Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

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.

No? Humans, they say, evolved from fish. So many say humans ARE fish. At this point, gotta say -- have it any way your science takes you.
Oh, and Wow.

 

[firedragon]

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!

You are making an irrelevant comment.

 

[firedragon]

No? Humans, they say, evolved from fish. So many say humans ARE fish.

Interesting. Who exactly says humans are fish? Would you be able to point at a book or some credible source?

 

[gnostic]

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

Still not strawman. Just pointing out facts about cetaceans (whales, dolphins & porpoises).

Because gills are already not required for dolphins, porpoises & dolphins. Anytiime, they need air, they swim to the surface.

Crocodiles & turtles also spend more time in the water than on land, and they have about around tens of millions of years, without ever developing gills or needing them. And when the time come for them to lay their eggs, they don’t lay them underwater like with fishes and amphibians, instead they go to dry land, where they would bury their eggs, like most reptiles do.

It has nothing to with magical forces. It is just that selective pressures haven’t given them gills as neither cetaceans (whales, dolphins & porpoises), nor crocodiles & sea turtle, requiring gills or becoming anamniotic (lay eggs underwater).

Penguins spent time on land and on water, they move faster in water, and yet they also don’t require gills. When penguins lay their eggs, they don’t lay them underwater (like fishes & amphibians), instead they lay them on dry land or on ice, and then sit on the eggs, like birds do in nests.

Evolution go forward, not backwards.

if anyone is strawmanning, it is you, as you kept bringing up chimpanzees.

Why would chimpanzees need to become fish-like, when they lived in tropical rainforests or savannahs? There are no selective pressures for chimpanzees live underwater. So you asking questions that are ignorant.

 

[cladking]

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.

If only the deepest diving dolphins could survive some change wouldn't it be advantageous for them to be able to extract some oxygen from the water? If this were a continuing selection pressure why would they invent new structures to extract oxygen? They aren't going to invent money to buy scuba tanks.

How do you know what the fittest dolphins will be wearing in 50 or 50,000,000 years?

 

[cladking]

They aren't going to invent money to buy scuba tanks.

If they're spending all their time diving then a 9 to 5 is going to be a problem too.

 

[firedragon]

How do you know what the fittest dolphins will be wearing in 50 or 50,000,000 years?

Not me. Evolutionary biologists.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting. Who exactly says humans are fish? Would you be able to point at a book or some credible source?

ASAP, yes I will do that. People here have said that and so do some other sources. Right now I'm a little pressed for time but I will try to remember your request. Evidently you don't read all the posts on this subject, but -- yes -- I guess because they say humans (and gorillas, etc.) evolved from fish that we ARE fish. I'll get back to this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Still not strawman. Just pointing out facts about cetaceans (whales, dolphins & porpoises).

Because gills are already not required for dolphins, porpoises & dolphins. Anytiime, they need air, they swim to the surface.

Crocodiles & turtles also spend more time in the water than on land, and they have about around tens of millions of years, without ever developing gills or needing them. And when the time come for them to lay their eggs, they don’t lay them underwater like with fishes and amphibians, instead they go to dry land, where they would bury their eggs, like most reptiles do.

It has nothing to with magical forces. It is just that selective pressures haven’t given them gills as neither cetaceans (whales, dolphins & porpoises), nor crocodiles & sea turtle, requiring gills or becoming anamniotic (lay eggs underwater).

Penguins spent time on land and on water, they move faster in water, and yet they also don’t require gills. When penguins lay their eggs, they don’t lay them underwater (like fishes & amphibians), instead they lay them on dry land or on ice, and then sit on the eggs, like birds do in nests.

Evolution go forward, not backwards.

if anyone is strawmanning, it is you, as you kept bringing up chimpanzees.

Why would chimpanzees need to become fish-like, when they lived in tropical rainforests or savannahs? There are no selective pressures for chimpanzees live underwater. So you asking questions that are ignorant.

It doesn't matter, according to the theory, that gills are or are not required. Anything can develop, according to the theory. Let's be honest about this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting. Who exactly says humans are fish? Would you be able to point at a book or some credible source?

First, you might want to check @sayak83 's posts about this. I'm not sure how to give exact links to those posts. Perhaps he/she got things a little mixed up, I don't know. But definitely said in one post because of the scientific definition of descent from fish to humans that humans are fish. Maybe he/she changed his/her viewpoint or expression about this.

 

[firedragon]

First, you might want to check @sayak83 's posts about this. I'm not sure how to give exact links to those posts. Perhaps he/she got things a little mixed up, I don't know. But definitely said in one post because of the scientific definition of descent from fish to humans that humans are fish. Maybe he/she changed his/her viewpoint or expression about this.

Yes I saw that post. I found that interesting and asked for a book or a credible source that says that. I doubt it will ever be found though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I saw that post. I found that interesting and asked for a book or a credible source that says that. I doubt it will ever be found though.

I'm going to say this--in the sense that humans are considered apes, I suppose gorillas and chimpanzees can be considered fish as well, cladistically speaking of course. Not that I believe it -- but -- that's the scientific conclusion right now.

 

[firedragon]

I'm going to say this--in the sense that humans are considered apes, I suppose gorillas and chimpanzees can be considered fish as well, cladistically speaking of course. Not that I believe it -- but -- that's the scientific conclusion right now.

Can you quote me a book by a known evolutionary biologist who says that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you quote me a book by a known evolutionary biologist who says that?

No, not now, but from what I am reading, because scientists believe we descended from fish there are conditional statements that we are fish, and/or related to fish in the sense of fish being our biological predecessors from which humans evolved. Just to be clear, I don't believe that because I believe the classifications the Bible says and also believe there is a creative power over and above these things that makes/allows fabulous lifeforms beyond physical forces, which, of course, I believe God can and does use according to His will.

 

[YoursTrue]

@firedragon Here's something else you might look at: https://www.esconi.org/esconi_earth...are-you-an-ape-or-a-fish-both-or-neither.html. It is partially a matter of definition, I.e., cladistic terminology.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon Here's something else you might look at: https://www.esconi.org/esconi_earth...are-you-an-ape-or-a-fish-both-or-neither.html. It is partially a matter of definition, I.e., cladistic terminology.

That's not a definition you are showing my friend. It's an analogy.

 

[gnostic]

It doesn't matter, according to the theory, that gills are or are not required. Anything can develop, according to the theory. Let's be honest about this.

I have been honest, as well as providing you some real-world examples as to what mammals are fully or semi aquatic, and how they live in those environments without gills and fins.

But you want to play some silly games, as to why chimpanzees don’t have these. You wrote this in regarding to gills:

“Anything can develop, according to the theory.” ​

Just because there are possibilities for such changes to occur, DOESN’T MEAN THAT SUCH CHANGES HAVE TO HAPPEN!

And clearly “fully aquatic” marine cetaceans like whales, dolphins & porpoises don’t need gills. They can hold their breath underwater for longer periods of time than other mammals, so all the cetaceans need air, they would swim to the surface. Semi-aquatic animals, like seals, otters, hippopotamus, platypuses, etc, also don’t need gills.

As to chimpanzees, you are being ridiculous, as they have no needs to live in water, for they lived in tropical rainforests, so there would be selective pressures for them to grow gills.

It is you who don’t get it. You are being unreasonable with your examples.

Why not look in the real world, instead of imagining some unrealistic scenarios?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have been honest, as well as providing you some real-world examples as to what mammals are fully or semi aquatic, and how they live in those environments without gills and fins.

But you want to play some silly games, as to why chimpanzees don’t have these. You wrote this in regarding to gills:

“Anything can develop, according to the theory.” ​

Just because there are possibilities for such changes to occur, DOESN’T MEAN THAT SUCH CHANGES HAVE TO HAPPEN!

And clearly “fully aquatic” marine cetaceans like whales, dolphins & porpoises don’t need gills. They can hold their breath underwater for longer periods of time than other mammals, so all the cetaceans need air, they would swim to the surface. Semi-aquatic animals, like seals, otters, hippopotamus, platypuses, etc, also don’t need gills.

As to chimpanzees, you are being ridiculous, as they have no needs to live in water, for they lived in tropical rainforests, so there would be selective pressures for them to grow gills.

It is you who don’t get it. You are being unreasonable with your examples.

Why not look in the real world, instead of imagining some unrealistic scenarios?

According to the theory, they are not unrealistic scenarios. https://www.esconi.org/esconi_earth...are-you-an-ape-or-a-fish-both-or-neither.html

 

[YoursTrue]

That's not a definition you are showing my friend. It's an analogy.

How about this? Are birds dinosaurs? Many think so. It’s official: birds are literally dinosaurs. Here’s how we know And that speaks of literally, not an analogy.

 

[firedragon]

How about this? Are birds dinosaurs? Many think so. It’s official: birds are literally dinosaurs. Here’s how we know And that speaks of literally, not an analogy.

Cheers.