Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

Birds are dinosaurs, because it simply happened to be the case that we happen to classify them as such .

That is correct. And so it is that humans are fish. without gills, of course. Those were ditched a long time ago.

 

[Pogo]

Really is that it? Ok then just change “gills” for “gill-like” in my comment.

Given enough time selective preassure and luck our ancestors could develop “gill-like” organs...........does that solve the problem?

As a rather silly meaningless hypothetical, yes, given enough time and some unknown set of selection pressures, yes evolution can come up with all sorts of solutions to all sorts of problems, but that is about it. Though I don't know why you suddenly added ancestors into it. Your father falls into the silly category, for our earliest vertebrate ancestors they actually did evolve what we call gills and then lost them in further evolution.

Is there a point here or are you just trying to cover up your confusion between the science of evolution and your interpretations of it in your attempts to justify your desire for evidence of purpose in the universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, thank you I already knew that………but thank you anyway

Then admit your error.

 

[Pogo]

NO

@TagliatelliMonster can explain you why. birds arent fish...

Actually in a monophyletic clade called fishes, if it includes the Coelacanth etc, yes it would, the problem is you don't know what you are talking about no matter how many times we explain it.

 

[YoursTrue]

As a rather silly meaningless hypothetical, yes, given enough time and some unknown set of selection pressures, yes evolution can come up with all sorts of solutions to all sorts of problems, but that is about it. Though I don't know why you suddenly added ancestors into it. Your father falls into the silly category, for our earliest vertebrate ancestors they actually did evolve what we call gills and then lost them in further evolution.

Is there a point here or are you just trying to cover up your confusion between the science of evolution and your interpretations of it in your attempts to justify your desire for evidence of purpose in the universe?

There are fossils said to be transitional forms, but that's about it. No videos were taken and the original items are not known bu rather conjectured. And nothing really beyond fossils as if that's proof to say these things evolved over the course of time to become apes.

 

[YoursTrue]

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


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

I can't help you with your willful ignorance.

So seems you are saying that apes will never evolve to be water dwellers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Careful with your wording here.

Scientists don't know how chemistry became biochemistry, though it's an area of active research with interesting developments and insights from time to time.

So scientists, you realize, do not really know how chemistry became biochemistry. OK.

 

[YoursTrue]

Au contraire.
The point was about how supposedly @leroy 's mistakes are never pointed out and correct, while they clearly are.
Starting to yap about how some things maybe won't ever be explained scientifically, has nothing to do with that.


There is no reason at all to think that the progress that is being made in the field of abiogenesis will come to a stop.

Meantime, as some scientists have said, maybe aliens landed it from outer space.

 

[McBell]

Meantime, as some scientists have said, maybe aliens landed it from outer space.

STILL waiting for you to present a list of scientists that have made that claim....

 

[blü 2]

So scientists, you realize, do not really know how chemistry became biochemistry. OK.

And neither do you. But they at least are actively looking, rather than acting like they're living in a fairy tale.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then why is man going backwards instead of forwards in the development in arms to destroy themselves _______________

That made no sense whatsoever in context of biological evolution

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn’t say that “most scientis today” say anything…………..will you admit your mistake this time?

Ow, okay, indeed, you didn't say "most", you said "many"

That is far from uncontrovertially true.... many scientis think that gills evolved multiple time........

You didn't say "today", but you did use present time, not past time. So yea.... You have yet to support this.
The paper you cited, which ironically is the paper I linked first, is one from several years ago which talks about how it's considered demonstrated that it only evolved once in the common ancestor.

What I said is that some scientists say it.

No, you said "many". Not "some".
And again, the citation you offered in support says the opposite...

The paper shows that there is such controversy……………….

Not really. It primarily says that it wasn't previously known. And that now it is known. And the paper is several years old.

and even more important those who claim that it only evolved once claim it based on the evidence that they see from phylogenetic……………….not because more than once is impossible as @Pogo claims

That the same complex structures with the same genetic underpinnings evolve multiple times is not "impossible", but so incredibly unlikely that we might as well call it impossible. And at that point we are talking about convergent evolution.
We are not talking about actual gills re-evolving 300 million years after they long have evolved into vastly different structures, like ears in tetrapods.

This is not like wings of a bat vs wings of a bird.
Both are called "wings", but both are also vastly different anatomically as well as genetically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NO

@TagliatelliMonster can explain you why. birds arent fish...

If you mean fish as a monophyletic group, then birds are fish.
If you mean fish as a paraphyletic group, then birds are not fish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Birds are dinosaurs, because it simply happened to be the case that we happen to classify them as such .

False.

Birds are dinosaurs because they fit the criteria of what a dinosaur is.
Which is to say, it is impossible to come up with a definition of "dinosaur" which includes all dinosaurs yet excludes birds.

It is the same reason why humans are mammals, primates, animals, vertebrates, tetrapods,...

This is not a matter of "arbitrary definition" or "arbitrary classification".

None of this is arbitrary in any way.

Originally the word dinosaur was a flexible word used to describe all those ancient reptiles that appear in movie Jurassic Park, which included T-Rex, triceratops, pterodactyls, Pleasioraurus etc. ……….. but them (within the year 2,000 I think) someone decided to change the definition of dinosaurs (ruin our childhood) in to something that includes modern birds like chickens and excludes cool animals like pterodactyls………… but this are just words and definitions, this is just the way we happen to classify animals ……..

That is a tremendous misrepresentation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are fossils said to be transitional forms

No. They are demonstrated to be transitional fossils.

, but that's about it. No videos were taken and the original items are not known bu rather conjectured.

No. It's not "conjecture". What defines if a fossil is transitional or not, are its anatomical properties.

And nothing really beyond fossils as if that's proof to say these things evolved over the course of time to become apes.

DNA

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So seems you are saying that apes will never evolve to be water dwellers.

That's not what I said at all and I have no clue how you concluded that from the post you are responding to.

You don't need to gills to be a water-dweller.
Whales do just fine in the water and don't have gills.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Meantime, as some scientists have said, maybe aliens landed it from outer space.

And once again, there go the goalposts..............................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

tell me more about that prediction.............based on what was tiktaalik expected to be found in those layers?

I'll do you one better. Here's a video of the main scientist from that expedition, explaining what they were looking for and why and how they went about finding it. Very interesting watch if actually interested.

Finding Tiktaalik, the Fossil Link Between Fish and Land Animals

Shubin explains that careful planning was key to the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, the 375 million year old fossil link between fish and land animals.

www.ibiology.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seems to me that you are playing with words and definitions,

No. Words factually can have multiple definitions and usually context tells you which one is being used.
There is no playing.

In fact, when I'm talking about the monophyletic group (the clade), I tend to not even use the word "fish" and use the word "chordata" or "vertebrata" instead.

the point is that there are many independent branches the we call fish (colloquially)

Give me an example of a branch that we call a "fish" is "independent" from other branches of fish which doesn't include a common ancestor which we would also call a "fish".

I bet 100 bucks that you can't do it.
You'll always be naming branches of chordates / vertebrates where the common ancestor of both would qualify as a fish.

…….(similar to “bugs”) where we have insects spiders and various types of worms that we colloquially call “bugs”………………….. this is fundamentally different from true clades like birds or mammals where we have just 1 branch and many related sub branches

Because birds and mammals are monophyletic groups whereas fish are a paraphyletic group.
As I predicted, you continue to yap and yap and yap and argue and argue and argue for no other reason then your ego not being able to withstand the notion that you are simply incorrect in your accusations at my address.

All I am saying is that mammals and fish are not analogous from the point of view of cladistics

Have I said otherwise?
Mammals = monophyletic group
Fish = paraphyletic group.


How many times must it be repeated?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A bunch of random words.

I is still true that:

1 I made a claim

2 you asked for a source

3 I provided a source

Since you didn’t show that the source is wrong, nor that I interpreted something the wrong way………..I will assume that the topic is over

Your source didn't support your claim.