Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

But it's okay when you do it?


Also, it wasn't meaningless in the context I was using it. Context which you are ignoring and aren't even interested in.
All you are interested in is arguing and inflating your ego.

We were talking with someone with very limited knowledge about cladistics. The terms used in the context of the conversation were more then reasonable for that conversation.

 

[leroy]

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.

That is far from uncontrovertially true.... many scientis think that gills evolved multiple time........ and none believe its impossible... only you seem to have acces to secret knowledge.

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.

Your explanations have been refuted..... your silence and unwilingness to adress my argument shows that the argument is good

It doesn't make sense because you have a belief in some sort of magical solution to where organs come from.

True I believe in magic ... bt this is not about my beliefs..... its about how evolution by natural selection is suppose to work. Under this theory gills can evolve given selective pressure and time

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

But you cant quote a single mistake on my echolocation comments right??? Stop making things up ...

 

[leroy]

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

Just the name of any true clade would have worked.

 

[leroy]

But it's okay when you do it?

No....if I ever use an incorrect word you are welcomed to correct me.


A few post ago I used the word lungs instead of gills... I was correct and it was not s big of a deal

Also, it wasn't meaningless in the context I was using it. Context which you are ignoring and aren't even interested in.

In that context you where explaining what clades are and why an organism by definition cant stop being part of a clade to become an other..... for example a mammal by definition will never evolve in to a none mamal and become a bird.

Is this a correct representation of the context?

So given that context, it is obvious and indispensable to use the name of a true clade to explain your point.

Please stop petending that you disagree , Admit your mistake and let it go.

We were talking with someone with very limited knowledge about cladistics.

That is a poor excuse.... if anything his ignorance should serve as an additional reason to use the correct words and use true clades in yor examples

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is far from uncontrovertially true.... many scientis think that gills evolved multiple time........ and none believe its impossible... only you seem to have acces to secret knowledge.

Not exactly

Study illuminates the origin of vertebrate gills

news.uchicago.edu

This week in Current Biology, J. Andrew Gillis of the University of Cambridge and the Marine Biological Laboratory demonstrates that gills evolved once early in vertebrate evolution and were later inherited by both vertebrate lineages, jawless and jawed, when they branched.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In that context you where explaining what clades are and why an organism by definition cant stop being part of a clade to become an other..... for example a mammal by definition will never evolve in to a none mamal and become a bird.

Sort of. And so it was very correct to state that humans (which are mammals) will never evolve into fish in the colloquial meaning of the word, which is a paraphyletic group of pretty much all branches of chordates except Sarcoptyerygii (which includes mammals). Meaning: members of the Sarcoptyerygii branch, which isn't part of the paraphyletic group of "fish", will never evolve into species sitting on branches that ARE part of the paraphyletic group of "fish".



So that was a very correct thing to say in that context.

If we are going to understand the word "fish" as being the monophyletic group (clade) of chordates / vertebrata, then that would include the branch Sarcoptyerygii. In that case, mammals ARE fish (aka chordates / vertebrata).

In fact.... at that point we would actually have to stop using the word "fish" because as we have seen already, taxonomy / cladistically wise there actually is no such thing as "fish". Instead, there are chordates / vertebrata.
Fish in a very real sense already IS a very colloquial word.



Argue more, arguer.

So given that context, it is obvious and indispensable to use the name of a true clade to explain your point.

No. I was just replying to the comment made by @YoursTrue using his / her own words.
(S)he has already enough trouble as it is understanding evolution theory. It would be counterproductive to start telling him / her also how "fish" in biological cladistics actually don't even really exist.

His / her head is already spinning enough as it is.
And it mattered not to the point being made.

As usual and as already noted, you are just going out of your way again to find something to argue about.

Please stop petending that you disagree , Admit your mistake and let it go.

I didn't make any mistake. I never said "fish" was a clade or a monophyletic group.
@YoursTrue in fact probably doesn't even know what a monophyletic group is or how it differs from a paraphyletic one.

It's probably best to teach him / her how to walk before making him / her run.

That is a poor excuse.... if anything his ignorance should serve as an additional reason to use the correct words and use true clades in yor examples

No.

For the purpose of the point, the explanation was more then enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is far from uncontrovertially true.... many scientis think that gills evolved multiple time........ and none believe its impossible... only you seem to have acces to secret knowledge.


Your explanations have been refuted..... your silence and unwilingness to adress my argument shows that the argument is good


True I believe in magic ... bt this is not about my beliefs..... its about how evolution by natural selection is suppose to work. Under this theory gills can evolve given selective pressure and time




But you cant quote a single mistake on my echolocation comments right??? Stop making things up ...

Once again, citation needed.

If you do not support this I will just point out that you tacitly admitted that you were wrong again when you posted a claim that requires support and refused to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not exactly

Study illuminates the origin of vertebrate gills

news.uchicago.edu

This week in Current Biology, J. Andrew Gillis of the University of Cambridge and the Marine Biological Laboratory demonstrates that gills evolved once early in vertebrate evolution and were later inherited by both vertebrate lineages, jawless and jawed, when they branched.

Oh poo! When some posters make claims that appear to be incredibly wrong saying that they are supported by "many scientists" I like to put the screws to them a bit.

 

[gnostic]

That is far from uncontrovertially true.... many scientis think that gills evolved multiple time........ and none believe its impossible... only you seem to have acces to secret knowledge.

True I believe in magic ... bt this is not about my beliefs..... it’s ouabout how evolution by natural selection is suppose to work. Under this theory gills can evolve given selective pressure and time

We have covered that, and explained to you, but you are ignoring the answers that already have been given.

You are talking about “what-if” possibilities in the future, but biological sciences deal with the current available evidence & data to determine probabilities, and the evidence are clear, neither the reptile groups & bird groups, nor the mammals group, would become or evolve back to being amphibians or fishes again.

Evolution “evolve”, branching outward and forward, not going backwards.

It isn’t just about being having four limbs (Tetrapoda), of being able to support their body weight, to move more freely on dry lands, and it isn’t just about having lungs that do the works, to breathe.

It is more than that. There are another very important element that distinguish mammals, reptiles and birds from fishes and amphibians.

In their reproduction cycle, the fish groups and amphibian groups have continued to lay their eggs, UNDERWATER, in the AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS, like the seas, lakes, rivers, etc. Hence, the biologists classified the fishes and amphibians as ANAMNIOTA. All anamniotes - fishes and amphibians - lay their eggs underwater.

The earliest ancestors of the mammals as well as all the current species, and the ancestors of the reptiles and birds, as well as all the current species, are classified respectively as SYNAPSIDA and SAUROPSIDA.

Both Synapsida & Sauropsida are the two clades of AMNIOTA. And Amniota itself is the clade of Tetrapoda that are all animals that are not anamniotes like extant or extinct amphibians.

All amniotes, reproduce in one of two ways:

1. They either lay their fertilised eggs on dry lands, as all reptiles and birds do, as well as few species of mammals, the monotreme (Monotremata, an order of Mammalia), like the platypuses and echidnas.
2. Or, the embryos and foetuses grow in the wombs, prior to live births, as all mammals, except the monotreme creatures (echidnas & platypuses).

That’s the other thing that separated mammals from fishes and amphibians.

And speaking of amphibians. While amphibians can live in both on land and under water, whenever they need to lay their eggs, they always return to the water, laying their eggs underwater. The eggs from amphibians (as well as fish eggs) lack the amnion - the membrane that protect the developing embryos, hence all anamniotes have to lay their eggs in aquatic environments.

Even more important, when the eggs of amphibians, hatched, the tadpoles (the larval stages of young amphibians) have gills, but as they mature, frogs and toads tends to lose their gills, they breathe underwater, through their skins. The adult salamanders, on the other hand, depending on their species, would either keep their gills, while others lose their gills and breathe through their skin when underwater…as I said, it depends on their species species of salamander.

For the amniotes (reptiles, birds & mammals). The amnion is essential membrane that protect the eggs during the embryonic stage, so that the embryos would grow, when they are lay on dry land, or continue to grow in the female wombs.

When crocodiles, sea turtles or sea snakes, reproduced, they would return dry land, to lay their eggs. I know that turtles buried their eggs, that not only keep eggs warm, but afford the eggs some protection from predators.

Like or not, crocodiles have existed, pretty much as the earliest dinosaurs, and they haven’t evolved much, still living most of the time in water, and yet they would always lay their eggs on dry land, not underwater like the amphibians do. Despite the tens of millions of years, their lifestyle haven’t changed, as they still don’t gills.

Penguins also spend much times in the seas, but when the time, they too would deposit their eggs on either dry lands or on ice, and then sit on them until the eggs hatch. Penguins have grow gills.

Whales, dolphins and porpoises, I have already mentioned in the past replies, always have the embryos and foetuses grow in their wombs for some periods of time, prior to live births, just like most mammals do. None of these cetaceans have needed gills.

It is highly likely that aquatic & semi-aquatic mammals, reptiles & birds would continue their evolution without needing gills.

You keep talking about what-if scenarios, but you are ignoring the evidence and data.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

........................................................................................................
Evolution “evolve”, branching outward and forward, not going backwards.

It isn’t just about being having four limbs (Tetrapoda), of being able to support their body weight, to move more freely on dry lands, and it isn’t just about having lungs that do the works, to breathe.
It is more than that. There are another very important element that distinguish mammals, reptiles and birds from fishes and amphibians.
In their reproduction cycle, the fish groups and amphibian groups have continued to lay their eggs, UNDERWATER, in the AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS, like the seas, lakes, rivers, etc. Hence, the biologists classified the fishes and amphibians as ANAMNIOTA. All anamniotes - fishes and amphibians - lay their eggs underwater.

The earliest ancestors of the mammals as well as all the current species, and the ancestors of the reptiles and birds, as well as all the current species, are classified respectively as SYNAPSIDA and SAUROPSIDA.

Both Synapsida & Sauropsida are the two clades of AMNIOTA. And Amniota itself is the clade of Tetrapoda that are all animals that are not anamniotes like extant or extinct amphibians.

All amniotes, reproduce in one of two ways:

1. They either lay their fertilised eggs on dry lands, as all reptiles and birds do, as well as few species of mammals, the monotreme (Monotremata, an order of Mammalia), like the platypuses and echidnas.
2. Or, the embryos and foetuses grow in the wombs, prior to live births, as all mammals, except the monotreme creatures (echidnas & platypuses).

That’s the other thing that separated mammals from fishes and amphibians.

And speaking of amphibians. While amphibians can live in both on land and under water, whenever they need to lay their eggs, they always return to the water, laying their eggs underwater. The eggs from amphibians (as well as fish eggs) lack the amnion - the membrane that protect the developing embryos, hence all anamniotes have to lay their eggs in aquatic environments.

Even more important, when the eggs of amphibians, hatched, the tadpoles (the larval stages of young amphibians) have gills, but as they mature, frogs and toads tends to lose their gills, they breathe underwater, through their skins. The adult salamanders, on the other hand, depending on their species, would either keep their gills, while others lose their gills and breathe through their skin when underwater…as I said, it depends on their species species of salamander.

For the amniotes (reptiles, birds & mammals). The amnion is essential membrane that protect the eggs during the embryonic stage, so that the embryos would grow, when they are lay on dry land, or continue to grow in the female wombs.

When crocodiles, sea turtles or sea snakes, reproduced, they would return dry land, to lay their eggs. I know that turtles buried their eggs, that not only keep eggs warm, but afford the eggs some protection from predators.

Like or not, crocodiles have existed, pretty much as the earliest dinosaurs, and they haven’t evolved much, still living most of the time in water, and yet they would always lay their eggs on dry land, not underwater like the amphibians do. Despite the tens of millions of years, their lifestyle haven’t changed, as they still don’t gills.

Penguins also spend much times in the seas, but when the time, they too would deposit their eggs on either dry lands or on ice, and then sit on them until the eggs hatch. Penguins have grow gills.

Whales, dolphins and porpoises, I have already mentioned in the past replies, always have the embryos and foetuses grow in their wombs for some periods of time, prior to live births, just like most mammals do. None of these cetaceans have needed gills.

It is highly likely that aquatic & semi-aquatic mammals, reptiles & birds would continue their evolution without needing gills.

You keep talking about what-if scenarios, but you are ignoring the evidence and data.

If today's world scene is 'branching outward and forward' then humanity at large is now Devolving

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, would you quote my actual words claiming something that is wrong?.................. NO you can´t............So please stop implying that I don’t understand de basics of evolution

They can't and won't do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Why, do you think it's impossible for air breathers to develop gills via the theory of the mechanics of evolution, especially given enough time and, of course, favorable mutations if there is a "need"?

 

[YoursTrue]

If today's world scene is 'branching outward and forward' then humanity at large is now Devolving

Mankind has been killing itself for a long time now.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have covered that, and explained to you, but you are ignoring the answers that already have been given.

You are talking about “what-if” possibilities in the future, but biological sciences deal with the current available evidence & data to determine probabilities, and the evidence are clear, neither the reptile groups & bird groups, nor the mammals group, would become or evolve back to being amphibians or fishes again.

Evolution “evolve”, branching outward and forward, not going backwards.

It isn’t just about being having four limbs (Tetrapoda), of being able to support their body weight, to move more freely on dry lands, and it isn’t just about having lungs that do the works, to breathe.

It is more than that. There are another very important element that distinguish mammals, reptiles and birds from fishes and amphibians.

In their reproduction cycle, the fish groups and amphibian groups have continued to lay their eggs, UNDERWATER, in the AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS, like the seas, lakes, rivers, etc. Hence, the biologists classified the fishes and amphibians as ANAMNIOTA. All anamniotes - fishes and amphibians - lay their eggs underwater.

The earliest ancestors of the mammals as well as all the current species, and the ancestors of the reptiles and birds, as well as all the current species, are classified respectively as SYNAPSIDA and SAUROPSIDA.

Both Synapsida & Sauropsida are the two clades of AMNIOTA. And Amniota itself is the clade of Tetrapoda that are all animals that are not anamniotes like extant or extinct amphibians.

All amniotes, reproduce in one of two ways:

1. They either lay their fertilised eggs on dry lands, as all reptiles and birds do, as well as few species of mammals, the monotreme (Monotremata, an order of Mammalia), like the platypuses and echidnas.
2. Or, the embryos and foetuses grow in the wombs, prior to live births, as all mammals, except the monotreme creatures (echidnas & platypuses).

That’s the other thing that separated mammals from fishes and amphibians.

And speaking of amphibians. While amphibians can live in both on land and under water, whenever they need to lay their eggs, they always return to the water, laying their eggs underwater. The eggs from amphibians (as well as fish eggs) lack the amnion - the membrane that protect the developing embryos, hence all anamniotes have to lay their eggs in aquatic environments.

Even more important, when the eggs of amphibians, hatched, the tadpoles (the larval stages of young amphibians) have gills, but as they mature, frogs and toads tends to lose their gills, they breathe underwater, through their skins. The adult salamanders, on the other hand, depending on their species, would either keep their gills, while others lose their gills and breathe through their skin when underwater…as I said, it depends on their species species of salamander.

For the amniotes (reptiles, birds & mammals). The amnion is essential membrane that protect the eggs during the embryonic stage, so that the embryos would grow, when they are lay on dry land, or continue to grow in the female wombs.

When crocodiles, sea turtles or sea snakes, reproduced, they would return dry land, to lay their eggs. I know that turtles buried their eggs, that not only keep eggs warm, but afford the eggs some protection from predators.

Like or not, crocodiles have existed, pretty much as the earliest dinosaurs, and they haven’t evolved much, still living most of the time in water, and yet they would always lay their eggs on dry land, not underwater like the amphibians do. Despite the tens of millions of years, their lifestyle haven’t changed, as they still don’t gills.

Penguins also spend much times in the seas, but when the time, they too would deposit their eggs on either dry lands or on ice, and then sit on them until the eggs hatch. Penguins have grow gills.

Whales, dolphins and porpoises, I have already mentioned in the past replies, always have the embryos and foetuses grow in their wombs for some periods of time, prior to live births, just like most mammals do. None of these cetaceans have needed gills.

It is highly likely that aquatic & semi-aquatic mammals, reptiles & birds would continue their evolution without needing gills.

You keep talking about what-if scenarios, but you are ignoring the evidence and data.

That's nothing in comparison to the latest discovery by scientists about cell membranes. Yep, teachings change, thus not much of what science says about evolution is certain. And that is for certain. Cells have more mini ‘organs’ than researchers thought − unbound by membranes, these rogue organelles challenge biology’s fundamentals

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They can't and won't do that.

It is done all the time.
Ignoring it won't make it go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why, do you think it's impossible for air breathers to develop gills via the theory of the mechanics of evolution, especially given enough time and, of course, favorable mutations if there is a "need"?

Because their gills already evolved into other things.
Evolution doesn't go backwards, only forward.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because their gills already evolved into other things.
Evolution doesn't go backwards, only forward.

Backwards? Who said backwards? Not me...evolution theoretically can enable mammals to form gills in the long run. Nothing about "devolving" as you imply. But rather Evolving. Why not?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is done all the time.
Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Neither will ignoring the fact that there are things that cannot and never will be explained scientifically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Backwards? Who said backwards? Not me...

It's what would be required for gills to re-develop.
Gills are specific anatomical structures with specific genetic underpinnings.

evolution theoretically can enable mammals to form gills in the long run. Nothing about "devolving" as you imply. But rather Evolving. Why not?

I already explained it. Not sure what else to tell you.

I can't help you with your willful ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neither will ignoring the fact that there are things that cannot and never will be explained scientifically.

Ow look, moving the goalposts into the land of vaguery and meaningless statements.

Awesome.