Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Go to a biologists and tell him that whales are fish.
See if the biologist will agree that that is not a "controversial" thing to say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

And yet when you replied to the post in question, you did not acknowledge your mistake and in fact did the opposite: you tasked me to try and point out an error, while the error was being pointed out in that exact post. Which you completely ignored.

paraphyletic



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

False.

2 disagree and show that I am wrong

Google the paraphyletic definition of "fish".
You'll get an objective list of criteria.
Criteria that matches the diagram that's been posted multiple times now. All branches, except the yellow one, match the criteria.

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

False.

Humans are just as related to tunas as whales are.
The common ancestor between whales and humans is younger then the common ancestor with tunas.
Humans have much more in common with whales then whales with tunas.
Both are mammals, for starters.


You are fighting a losing battle and your pride / ego can't handle it, it seems.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@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

I didn't make such a mistake. There was nothing to admit. I explained it ad nauseum already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You say "yes" as if you agree and then proceed to say the opposite of what he said.
The grouping is not arbitrary.

The name chosen for the group is arbitrary.
The grouping is not

 

[leroy]

I believe biology and the scientific revolution have completely reoriented our cultural perspective on things. Whales as mammals is pretty well part of popular understanding.

Sharks as fish? Pick a bony fish and trace it's cladogram back. You'll find sharks in the lineage. Sharks are fish both popularly and biologically.
Whales? Follow a whale's cladogram and you'll find yourself on dry land pretty quickly.

Not really. If you follow a cladogram Bony fish are much more closer to whales than to sharks

Whales? Follow a whale's cladogram and you'll find yourself on dry land pretty quickly.

Ok so you personally decided that fishnes is determined by how far back one has marine ancestors...... My point is that it is your subjective option....... There is no objective/empirical way to test fishnes

 

[leroy]

View attachment 100096


The "special" status of the find, is that it was found at all by prediction in the predicted strata with the predicted features.
Nobody said anything else about it. It's you that then went all-in on this argument to argue for the sake of arguing.
Your projection is hilarious.

You already agreed that tiktaalik could have been found in other layers too.whus is and has always been my point..... Why do you keep pushing this away from my point?

 

[leroy]

You said tuna is in the lineage of lobe-finned fish and sarcopterygii ("the yellow line").

I just showed you black on white how you are wrong in the very post you are replying to.

So yeah, not sure what else to tell you.......................

If you can't figure out your mistake from that post, then really there doesn't seem to be something I can say to make it even clearer.

Ok I admit my mistake

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so you personally decided that fishnes is determined by how far back one has marine ancestors

That's not even close to what he said.

..... My point is that it is your subjective option

It's not

....... There is no objective/empirical way to test fishnes

There is

 

[leroy]

Go to a biologists and tell him that whales are fish.
See if the biologist will agree that that is not a "controversial" thing to say.

Again whales are not fish because culturally and for convinance we decided that they are not fish .... Not because there is an objective and empirical test that eels sharks tuna and all so called fishes passed and whales failed

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You already agreed that tiktaalik could have been found in other layers too.whus is and has always been my point..... Why do you keep pushing this away from my point?

I'm not pushing anything.

I'm just saying, it was predicted and there it was, in accordance with the prediction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again whales are not fish because culturally and for convinance we decided that they are not fish

This is not "culture" nor is it a matter of "convenience".
It's a matter of paraphyletic grouping following a specific definition with established criteria.
Whales don't match the criteria. No tetrapods do.

.... Not because there is an objective and empirical test that eels sharks tuna and all so called fishes passed and whales failed

Except that there are.

 

[leroy]

False.

Humans are just as related to tunas as whales are.
The common ancestor between whales and humans is younger then the common ancestor with tunas.
Humans have much more in common with whales then whales with tunas.
Both are mammals, for starters.


You are fighting a losing battle and your pride / ego can't handle it, it seems.

Quit your dishonest strawman

I never said the opposite, I never said that the common ancestor of whales and humanans is older than the common ancestor between tuna and whales I never said that whales have more in common with tuna than with humans ...... Stop making things up


You keep doing this over and over again... Why do you have the need to change my words and refute something that I never said ?

 

[leroy]

I'm not pushing anything.

I'm just saying, it was predicted and there it was, in accordance with the prediction.

And the opposite was never affirmed by me ..so why even mention it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Quit your dishonest strawman

I never said the opposite, I never said that the common ancestor of whales and humanans is older than the common ancestor between tuna and whales I never said that whales have more in common with tuna than with humans ...... Stop making things up


You keep doing this over and over again... Why do you have the need to change my words and refute something that I never said ?

Right, misunderstood you there.

Indeed, bony fish are closer related to tetrapods then to sharks.
But that doesn't matter. Tetrapods don't fit the criteria of fish. Bony fish and sharks, do.

Paraphyletic group, remember? Tetrapods aren't part of it. Tunas and sharks are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the opposite was never affirmed by me ..so why even mention it?

Cool, so you agree then.

The team successfully used evolution theory and evolutionary history to predict the anatomy, location and age of transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods.

So what are you arguing about or for again?

 

[leroy]

View attachment 100100

This is not "culture" nor is it a matter of "convenience".
It's a matter of paraphyletic grouping following a specific definition with established criteria.
Whales don't match the criteria. No tetrapods do.


Except that there are.

Grate then share your objective and empirical criteria ...how can we test if something is a paraphilic fish

Given your test
1 eels sharks tuna Coelacanth and all the organisms that we classify as fish have to pass the test

2 whales and all other organism that we classify as non fish has to fail


Please share your test



Your yellow line fails as a test because that lines includes many species of fish

 

[leroy]

Right, misunderstood you there.

Indeed, bony fish are closer related to tetrapods then to sharks.
But that doesn't matter. Tetrapods don't fit the criteria of fish. Bony fish and sharks, do.

Paraphyletic group, remember? Tetrapods aren't part of it. Tunas and sharks are.

Because the groping is subjectively chosen .... There is no empirical reason for why sharks are cartilaginous fish and whales aren't mammalian fish....... The only reason is cultural and for convinance

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Grate then share your objective and empirical criteria ...how can we test if something is a paraphilic fish

Given your test
1 eels sharks tuna Coelacanth and all the organisms that we classify as fish have to pass the test

2 whales and all other organism that we classify as non fish has to fail


Please share your test



Your yellow line fails as a test because that lines includes many species of fish

to qualify as a fish, an organism must exhibit traits such as aquatic living conditions, gills for respiration, a streamlined body with fins and scales, cold-blooded metabolism, specific reproductive methods, and a skeleton made of either bone or cartilage.

As always when it comes to setting scopes / boundaries around groupings in evolved organisms, the lines can at times get blurry as inevitably there will exist species that can have some of the qualities and others not so much. For example, in 2015 we discovered a warm blooded fish (the opah). but other then that it still bears all the hallmarks of a fish with gills, scales, fins, etc.

As per the above definition, a mammal like a whale definitely doesn't qualify.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because the groping is subjectively chosen .... There is no empirical reason for why sharks are cartilaginous fish and whales aren't mammalian fish....... The only reason is cultural and for convinance

Whatever makes you sleep at night and inflates your ego.

 

[leroy]

Cool, so you agree then.

The team successfully used evolution theory and evolutionary history to predict the anatomy, location and age of transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods.

So what are you arguing about or for again?

That tiktaalik could have been (and can be) found in many other layers too. So the prediction of finding tiktaalik in the late denovian is not too impressive