Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

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

Awesome.

Hardly. There is nothing vague about the fact that scientists do not know what causes life, and growth, although they may see and attempt to analyze what is observed.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

And those underpinnings can change according to the theory as circumstances allow and arise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hardly.

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 nothing vague about the fact that scientists do not know what causes life, and growth, although they may see and attempt to analyze what is observed.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And those underpinnings can change according to the theory as circumstances allow and arise.

See, this is the problem. Your willful ignorance only results in your repeating your mistakes over and over again.

I can only repeat myself....

For gills (= the anatomical structures with the genetic underpinnings that our ancestors had 300 million years ago) to redevelop, 300 million years worth of evolution would need to be undone.

Evolution doesn't work that way.

Just to give you a simple example.... part of the structure that used to be gills in our ancient ancestors, are now our ears.

 

[blü 2]

Hardly. There is nothing vague about the fact that scientists do not know what causes life, and growth, although they may see and attempt to analyze what is observed.

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.

(Contrast that to the complete failure of the churches to even attempt to develop any falsifiable theory of the what and how of miracles &c.)

But modern medical science has a coherent idea of what causes further life and corresponding growth.

And I remind you that there was life on earth within the first billion years of earth's 4.5 bn years of existence, and H sap appears to be at least 250,000 years old, whereas, as I've mentioned before, the God of the bible isn't found in history until around 1500 BCE, let's say at least three billion years after life began here, as a latecomer to the Canaanite pantheon with, it appears, a consort Asherah (consorts for gods being fairly normal in that time and culture).

 

[leroy]

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

Sure unlike you I can support my claims .

Here is a quote that supports my claim that fish is not a clade.......or you just ask @TagliatelliMonster or @gnostic or any other person from this form that you trust .

The term fish is a convenient term used to refer to diverse aquatic organisms, such as lampreys, sharks, coelacanths (SEE-luh-kanths), and ray-finned fishes — but it is not a taxonomic group that would be used in a phylogenetic classification scheme, as “vertebrates” or “hominids” is. That’s because phylogenetic taxonomic groups must be clades. A clade is a group that includes all the descendents of a common ancestor and that ancestor, and all the different organisms that we think of as fish don’t form a clade.https://evolution.berkeley.edu/fisheye-view-tree-of-life/what-is-a-fish/#:~:text=A%20clade%20is%20a%20group,don't%20form%20a%20clade.

 

[blü 2]

Sure unlike you I can support my claims .

Here is a quote that supports my claim that fish is not a clade.......or you just ask @TagliatelliMonster or @gnostic or any other person from this form that you trust .

The term fish is a convenient term used to refer to diverse aquatic organisms, such as lampreys, sharks, coelacanths (SEE-luh-kanths), and ray-finned fishes — but it is not a taxonomic group that would be used in a phylogenetic classification scheme, as “vertebrates” or “hominids” is. That’s because phylogenetic taxonomic groups must be clades. A clade is a group that includes all the descendents of a common ancestor and that ancestor, and all the different organisms that we think of as fish don’t form a clade.https://evolution.berkeley.edu/fisheye-view-tree-of-life/what-is-a-fish/#:~:text=A%20clade%20is%20a%20group,don't%20form%20a%20clade.

What definition of 'clade' are you using?

According to Wikipedia,

"In biological phylogenetics, a clade (from Ancient Greek κλάδος (kládos) 'branch'), [...] is a grouping of organisms that are monophyletic – that is, composed of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants – on a phylogenetic tree. [...] Clades are the fundamental unit of cladistics, a modern approach to taxonomy adopted by most biological fields.

The common ancestor may be an individual, a population, or a species (extinct or extant). Clades are nested, one in another, as each branch in turn splits into smaller branches.​

(Emphasis added.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure unlike you I can support my claims .

Here is a quote that supports my claim that fish is not a clade.......or you just ask @TagliatelliMonster or @gnostic or any other person from this form that you trust .

The term fish is a convenient term used to refer to diverse aquatic organisms, such as lampreys, sharks, coelacanths (SEE-luh-kanths), and ray-finned fishes — but it is not a taxonomic group that would be used in a phylogenetic classification scheme, as “vertebrates” or “hominids” is. That’s because phylogenetic taxonomic groups must be clades. A clade is a group that includes all the descendents of a common ancestor and that ancestor, and all the different organisms that we think of as fish don’t form a clade.https://evolution.berkeley.edu/fisheye-view-tree-of-life/what-is-a-fish/#:~:text=A%20clade%20is%20a%20group,don't%20form%20a%20clade.

None of this supports your claim that fish evolved independently 20 times.
Fish is a paraphyletic group. Meaning it includes the last common ancestor and some but not all of the descendent branches.

So of all the branches that are considered "fish", their common ancestor was also considered a fish.
So no, there were no multiple independent evolutions of fish from a non-fish.

 

[leroy]

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.

Thanks for the information but again your point?

 

[leroy]

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.




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

think it's quite clear that I understand the difference

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You just made a very tiene typo mistake in using the specific example of fish rather than some other clade. .... The issue is not that you made a mistake the issue is your unwillingness to admit a so simple a obvious mistake .....

 

[leroy]

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,

Why not...... Given selective pressure time and luck humans can descend in to something that we would call a "coloquial fish"

What would prevent that? If coloquial fishes have evolved around 20 times .... Why could that happen 1 more time?

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.






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.




I didn't make any mistake. I never said "fish" was a clade or a monophyletic group.

Yes you did ... In the context of that conversation you where comparing fish with true clades.... You where explaining how be definition organisms don't evolve in to a different clade and you used fish as an example.




But I'll ask you directly what exactly did you mean by fish in that conversation?

My hypothesis is that you meant that there is a true clade that includes all "coloquial fishes " and excludes land vertebrates .... My hypothesis is that it was just a typo from your part.


If you meant something else with fish please explain what did you mean and let's see if there is consistency between your definition of fish and you claims/points

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Ow, I'm so overjoyed. Thanks, supreme lord of debate.

You just made a very tiene typo mistake in using the specific example of fish rather than some other clade. .... The issue is not that you made a mistake the issue is your unwillingness to admit a so simple a obvious mistake .....

As I explained several times now, I made no mistake.

 

[wellwisher]

Evolution and Creation are parallel stories of the same thing. Evolution is about the changes in DNA that defines the physical shell of species. While Creation is more about the brain and consciousness and the evolution of human consciousness. Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and the ego.

The inner self is the original center of all animal consciousness, connected to species DNA. It defines the consciousness of each species and their innate instinctive behavior; human nature or lion nature. Humans are unique since we also contain a secondary center called the ego. The inner self is older than the dinosaurs; first conscious life. While the ego center appears to have evolved 6-10K years ago and is quite modern in the evolutionary sense. It appears to be responsible/parallel the rise of civilization and human departure from the natural instinct This is when migratory herders and gathers stop to become farmers; Cain kills Abel. Cain was a tiller of the soil and Abel was a natural migratory herder of animals.

This secondary or ego is not as connected/wired to the DNA, as the inner self. The ego is empty at birth. Any baby can learn to be part of any culture; human with any culture mask. This DNA empty ego seed, evolves and matures based on external input; cultural knowledge from the super ego of culture. Although, the inner self will still add innate propensities, from within, since the primary is still internally programmed within our human DNA, as our collective human nature.

To put this in perceptive, a hawk has excellent eye sight and can see much better than humans. Conceptually, it could see the night sky and all the stars and planets in the night sky, even better than the naked human eye. What do you think their theory for the heavens/space is? The answer is, they probably do not think that way or that deep on that subject, since it is not in their DNA and inner self to do so. They lack the ego and the needs of civilization. These questions of the heavens/space are more exclusive to humans, who learn and ponder; due to the ego. The ego being detached from the inner self, does not have to be restricted to just natural. We can burn the candle from both ends.

In Genesis, Adam is born twice, first by himself. Next, he is lonely and is put to sleep and Eve appears from his rib. This double birth is symbolic of the inner self appearing first in nature; animal nature, and then the human ego, with Eve also connected to the ego. The ego is what eats of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, using will and choice, to separate from the inner self; instinct; God's natural plan. These two centers are also symbolize by the two trees in paradise; tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Neurons look like little trees; branches and roots; multipolar neurons of the brain.

In Genesis, the inner self or tree of life was sealed; becomes more unconscious, to allow the new ego center more freedom to develop, via civilization and external programming; learned knowledge. The inner self still provides logistical support, being connected to the DNA, but is less conscious in most people. But it can be made more conscious. The tree of knowledge if often associated with the apple, while the tree of life has twelve types of fruit, to symbolizes its more expansive capability, that is the \future of human conscious evolution.

The

 

[leroy]

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.

Yes sir as usual I can provide citation to my claims

the evolutionary history of vertebrate gills has been the subject of a long-standing controversy [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. It is thought that gills evolved independently in cyclostomes (jawless vertebrates—lampreys and hagfish) and gnathostomes (jawed vertebrates—cartilaginous and bony fishes)The Origin of Vertebrate Gills - PMC


The author then explains why he disagrees and why he thinks gills evolved once

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

We have a saying in Hindi: "Bhains ke age been bajaye, bhains khari plagura'e"
(One may play a flute in front of a buffalo for years, but the only sound that the buffalo will make is 'moo')
It will be wasted effort and one should not even try.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why not...... Given selective pressure time and luck humans can descend in to something that we would call a "coloquial fish"

It's like talking to a wall............................

Because it would require a species to jump to another branch of the evolutionary tree of life.

What would prevent that?

Ironically, evolution.

If coloquial fishes have evolved around 20 times

They haven't.

Yes you did ... In the context of that conversation you where comparing fish with true clades....

I wasn't. Did you even read the post?
Do you understand the difference between a monophyletic group (a clade) and a paraphyletic group ("fish")?

You where explaining how be definition organisms don't evolve in to a different clade and you used fish as an example.

This is just false. Read the post

Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

If there is selective pressure + time +good luck, why, wouldn’t humans evolve in to a swimming creature with lungs and scales (something that would be called a “fish”)? Because they say so that's why.

www.religiousforums.com

At no point do I use the word "clade".
What I'm talking about is that species can't jump branches.

And in context of the conversation we are talking about fish as a paraphyletic group. Which is to say, a group that includes the last common ancestor (which would be chordata / vertebrata) and some, but not all (like tetrapods), of its descendants.

So for a mammal to become a fish, it would have to jump OFF the branch of tetrapods and onto one of the other parallell branches wich ARE included in the paraphyletic group of fish.


I have explained this 4 times now. You have been arguing about this obsessively for 10 pages now. How long will this nonsense continue?

But I'll ask you directly what exactly did you mean by fish in that conversation?

I already explained it multiple times. The colloquial meaning. Which means, as a paraphyletic group. Do I need to explain again what that means also?

My hypothesis is that you meant that there is a true clade that includes all "coloquial fishes " and excludes land vertebrates .... My hypothesis is that it was just a typo from your part.

My hypothesis is that you are intellectually dishonest at worst or just very slow at best.

There are no typo's. There are no mistakes. There are no retractions. I have been clear about this from the first time I explained it. For some strange reason you just keep going back to it as if it was never explained.

If you meant something else with fish please explain what did you mean and let's see if there is consistency between your definition of fish and you claims/points

I explained 5 times now, if I include this post.
Do you need a 6th time, or will you manage to process the information this time?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes sir as usual I can provide citation to my claims

the evolutionary history of vertebrate gills has been the subject of a long-standing controversy [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. It is thought that gills evolved independently in cyclostomes (jawless vertebrates—lampreys and hagfish) and gnathostomes (jawed vertebrates—cartilaginous and bony fishes)The Origin of Vertebrate Gills - PMC


The author then explains why he disagrees and why he thinks gills evolved once

So to support your claim that "most scientist" today believe that gills evolved multiple times, you are citing a paper from several years ago that states it only evolved once in the common ancestor of vertebrata?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes sir as usual I can provide citation to my claims

the evolutionary history of vertebrate gills has been the subject of a long-standing controversy [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. It is thought that gills evolved independently in cyclostomes (jawless vertebrates—lampreys and hagfish) and gnathostomes (jawed vertebrates—cartilaginous and bony fishes)The Origin of Vertebrate Gills - PMC


The author then explains why he disagrees and why he thinks gills evolved once

Nice cheat. You did not have a source. That source came from the paper that @TagliatelliMonster linked. You should not have been so lazy. As he already pointed out that paper refutes those sources.

Oh, and by context multiple tends to mean more than twice. Otherwise the word twice would been used. In other words that was a double failure on your part.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Still nothing except conjecture as to what and how life came about from the start.

That's not conjecture. That's EVIDENCE.
Please learn the difference.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you would like anyone to believe that Tiktaalik represents a stage of fish evolving to -- humans -- you'd have to do better than what you say above. Those are just words. Without backup. You'd have to do better imo than saying, Look! there is a real-time item of evidence that PROVES fish evolved to humans. It may seem rational to say and believe it shows the stepping stone between water dwelling fish and land roving animals, but it is a fossil of an organism that had four appendages. You may say it is proof (or demonstrates) of the theory, but that does not mean it is. There is nothing to show from where it came and where the organism went (eventually evolved) to. You want to believe it all happened by "natural occurrences"? That's obviously your choice.

I've shown you the evidence for Tiktaalik and described how researchers were able to predict where it was in the fossil record, and found it exactly where they predicted, about 3 or 4 times now. You can go read those.

Why on earth would anyone take the time to explain it to you yet again, at this point, when it's been explained to you umpteen times already, and yet still hasn't sunk in?? That would be an exercise in futility, imo. You aren't really interested in learning. That is crystal clear.