Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[gnostic]

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)

it isn’t strawman.

i have given you exactly why mammals are not fishes, by listing the physical traits (anatomy & physiology) that mammals have that make them mammals. Not fishes.

Whales and dolphins are fully aquatic (marine) creatures, but they are not fishes.

You are still about made-up, what-if scenarios, while I have been providing you with factual information:

• dolphins & whales don’t breath through any gill (which they don’t have), they always come to the surface to breathe in some air,
• dolphins & whales keep their foetuses in their wombs, before they give live birth…fishes on the other hand lay their eggs in water;
• dolphins & whales have mammary glands, fishes don’t;
• dolphins & whales have flippers, fishes have fins

As you can see, dolphins & whales, despite living in the seas, there are no selective pressures to turn dolphins & whales into fishes.

I have given you the answers, but you are going on this stupid scenario that haven’t happened…so if anyone is making irrelevant points are you with false questions.

 

[gnostic]

This post surely has to settle this discussion.

unfortunately, YoursTrue doesn’t get it, so she will keep repeating the same mistake, over and over again - compounding her errors and compounding her ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it is strawman.

i have given you exactly why mammals are not fishes, by listing the physical traits (anatomy & physiology) that mammals have that make them mammals. Not fishes.

Whales and dolphins are fully aquatic (marine) creatures, but they are not fishes.

You are still about made-up, what-if scenarios, while I have been providing you with factual information:

• dolphins & whales don’t breath through any gill (which they don’t have), they always come to the surface to breathe in some air,
• dolphins & whales keep their foetuses in their wombs, before they give live birth…fishes on the other hand lay their eggs in water;
• dolphins & whales have mammary glands, fishes don’t;
• dolphins & whales have flippers, fishes have fins

As you can see, dolphins & whales, despite living in the seas, there are no selective pressures to turn dolphins & whales into fishes.

I have given you the answers, but you are going on this stupid scenario that haven’t happened…so if anyone is making irrelevant points are you with false questions.

A lot depends upon the definitions that one uses. In modern biology classification is done via cladistics. A definition that is not monophyletic is not thought to be a proper one. For example if one includes sharks as fish then by cladistics humans would be fish too. The traditional definition of "fish" is not monophyletic. With what we know now it is not a proper classification. Just as the word "monkey" is not a proper biological classification. Though that classification varies with language. Spanish and Italian do not have that problem since all apes and monkeys are "mono".

 

[YoursTrue]

it is strawman.

i have given you exactly why mammals are not fishes, by listing the physical traits (anatomy & physiology) that mammals have that make them mammals. Not fishes.

Whales and dolphins are fully aquatic (marine) creatures, but they are not fishes.

You are still about made-up, what-if scenarios, while I have been providing you with factual information:

• dolphins & whales don’t breath through any gill (which they don’t have), they always come to the surface to breathe in some air,
• dolphins & whales keep their foetuses in their wombs, before they give live birth…fishes on the other hand lay their eggs in water;
• dolphins & whales have mammary glands, fishes don’t;
• dolphins & whales have flippers, fishes have fins

As you can see, dolphins & whales, despite living in the seas, there are no selective pressures to turn dolphins & whales into fishes.

I have given you the answers, but you are going on this stupid scenario that haven’t happened…so if anyone is making irrelevant points are you with false questions.

1. It's not a "stupid scenario" at all to say that apes could evolve to be water-dwelling animals in the distant future according to the possibilities of "evolution." I don't think that will happen BECAUSE (1) I do not believe in the affirmed process of evolution as accepted by the many, and (2) yes, I believe in God and His creative abilities, making man and fish. Not by evolution, no matter what the Pope thinks. But if it were evolution, there's nothing to say that apes could not evolve to become water-dwellers some day.

 

[YoursTrue]

unfortunately, YoursTrue doesn’t get it, so she will keep repeating the same mistake, over and over again - compounding her errors and compounding her ignorance.

You mean what you think is wrong because you do not think or believe that apes could evolve to become water-dwellers some day? If you think it's impossible per the theory of evolution, please do explain according to reason. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

@hififish -- WOWEE! and many more...

 

[leroy]

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?

That is the point. Fish is a very wide and flexible term.....

This is why your Tijuana NY analogy fail

This is why things that we call fish have evolved 20 + times independently in the past

This is why it is not improbable that it could happen once more in the future

 

[Pogo]

You mean what you think is wrong because you do not think or believe that apes could evolve to become water-dwellers some day? If you think it's impossible per the theory of evolution, please do explain according to reason. Thank you.

It is not impossible due to the theory, we already have whales and porpoises that were terrestrial mammals that are now aquatic so it is not a question of evolution but why are you asking about a forest dweller? Not going to happen any time soon as long as they stay in their current environment.
It is just a dumb question if you actually knew anything about evolution and it is only a gotcha in that it exposes your ignorance.

 

[Pogo]

That is the point. Fish is a very wide and flexible term.....

This is why your Tijuana NY analogy fail

This is why things that we call fish have evolved 20 + times independently in the past

This is why it is not improbable that it could happen once more in the future

It depends on your definition of a fish, if it is your five year old version then yes, if it is according to any scientific definition of a fish, the answer is no.

L:earn the subject before you ask any more questions.

BTW, fish have not evolved independently 20 times, their are many species (I saw 29000 in one place) but they are all related and not independent.
Basic fail.

 

[leroy]

it is strawman.

i have given you exactly why mammals are not fishes,

Again strawman I didn't say that mammals ... Nor dolphins are fishes

by listing the physical traits (anatomy & physiology) that mammals have that make them mammals. Not fishes.

• dolphins & whales don’t breath through any gill (which they don’t have), they always come to the surface to breathe in some air,

Yes but given enough time luck and selective pressure... The descendents of dolphins could evolve gills.... What magical force would prevent that?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not impossible due to the theory,

Excellent! You get an A.

we already have whales and porpoises that were terrestrial mammals that are now aquatic so it is not a question of evolution but why are you asking about a forest dweller? Not going to happen any time soon as long as they stay in their current environment.
It is just a dumb question if you actually knew anything about evolution and it is only a gotcha in that it exposes your ignorance.

It's not a real dumb question but rather a reasonable one, given the "theory," and at least you admit it's not impossible, but obviously you don't like my question. At least you admit it's "possible," according to -- the chances and outcomes of...um...natural selection. You get a gold star plus!

 

[Pogo]

Again strawman I didn't say that mammals ... Nor dolphins are fishes



Yes but given enough time luck and selective pressure... The descendents of dolphins could evolve gills.... What magical force would prevent that?

The other half of basic evolution, selection, unless you can figure out what positive pathway to create gills out of what. and it still wouldn't be a fish, just something that looks fish like. evolution works by minor modifications of existing structures, it does not create completely new structures out of nothing. It would take your majic sky daddy to create gills in mammals.

 

[Pogo]

Excellent! You get an A.

It's not a real dumb question but rather a reasonable one, given the "theory," and at least you admit it's not impossible, but obviously you don't like my question. At least you admit it's "possible," according to -- the chances and outcomes of...um...natural selection. You get a gold star plus!

No, you still don't understand, there is nothing in evolution that prevents mammals from becoming aquatic, but that does not make them fish nor any breathing method gills. It is a dumb question because all you need to do is understand that Whales and porpoises are mammals where what you are asking if it is possible have already demonstrated that it is possible.

It is like asking at noon if the sun could rise today.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you still don't understand, there is nothing in evolution that prevents mammals from becoming aquatic, but that does not make them fish nor any breathing method gills. It is a dumb question because all you need to do is understand that Whales and porpoises are mammals where what you are asking if it is possible have already demonstrated that it is possible.

It is like asking at noon if the sun could rise today.

Because of you, yes! I changed from fish to -- water-dwellers, no longer air-breathers. OK? It -- is -- possible -- according -- to -- the ----THEORY. It's also possible to go back to -- whatever was before evolution began maybe abiogenesis. Go, show otherwise. Remember -- maybe in your mind all life will be blotted out. Could be, why not, according to you? For the record, though, I do not believe that will happen. But how about you? Do you believe it could happen?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you consider whales to be fish?

so maybe a lookalike, kind of sort of.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well then you already knew the answer, whales are mammals that have evolved to live in water but they are not and never will be fish.

you know this how? Because -- oh I know! they're WHALES, right, sir?

 

[firedragon]

Excellent! You get an A.

It's not a real dumb question but rather a reasonable one, given the "theory," and at least you admit it's not impossible, but obviously you don't like my question. At least you admit it's "possible," according to -- the chances and outcomes of...um...natural selection. You get a gold star plus!

Again strawman I didn't say that mammals ... Nor dolphins are fishes



Yes but given enough time luck and selective pressure... The descendents of dolphins could evolve gills.... What magical force would prevent that?

Even according to Darwinian Evolution, it's highly unlikely a dolphin could evolve into fish. Dolphins won’t evolve into fish because they are mammals with different evolutionary paths and traits. While they may continue adapting to water, they won’t reverse their biology (like developing gills) to become fish. Evolution builds on existing traits, so dolphins will remain marine mammals, not transform into another type of animal entirely. Evolution works by gradually modifying traits that already exist in a species over many generations. For dolphins to evolve into something resembling a fish, they would need to lose their mammalian traits like lungs and warm-bloodedness and re-evolve structures suited to living exclusively in water, like gills. Such an extensive transformation is improbable because evolution doesn't "reverse" or aim for a specific end goal like "becoming a fish." Instead, it involves adaptations to current environments over millions of years, based on gradual genetic changes.

 

[YoursTrue]

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),
• I

Aggressively baiting like dragging a fish line in a sea full of bait gobblers? Heavens to Betsy, I don't want to say fish because there's more than fish that will grab a line. meantime to go back to a more scientific line, you well know you cannot say that apes will not according to the theory, evolve to be by necessity and chance circumstance according to the theory to be water breathers. Just as science says humans are fish, so apes can be water-dwellers in the future, according to the theory of evolution.

 

[Pogo]

Aggressively baiting like dragging a fish line in a sea full of bait gobblers? Heavens to Betsy, I don't want to say fish because there's more than fish that will grab a line. meantime to go back to a more scientific line, you well know you cannot say that apes will not according to the theory, evolve to be by necessity and chance circumstance according to the theory to be water breathers. Just as science says humans are fish, so apes can be water-dwellers in the future, according to the theory of evolution.

You need to stop using strawmen, apes becoming water dwellers is not equivalent to becoming water breathers.

As to why humans could be considered fish, you need to go back and understand my post about clades because it is not what you are pretending.

 

[YoursTrue]

Even according to Darwinian Evolution, it's highly unlikely a dolphin could evolve into fish. Dolphins won’t evolve into fish because they are mammals with different evolutionary paths and traits. While they may continue adapting to water, they won’t reverse their biology (like developing gills) to become fish. Evolution builds on existing traits, so dolphins will remain marine mammals, not transform into another type of animal entirely. Evolution works by gradually modifying traits that already exist in a species over many generations. For dolphins to evolve into something resembling a fish, they would need to lose their mammalian traits like lungs and warm-bloodedness and re-evolve structures suited to living exclusively in water, like gills. Such an extensive transformation is improbable because evolution doesn't "reverse" or aim for a specific end goal like "becoming a fish." Instead, it involves adaptations to current environments over millions of years, based on gradual genetic changes.

If some believers in the theory of evolution say humans are fish, then of course, it's possible for humans to evolve by chance and necessity to be dolphin-like. I looked up elephants and see ridiculous (scientific) information about their formation. Now they're "stopped" in their evolutionary tracks. So humans are, according to the theory, far away from elephants to the point of not being close to the "family tree." Except, of course, for those "unknown" first specimens of whatever they say happened. But they're close to fish. WOW!