas, salmons, swordfishes, can trace back to common ancestor of the earliest clade (Actinopteri) of the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii).

Again .... relevance? I agree with the information above..... I simply don't see the relevance

Care to address my actual point?

The point being that given enough time luck and selective pressure a mammal could evolve in to something that we would call a fish ...... This supported by the fact that fish is a coloquial flexible and generic term that allows for a wide rage of traits

 

[cladking]

The dice and cards approach assumes random mutations as part of their evolutionary model. However, this random step can be explained, with logic, starting with a well known process; post modification of the DNA. This is where a methyl group or acetyl group, is added to the DNA bases modifying the raw DNA at certain locations. The methyl adds a reduced; oily, group that adds extra surface tension to the water and forces these base pairs to stay packed tighter. These are harder to transcribe. The acetyl group has the opposite effect making these easier to transcribe; more activity.

Say we duplicate the DNA; cell cycle, so all the DNA, that has been post modified, is open for transcription. The cell does not copy this using raw DNA materials, that are also post modified, to duplicate the modified aspects of the mother cell DNA. That "post effect" is only on the mother cell's DNA. This difference between the zones of modified mother cell DNA, and normal raw materials used for duplicating DNA, tweets the hydrogen bonding potential between the mother cell's genes, at the modified places, and the new forming duplicate strands, that do not have any modification.

Mistakes make more sense at these modified positions, since the molecular and hydrogen bonding potentials have changed in very distinct ways by these modification additions. In other words, new bases pairing, will now reflect the modified DNA and appear off but have the correct energy for the assembly.

A target has been created by the mother cell's life experiences, via global potentials, and passed to her daughter cells. But it will be initially expressed in her daughter cells as genetic changes, without the methyl or acetyl; clean slate daughter cell DNA. She is ready for her own post modification, onto that, over time. This logic can be inferred from the water model for the life. You are welcome to run the experiments and prove it to yourself; water logic and evolution. You could win a Nobel Prize in accepted science.

Below are Adenine and Cytosine unmodified and also methylated. The reduction is in response to equilibrium changes the mother cell's DNA feels. Acetylation is similar but adds an acetyl group which is more polar and has a different mistake; typo, in mind.

	Unmodified base
			Adenine, A		Cytosine, C

Modified forms N6-Methyladenine, 6mA 5-Methylcytosine, 5mC N4-Methylcytosine, 4mC

With synchronicity, chaos, plastic memory, ete etc etc as well as the failure to to understand the fundamental forces which might not even apply on the smallest scales you'd think people would become less sure of what can exist and how but instead most have doubled down on their certainty.

 

[Pogo]

Again .... relevance? I agree with the information above..... I simply don't see the relevance

Care to address my actual point?

The point being that given enough time luck and selective pressure a mammal could evolve in to something that we would call a fish ...... This supported by the fact that fish is a coloquial flexible and generic term that allows for a wide rage of traits

What point? You already agreed that whales are not fish which is what you are asking if it is possible? With that ruled out, what definition of fish are you proposing because by the understanding of evolution, there is no way anything can evolve to be a fish only fish like. If you think it is possible it is for you to explain how, not for us to create imaginary scenarios that fail at the first step.

 

[YoursTrue]

What point? You already agreed that whales are not fish which is what you are asking if it is possible? With that ruled out, what definition of fish are you proposing because by the understanding of evolution, there is no way anything can evolve to be a fish only fish like. If you think it is possible it is for you to explain how, not for us to create imaginary scenarios that fail at the first step.

I figure you can't get the point. So it's "fishlike." Because you stubbornly refuse to see the point, no use further explaining it to you now. Maybe later when you're able to actually admit what's obviously there.

 

[YoursTrue]

With synchronicity, chaos, plastic memory, ete etc etc as well as the failure to to understand the fundamental forces which might not even apply on the smallest scales you'd think people would become less sure of what can exist and how but instead most have doubled down on their certainty.

Reminds me of an old song called "Chances Are...."

 

[cladking]

Chances are 'cause I wear a silly grin
The moment you come into view
Chances are you think that I'm in love with you
Just because my composure sort of slips
The moment that your lips meet mine
Chances are you think my heart's your Valentine
In the magic of moonlight when I sigh, hold me close, dear
Chances are you believe the stars that fill the skies are in my eyes
Guess you feel you'll always be the one and only one for me
And if you think you could
Well, chances are your chances are awfully good
Chances are you believe the stars that fill the skies are in my eyes
Guess you feel you'll always be the one and only one for me
And if you think you could
Well, chances are your chances are awfully good
The chances are your chances are awfully good

-Johnny Mathis 1957

Chances are they only believe they are being embraced by the fossil record and kissed by reality. Chances are they've forgotten that all science is derived from axioms and definitions and there is no theory outside experiment. It's a certainty most have forgotten or never realized all experiment applies to every single thing.

Chances are all those stars in their eyes are mere reflections or mirages.

 

[YoursTrue]

Chances are 'cause I wear a silly grin
The moment you come into view
Chances are you think that I'm in love with you
Just because my composure sort of slips
The moment that your lips meet mine
Chances are you think my heart's your Valentine
In the magic of moonlight when I sigh, hold me close, dear
Chances are you believe the stars that fill the skies are in my eyes
Guess you feel you'll always be the one and only one for me
And if you think you could
Well, chances are your chances are awfully good
Chances are you believe the stars that fill the skies are in my eyes
Guess you feel you'll always be the one and only one for me
And if you think you could
Well, chances are your chances are awfully good
The chances are your chances are awfully good

-Johnny Mathis 1957

Chances are they only believe they are being embraced by the fossil record and kissed by reality. Chances are they've forgotten that all science is derived from axioms and definitions and there is no theory outside experiment. It's a certainty most have forgotten or never realized all experiment applies to every single thing.

Chances are all those stars in their eyes are mere reflections or mirages.

Yes I just listened to the old Johnny Mathis recording of it. What a nice voice he had.

 

[YoursTrue]

@cladking Ah, chances...

 

[leroy]

What point? You already agreed that whales are not fish which is what you are asking if it is possible? With that ruled out, what definition of fish are you proposing because by the understanding of evolution, there is no way anything can evolve to be a fish only fish like. If you think it is possible it is for you to explain how, not for us to create imaginary scenarios that fail at the first step.

no way anything can evolve to be a fish

Why not ? Under your eyes what is the difference between fish and fish like ?

 

[Pogo]

Why not ? Under your eyes what is the difference between fish and fish like ?

What is a fish?

evolution.berkeley.edu

Here is a phylogenetic tree of what we think of as fish, well except for some of the sarcopterygii (the yellow line). They all share a common ancestor and so a cladogram would be possible though not well defined from the top right. We also know that Gadiformes (cods) no matter how much their desendants don't look like their ancestors, there will be a pathway back to what we would identify as a cod. So what is a fish.

A clade is a group of organisms on a phylogenetic tree that includes a single ancestor and all of its descendants:

To identify a clade on a phylogenetic tree, you can imagine cutting a single branch off the tree. All of the organisms on that branch make up a clade.

Clades are also known as monophyletic groups, which comes from the Greek word for "single clan". Here are some characteristics of clades:

Nested
Clades are not mutually exclusive, but are nested within one another. For example, a taxon can belong to multiple clades.

• • Shared features
    Organisms in a clade share similar features that they don't share with other organisms in the tree.
    
  • Common ancestry
    All members of a clade share a portion of history, the internal branch that connects the clade to the rest of the tree.
    
    

We could define fish a everything to the right of Sarcopterygii and it would be a clade of what any five year old would call a fish. since they all share a common ancestor that is a group you can't move in to because no matter what you do you can't change your ancestry. Five year olds would probably not include hagfish and lampreys as fish, however they are fish from a biological standpoint so we could make a fish clade by moving to the bottom of the tree and calling that the definition of the fish clade. Again, there is no process to change ancestry so nothing can be added to the fish clade.
But now we have the problem of things most five year olds would consider a fish if ever they saw one which is the coelacanth. It is a sarcopterygian, that segment we wanted to leave out because it includes us and we aren't fish.
So how do we define fish, Is it the clade that includes all the things we think of as fish or just the portion of the tree to the right of Sarcopterygii without coelacanths and lampreys or all of them. If that definition we cannot ever be fish as we don't share an ancestry. Or we include the left portion and we are fish.

Any other setup is excluded by our understanding of evolution and requires you as the proposer to do a lot of work to rewrite several hundred years of science.
Personally, I don't think you are up to it. The best you could do is add fish-like for something that isn't a fish except it satisfies your inner five year old.

 

[gnostic]

Meantime with the possibilities of chance mutations with regard to the theory of evolution, it's possible that chimpanzees could evolve to water dwellers. Best to be honest about this.

In the meantime I'm sure you are honest enough to figure chimps could evolve given what some call circumstances, to water dwellers. Sure, according the theory it would take a long time but given the theory it could happen. Why not?

There are more like these quotes, you have posted.

All you are doing is aggressively baiting us with a “what-if” hypothetical scenario - chimpanzees becoming “water dwellers” - that clearly haven’t happened, so any answers we give, would be hypothetical too, not as matter of fact, YoursTrue.

The way you are going about it, is that you want to catch us with this silly game of fictional what-if, so you can play “gotcha!”, is truly dishonest & juvenile. You are the one who is not being “honest”.

For what you called “circumstances“, such circumstances haven’t happened, as they lived in the tropical parts of Africa, hence in areas with tropical rainforests or in savannahs, they are living and moving trees, or walking on the ground, and they are not living in or on water, so I don’t see how they could become aquatic animals.

Until your scenario happens, it is not going to happen any time in the future, because CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NO SELECTIVE PRESSURES FOR CHIMPANZEES TO ADAPT TO AQUATIC LIFE!

Btw, there are mammals that have “fully” adapted to aquatic life, eg whales, dolphins, porpoises, etc. They are definitely not fishes, as -

• they have no gills, fishes have gills
• they have flippers, not fins (fishes have fins),
• they still give live birth (hence, they are still ”amniotes”; fishes are anamniotes because they lay their eggs in water environments),
• they still nurse their youngs, as they still have mammary glands, which make them still mammals.

Then, there are those semi-aquatic mammals - “semi-aquatic” meaning they live on land or can also spent considerable time in waters, eg seals, otters, polar bears, hippopotamus, etc.

Does that answer your dishonest question? No gotcha?!

 

[gnostic]

Again .... relevance? I agree with the information above..... I simply don't see the relevance

Care to address my actual point?

The point being that given enough time luck and selective pressure a mammal could evolve in to something that we would call a fish ...... This supported by the fact that fish is a coloquial flexible and generic term that allows for a wide rage of traits

Mammals don’t have gills, nor have fins, nor do they eggs underwater as fishes do, so mammals are not fishes.

Fishes don’t have mammary glands that that produce milk for their young, which are essential for all mammals , and it is why these animals are called mammals. Fishes don’t have mammary glands, hence fishes are not mammals.

while whales & dolphins lived in water, they are not fishes, as I have said above, and in my other reply.

 

[leroy]

What is a fish?

evolution.berkeley.edu

Here is a phylogenetic tree of what we think of as fish, well except for some of the sarcopterygii (the yellow line). They all share a common ancestor and so a cladogram would be possible though not well defined from the top right. We also know that Gadiformes (cods) no matter how much their desendants don't look like their ancestors, there will be a pathway back to what we would identify as a cod. So what is a fish.

A clade is a group of organisms on a phylogenetic tree that includes a single ancestor and all of its descendants:

To identify a clade on a phylogenetic tree, you can imagine cutting a single branch off the tree. All of the organisms on that branch make up a clade.

Clades are also known as monophyletic groups, which comes from the Greek word for "single clan". Here are some characteristics of clades:

Nested
Clades are not mutually exclusive, but are nested within one another. For example, a taxon can belong to multiple clades.

• • Shared features
    Organisms in a clade share similar features that they don't share with other organisms in the tree.
  • Common ancestry
    All members of a clade share a portion of history, the internal branch that connects the clade to the rest of the tree.
    

We could define fish a everything to the right of Sarcopterygii and it would be a clade of what any five year old would call a fish. since they all share a common ancestor that is a group you can't move in to because no matter what you do you can't change your ancestry. Five year olds would probably not include hagfish and lampreys as fish, however they are fish from a biological standpoint so we could make a fish clade by moving to the bottom of the tree and calling that the definition of the fish clade. Again, there is no process to change ancestry so nothing can be added to the fish clade.
But now we have the problem of things most five year olds would consider a fish if ever they saw one which is the coelacanth. It is a sarcopterygian, that segment we wanted to leave out because it includes us and we aren't fish.
So how do we define fish, Is it the clade that includes all the things we think of as fish or just the portion of the tree to the right of Sarcopterygii without coelacanths and lampreys or all of them. If that definition we cannot ever be fish as we don't share an ancestry. Or we include the left portion and we are fish.

Any other setup is excluded by our understanding of evolution and requires you as the proposer to do a lot of work to rewrite several hundred years of science.
Personally, I don't think you are up to it. The best you could do is add fish-like for something that isn't a fish except it satisfies your inner five year old.

You still don't understand that fish is not a clade

 

[leroy]

Mammals don’t have gills, nor have fins, nor do they eggs underwater as fishes do, so mammals are not fishes.

Strawman......I never said that mammals are fish

I said that mammals could evolve in to something that we would call fish (given enough time luck and selective pressure)



The fact that you had to make a strawman out of my argument strongly suggests that you Grant the argument. (But won't admit it)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still don't understand that fish is not a clade

As traditionally used it is a case of paraphyly. But if one does make "fish" monophyletic then we are fish.

Biology is slowly moving away from terms that are paraphyletic because they are inconsistent terms. Cladistics is consistent. Cladistics is a result of evolution. That is why some biologists will say that man is a "fish" when they are discussing how animals are classified. There are often terms that are already in existence that avoid confusion. For example instead of saying "fish" one could say Chordata. But if you want to claim that a trout is a fish and shark is a fish then by that definition so is man. Trout and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to sharks.

 

[Pogo]

You still don't understand that fish is not a clade

It depends on how you define it, and that is critical to your silly question, without a definition asking whether humans could become fishes is ridiculous.
As I showed you fish can be a clade if we include our selves.

We cannot answer a question that is so poorly asked.

What is the definition of a fish?

 

[Pogo]

You still don't understand that fish is not a clade

It depends on how you define it, and that is critical to your silly question, without a definition asking whether humans could become fishes is ridiculous.
As I showed you fish can be a clade if we include our selves.

We cannot answer a question that is so poorly asked.

What is the definition of a fish?

Oh heck instead of deleting the post I will just ask again @leroy.

What is a fish?

 

[Hooded_Crow]

...For what you called “circumstances“, such circumstances haven’t happened, as they lived in the tropical parts of Africa, hence in areas with tropical rainforests or in savannahs, they are living and moving trees, or walking on the ground, and they are not living in or on water, so I don’t see how they could become aquatic animals.

Until your scenario happens, it is not going to happen any time in the future, because CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NO SELECTIVE PRESSURES FOR CHIMPANZEES TO ADAPT TO AQUATIC LIFE!

This post surely has to settle this discussion.