Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[shunyadragon]

Well @shunyadragon is wrong ....fish is not a clade ..... But I know that for you it is more important to disagree with me that to be correct

I agree, and clarified my post with a typo. Please keep up

 

[Pogo]

You don't understand the context of the conversation.


All I am saying is that fish is a generic term without an objective definition (fish is not a clade).......fish is whatever we subjectively decided to call fish


As you can see there is nothing controversial in my claims

Yes we have pointed out numerous times, that language is contextual, refusing to understand that and then using language inappropriately is the mark of either the ignorant or the intentionally disingenuous.
Your choice.

 

[shunyadragon]

I specifically stated before you posted it that the "ramps at Hatnub" were the stupidest hypothesis that has been developed since ouija boards were used to communicate with the autistic. Do you really want me to respond to such nonsense in a thread about Evolution. The only thing I can say is Homo omnisciencis is so confused by language that they can't differentiate between good hypotheses and bad. Surely you remember I've said a million times that THIS IS the reason we need experiment. No theory exists without experiment so gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis that has repeatedly been shown false by observation.

You brought up 'Who buolt the pyramids? first,and I responded with academic references tht demonstrated that theEgyptians engineered and built the pyramids

They were there but they said the gods built them.

No they did not

 

[blü 2]

Nah, blü 2, it was Jesus's pa.

If ─ BIG if ─ divinity was involved, it was either Aphrodite or Ganesha ─ on that occasion, I'd guess the latter. (If I'm put to the test, I like gods who like to party.)

 

[leroy]

He showed you that you were wrong. You're a stickler for having others explicitly admit error. I didn't see your acknowledgement that you were wrong. Tuna are in class Actinopterygii, not Sarcopterygii.

Granted, I made a mistake, tuna is Actinopterygii,as you correctly pointed out. That is the first time I notice that someone pointed out that mistake to me

See I do admit mistakes

You should be able to answer that yourself. Did you intend the monophyletic or the paraphyletic meaning of fish? According to the former, whales, being descendants of fish, are also fish.

paraphyletic

If we use the paraphyletic definition, then you can list for yourself what distinguishes a fish in the latter sense from a whale.

And the point that I made is that fish is just a generic term with no objective meaning (fish is not a clade) fish is just what we subjectively decided to call fish (no objective metrics)

We decided to call tuna, sharks and eels fish and whales “not fish” for no objective reason we simply decided that this is how we will call things………………you can ether

1 agree with this simple and uncontroversial fact

2 disagree and show that I am wrong

3 claim that I am wrong because you say so…….

Or ask AI: "What are the anatomical differences between fish and whales?" The answer will tell you how a bluefin tuna and a blue whale differ in ways that make one a fish (paraphyletic definition) and the other a mammal. The major distinctions, as you probably already know, are cold- vs warm-bloodedness, eggs vs. live birth, and gills vs lungs.

Some fish are warm blooded, some fish have placenta, some fish have lungs……………….but we still (subjectively) call them fish because it is convenient………………fishes like Tunas and Coelacanths are much more closely related to whales that to Cartilaginous fishes but we still call them fishes

I think that you've confused the thread regarding your purpose or principal message, which I assume is to somehow undermine evolutionary science in support of your creationist beliefs,

That is weird, by this point you should know that I grant the theory of evolution and I am not a creationists (assuming you mean YEC)…………….but ok I understand that things are chaotic in this forum and it is hard to remember who said what and who has what view

but I don't see how your line of argument does that or anything else of value for you. You know or should know what it costs you.

Because my intend is not to support nor to refute the theory of evolution, my comment has noting to do with evolution-.---- I am simply pointing out the boring and uncontroversial fact that “fish” is a generic and subjective term.

What do you think the meta-message is when all of the creationists demonstrate a lack of understanding of the science, an inability to assimilate new information, an inability to refute arguments or address refutations to them, or even a memory for what has been written to them already?

Luckily you have the opportunity to show that you are better than those creationists, by assimilating this new information

In this short post you learned that some fish are warm blooded, that some fish have lungs and that some fish have placenta………. Hopefully with this new knowledge you can connect the dots by yourself and conclude that being a fish is a matter of subjective opinion there are no objective traits that make something a fish (nor a nonfish)

What do you think that tells me about my choice to take the path you rejected and to have rejected the path you chose? I could have been more like you, or you could have been more like me. What should I conclude? Did I make a mistake or did you?

no idea On what are you talking about, but I also know and understand that you don’t like to repeat question in a less ambiguous way

 

[leroy]

It is not an uncontroversial point, species exist in their own niches and in a pattern in evolution.
To find one out of place would be negative evidence of the theory, to find one where expected for the first time is positive evidence.

All that can be seen here is that you do not understand the entire concept from science to evolution.

All I am saying is that finding tiktaaliks or any other “fishapod” in say the Jurassic wouldn’t harm evolution and would be consistent with how evolution works and what evolution predicts……………..as boring as this might sound that is all my point which you obviously agree, so let it go , there is no hidden agenda

If you don’t start you reply with “No I disagree, finding a fishpond in the Jurassic would harm evolution because…… I will assume that you agree

 

[leroy]

I agree, and clarified my post with a typo. Please keep up

@TagliatelliMonster see how easy it was for Shun? If you would have admitted that you made a typo 4 weeks ago we would have saved tons of time and energy

 

[leroy]

Yes we have pointed out numerous times, that language is contextual, refusing to understand that and then using language inappropriately is the mark of either the ignorant or the intentionally disingenuous.
Your choice.

I am not using language inappropriately feel free to quote me (my actual words if you disagree)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We decided to call tuna, sharks and eels fish and whales “not fish” for no objective reason

The words are arbitrary conventions with no inherent meaning, but classifying tuna and eels together at the class level and whales separately is not arbitrary.

I am not a creationists

If you believe a supernatural intelligence created the universe and the life in it, then you believe in a creator and are a creationist.

In this short post you learned that some fish are warm blooded, that some fish have lungs and that some fish have placenta………. Hopefully with this new knowledge you can connect the dots by yourself and conclude that being a fish is a matter of subjective opinion

You seem to be implying that the word fish is meaningless. It's the nature of biology that it can be difficult to draw sharp lines between groups of living things and that some animals straddle categories, like Tiktaalik and the platypus.

To use a non-biological example to illustrate, he fact that there are colors that straddle categories doesn't make the concept of color useless or arbitrary. We can see areas that can be recognized as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet, but that are colors in the rainbow which that neatly fit into any of those categories.:

What we are discussing is imprecise predicates - terms with fuzzy boundaries.

 

[leroy]

The words are arbitrary conventions with no inherent meaning, but classifying tuna and eels together at the class level and whales separately is not arbitrary.

Yes it is arbitrary to group eels and tuna in the same group and exclude whales

In fact tuna is much more closely and has much more in common with whales that with eels.


Distinctions between whales and fish are more influenced by cultural and linguistic changes than by scientific discoveries. (Copied from the source at the end of the post)

If you believe a supernatural intelligence created the universe and the life in it, then you believe in a creator and are a creationist.

Ok but I am not a young earth creationist that is what I meant

You seem to be implying that the word fish is meaningless. It's the nature of biology that it can be difficult to draw sharp lines between groups of living things and that some animals straddle categories, like Tiktaalik and the platypus.

To use a non-biological example to illustrate, he fact that there are colors that straddle categories doesn't make the concept of color useless or arbitrary. We can see areas that can be recognized as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and purple, but that are colors in the rainbow which that neatly fit into any of those categories.:

Nope my argument has nothing to do with Sharp lines in the since that you are implying


All I am saying is that terms like fish and whale are not scientific nor objective nor empirically verifiable (as oppose to terms like mammals birds or dinosaur or any other true clade)


For more details

Are Whales Fish?

Distinctions between whales and fish are more influenced by cultural and linguistic changes than by scientific discoveries.

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Please explain why do you think that the author is wrong ?

 

[Valjean]

@Foxfyre Now -- here's the thing -- thinking about what "scientists" have said, more or less, what about nothing? (I'm LOL at this point...) was 'nothing' there before something was there? (still laughing...nice talking with you...)

Something from nothing is the religious claim, not the scientific one.

 

[Valjean]

I still strongly believe that we Earthlings are likely in technological/scientific infancy compared to all the science/technology there is to know. Consider for instance that beings from other planets have been checking us out. Imagine the technology we have that we can only imagine. Imagine the science they know that we have no clue. And if there is indeed an intelligent Higher Power that created it all, imagine what that Higher Power knows compared to anything he/it created.

It's so mind boggling it is pretty impossible to wrap your mind around it.

Consider with all the thousands of years of human history and the science we have learned, we still have no clue how life actually came to be here on Planet Earth or what dynamic originated life. We have only hypothesis impossible to test.

But we do...
Google.

 

[Valjean]

You don't understand the context of the conversation.


All I am saying is that fish is a generic term without an objective definition (fish is not a clade).......fish is whatever we subjectively decided to call fish


As you can see there is nothing controversial in my claims

But biologically there are certain features that define 'fish', that make it a usable concept, just as there are features exclusive to mammals.
Apart from shape, whales have all the features that define mammals, and few, if any, limited to fish.
See where I'm coming from?

Centuries ago, people didn't categorize animals by their ancestry, anatomy or 'biology' as they tend to do today. Utility or behavior were more definitive features in their common parlance.
Todays taxonomic categorization, I think, is a much more precise, useful and informative system, in my opinion.

 

[Pogo]

You don't understand the context of the conversation.


All I am saying is that fish is a generic term without an objective definition (fish is not a clade).......fish is whatever we subjectively decided to call fish


As you can see there is nothing controversial in my claims

Not if we are dealing with a 5 year olds understanding.

But this is a science subforum and so.

 

[Foxfyre]

But we do...
Google.

Only in the semse tjat we accept it all as science or what is. Nobody, not even someone as brilliant as Einstein and other great minds cannot begin to definitively explain it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I never quit wondering or being crazy.

It's a wonderful life, isn't it?

All the records were written in Ancient Language that can not be translated. Many attempted to and in the very olden days people had a fairly good grasp but these were confused with every retelling because modern language is never understood as the author intends. By the time it gets down to us it is so confused it can mean anything at all. But I found from Ancient Language how it was done. It can never be confused only not understood at all. Since I do understand it I can make predictions about what will be found next and have been doing this for 20 years.

People just don't realize that no science has been systematically applied to any great pyramid since Petrie left over a century ago. Egyptologists are more than than satisfied with "they mustta used ramps" and "they mustta been tombs". The people mustta been superstitious and superstition mustta been a highly constructive force. Everything you think is science at Giza is in actuality nothing but assumptions based on 19th century beliefs about what mustta been.

ah well...

 

[YoursTrue]

Only in the semse tjat we accept it all as science or what is. Nobody, not even someone as brilliant as Einstein and other great minds cannot begin to definitively explain it.

that's right. and they only wonder about it. Maybe their brains hurt as they thought about things. Or maybe they didn't. Maybe they only hurt others' brains when they thought about what they might have thought.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is not an uncontroversial point, species exist in their own niches and in a pattern in evolution.
To find one out of place would be negative evidence of the theory, to find one where expected for the first time is positive evidence.

All that can be seen here is that you do not understand the entire concept from science to evolution.

Yes, you're going like some do, to keep insisting how you were right and others are just not as advanced as you are. Take care, it's been nice.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes you have stated that ramps are stupid, but as with most everything, you have not provided anyone with any reason to agree with you beyond your internal confidence in yourself. Sorry, but that is not how one communicates in any language.

wow. Before I knew the Bible I was into things like ouija board thinking it could answer questions. Boy am I glad I'm free of that now! Thank God for that.

 

[leroy]

But biologically there are certain features that define 'fish', that make it a usable concept, just as there are features exclusive to mammals.

What I mean is that we could say that whales are "mammalian fish" in the same way we say that sharks are cartilaginous fish.... Both are equally arbitrary and subjective ... We call sharks fish and whales non fish for cultural reasons. Not for empirical/scientific reasons

Apart from shape, whales have all the features that define mammals, and few, if any, exclusive to fish.
See where I'm coming from?

I can't think in any trait that is present in all fish and absent in all non fishes