Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

My feedback to you was that in this case (since fish is a colloquial term and not a true clade) one could in principle be both a mammal and a fish…………there is nothing in cladistics that prevents that possibility.

More of the pointless mixing of proper jargon with colloquial usage...

Look at the graph again.
In colloquial usage, with "fish" we mean all branches except the sarcopterygii one.

So yes, in the colloquial usage, it is very correct to say that mammals won't evolve into fish.
In the jargon usage, then mammals ARE "fish" (aka chordates/vertebrata).
Thus in general, when talking about fish, we are talking about a paraphyletic group. ie: a group that consists of the last common ancestor and some, but not all, of its descendants. Tetrapods are thus not included in that grouping. And as species don't jump branches: no, mammals won't become fish.

I can't explain it any clearer then this.

I predict you'll again find something pointless to argue about ...

ok just keep in mind that *you* where the one who used the colloqual term "fish" (hence my previous comment correcting you)

In response to someone else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find it perplexing that you where the one who used a colloquial/generic term in a context where you should have used a technical term (a true clade) in order to make your point………………

I was responding to someone else. Someone who has enough trouble as it is to understand evolution.
Someone who was using the word colloquially and thus as a paraphyletic group. I responded in kind.

As usual, you butted into a conversation and started arguing without considering context.

I took the time and corrected you

You did not. You started playing the same game as that original poster by asking if humans could evolve into fish.
Which later on turned into "water-dweller".

Why didn’t you simply say “true Leroy, “fish” was not an appropriate term to use to establish my point thanks for the correction”

Because the context of the conversation used the colloquial word. The paraphyletic group.
It should be rather obvious. But alas...............

 

[leroy]

The bolded part, makes the "independently evolved from..." part completely meaningless for making a point about evolution.

Granted, which is why next time you should avoid meaningless terms

 

[leroy]

But it is true as you demonstrate with most every post such as this recent series asking if given enough time would air breathers develop gills.
It is a perfect example of not understanding at a very basic level.

Wrong, you are the one that doesn’t understand evolution-……….. if there is selective preassure for gills (+ time + luck) an organisms could eventually develop some sort of gill

 

[cladking]

Not me. Evolutionary biologists.

That's what I love about homo omnisciencis: Even if we don't know something we know Siri or "evolutionary biologists" have every single answer no matter how improbable or how enigmatic the answer.

Godspeed to us all.

And God bless us every one.

 

[leroy]

I was responding to someone else. Someone who has enough trouble as it is to understand evolution.
Someone who was using the word colloquially and thus as a paraphyletic group. I responded in kind.

As usual, you butted into a conversation and started arguing without considering context.



You did not. You started playing the same game as that original poster by asking if humans could evolve into fish.
Which later on turned into "water-dweller".


Because the context of the conversation used the colloquial word. The paraphyletic group.
It should be rather obvious. But alas...............

The fact that you are unable to admit very obvious , secondary (and pretty much irrelevant)mistake is very telling

You just should have not used the colloquial word “fish” to make your point

predict you'll again find something pointless to argue about ...

Of course is pointless, this are just words and definitions………………………….we could have avoided this long thedios and meaningless conversation if you woud have answer with a simple “yes leroy you are correct, I should have used a different word, to stablish my point”

 

[Pogo]

Wrong, you are the one that doesn’t understand evolution-……….. if there is selective preassure for gills (+ time + luck) an organisms could eventually develop some sort of gill

Again you equivocate your 5 year old's understanding of evolution and the actual science by confusing terminology and your desire to demonstrate some sort of higher power/direction.

Gills have evolved once long ago and all fish that have them evolved not independantly, but from an ancestor that had them. They will not evolve again, though some sort of filter membrane that transfers oxygen may well happen.

Granted, which is why next time you should avoid meaningless terms

You are the one who claimed 20 independent clades of fish so why not a 21st, we attempted to explain to you why this is nonsense, but you stick with it and complain we are not making sense to you.
It doesn't make sense because you have a belief in some sort of magical solution to where organs come from.

Yet another example of your lack of basic understanding, like your confusion about convergent evolution of echolocation.

 

[Pogo]

The fact that you are unable to admit very obvious , secondary (and pretty much irrelevant)mistake is very telling

You just should have not used the colloquial word “fish” to make your point


Of course is pointless, this are just words and definitions………………………….we could have avoided this long thedios and meaningless conversation if you woud have answer with a simple “yes leroy you are correct, I should have used a different word, to stablish my point”

Ok, Mr Knowitall, what word should he have used in each of the situations when talking with you or others with limited vocabulary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, there are many (around 20) independent clades that we call “fish” each one evolved independently from a “none fish”………………..fish is a generic term, not a biological term

No. Where did you get that from? Are you conflating shellfish with "fish". Citation needed.

 

[Pogo]

No. Where did you get that from? Are you conflating shellfish with "fish". Citation needed.

He has no idea, but he is sure that he is right without being able to define any of these terms himself.

He only complains that we haven't used them correctly.

 

[gnostic]

My feedback to you was that in this case (since fish is a colloquial term and not a true clade) one could in principle be both a mammal and a fish…………there is nothing in cladistics that prevents that possibility.

While fish is colloquial term, i have already given biological classification names that are not colloquial, in past posts:

Vertebrata (subphylum of Chordata)​

Agnatha (infraphylum of Vertebrata) - “jawless fish”​

Cyclostomi (clade) - hagfish, lamprey​

​

Gnathostomata (infraphylum of Vertebrata) - “jawed fish”​

​

Chondrichthyes (class) - “cartilaginous fish” - sharks, rays​

​

Osteichthyes (superclass) - “bony fish”​

​

Actinopterygii (class, or clade) - “ray-finned fish”​

​

Sarcoptyerygii (class, or clade) - “lobe-finned fish”​

​

Of the above list, the infraphylum Agnatha is considered paraphyletic. The rest are monophyletic.

Also, hagfish, or class Myxini, is listed under the Vertebrata, that based on their molecular data, but all living species of the hagfish don’t have vertebrae, because at some point in their evolutionary history they did have vertebrae, but then lost the vertebrae.

This is why some biologists, instead of using Vertebrata, they used the Craniata as the clade of Chordata, animals that have bony skulls. So the Myxini (hagfish) do fall under the Craniata.
.
Note that while subphylum Vertebrata is monophyletic for all vertebrate animals, the term “invertebrate” is paraphyletic and umbrella term for all animals that do not have vertebral columns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is why some biologists, instead of using Vertebrata, they used the Craniata as the clade of Chordata, animals that have bony skulls. So the Myxini (hagfish) do fall under the Craniata.
.

On a related note snakes, which have no "feet", are still tetrapods.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No.

Yes, Nimrod !

 

[gnostic]

On a related note snakes, which have no "feet", are still tetrapods.

yes.

The fossils of moa have been extinct in New Zealand, don’t have wings, but are still considered as birds. Don’t know if the moa were related to another flightless family of birds, the kiwi.

Kiwi do have wings, but they are so vestigial, and so small, that you wouldn’t even notice they do have wings. Perhaps some times in the future they may lose their vestigial wings.

 

[YoursTrue]

Cheers.

If birds are dinosaurs, obviously humans are fish. According to the theory of descent, or ascent, however you look at it. Or, of course, evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If birds are dinosaurs, obviously humans are fish. According to the theory of descent, or ascent, however you look at it. Or, of course, evolution.

What dinosaur traits have birds lost? I can name some fish traits that people have lost.

 

[Tiberius]

What dinosaur traits have birds lost? I can name some fish traits that people have lost.

Bony jaws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bony jaws.

That looks pretty bony to me.

Perhaps you meant toothed jaws?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If birds are dinosaurs, obviously humans are fish.

Cladistically, yes. Although then the proper name would be chordata / vertebrata, not "fish". Above is the clade of "fish" (chordata / vertebrata). The yellow branch are sarcopterygii / tetrapods, which includes humans.

Colloquially, no. In that sense, "fish" are a paraphyletic group. Meaning: a group of organisms that includes the last common ancestor and some, but not all, of its descendants.

According to the theory of descent, or ascent, however you look at it. Or, of course, evolution.

You need to be clear on your terminology when you use the word "fish". See above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact that you are unable to admit very obvious , secondary (and pretty much irrelevant)mistake is very telling

You just should have not used the colloquial word “fish” to make your point

I explained multiple times in multiple posts the difference between the biological jargon and the colloquial meaning.
I think it's quite clear that I understand the difference. If you actually read the whole conversation you butted into, you would realize from that context why the words that were used were used. But as usual, you aren't interested. You are only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing.

Of course is pointless, this are just words and definitions………………………….we could have avoided this long thedios and meaningless conversation if you woud have answer with a simple “yes leroy you are correct, I should have used a different word, to stablish my point”

Indeed, the only thing you are interested in: having your ego inflated.