Evolution of what?

[IndigoChild5559]

By cladistics he is correct. Using the term that way is not usually of much value unless correcting creationists with their "change of kind" claim. Then it is quite useful.

I am not concerned with what Creationists think. They are anti-science. I'm concerned what science says, and Humans are not classified as fish. Homo Sapiens are members of the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Mammalia, and the order Primates. No where in there is fish mentioned.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not concerned with what Creationists think. They are anti-science. I'm concerned what science says, and Humans are not classified as fish. Homo Sapiens are members of the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Mammalia, and the order Primates. No where in there is fish mentioned.

From my experience, some people will do and say just about anything using ostensible logic, hook or crook, to overcome any seeming obstacle to the logic of the theory of evolution. I got into the discussion and my glasses are becoming clearer as the conversation of sorts continues among certain parties. I am learning, however.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not concerned with what Creationists think. They are anti-science. I'm concerned what science says, and Humans are not classified as fish. Homo Sapiens are members of the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Mammalia, and the order Primates. No where in there is fish mentioned.

Chordata, where the base species was a "fish".

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Perhaps evolutionists should stay away from the sci-fi and pick up a Bible. The flamboyance of the theory of evolution may attract some, but to the prudent it is nothing but an empty shell which will cost people their salvation. Macroevolution has never been observed and the blind faith demonstrated in this theory is not enriching the human race in any way at all. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that believing in this theory is causing a great deal of animalistic and anti-social behavior, as well as being a unrecognized source of perturbation in our modern day society.

 

[sayak83]

So are humans fish or are they not, as far as you are concerned?

Yes. Along with all land vertebrates.
And not according to me. According to the science of biology. Cladistics is at the heart of evolutionary biology and phylogenetics. All of biology today used cladistics as THE method of classifying and relating current and extinct living beings.
I would also request @IndigoChild5559 to take a cursory look at this book, if possible
The Tree of Life
And this wiki article which (correctly) identifies all land vertebrates as a subgroup of lobe finned fish clade.
Sarcopterygii - Wikipedia
A brief but good introduction can be found here
Phylogenetic Trees and Monophyletic Groups

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Chordata, where the base species was a "fish".

"The phylum Chordata consists of animals with a flexible rod supporting their dorsal or back sides. " :Lots of animals are phylum chordata, not just fish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.
If gorillas would produce anything other then gorillas, evolution would be falsified.
So to say that "gorillas remain gorillas" as if that is somehow a problem for the theory, only serves to show you have no clue what the theory is about.
And I explained this MANY MANY MANY times to you already.

But if you say so, that's how it is for you.

No. It's not a matter of personal opinion. It's a matter of how evolution works. It's a matter of what the theory actually is about.

Brain sizes got bigger which is why humans are so different intellectually from bonobos, gorillas etc. right?

So?
Completely besides the point being discussed.

There is a difference between humans and chimpanzees brainwise.

Yes. So?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since I do not believe in the theory of evolution as it stands

To be fair, it's not tha tyou don't believe in the theory "as it stands". It's more like you don't believe in the strawman version that exists in your head.
You don't seem to have any knowledge of the theory as it stands.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Birds still remain birds even if their beaks change.

Yes.
If birds would produce non-birds, evolution would be disproven.


This has been brought to your attention more times then I can count.
Yet here we are again, with you repeating that same PRATT for the upteenth time.
Insisting on being incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nah humans are not apes.

Are humans mammals?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They don't remain birds?

They do. If birds produce non-birds, evolution is disproven.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think I'll let you guess what point I'm trying to make.

We know what point you are trying to make. You are not the first creationist to try and make that silly point.
It's a point rooted in a strawman, like so many people have already tried to make clear to you.

In evolution, species never outgrow their ancestry.
So no, birds will not produce non-birds.
Mammals will not produce non-mammals.
Vertebrates will not produce non-vertebrates.
Etc.

Here's a hint -- aren't they supposed to have developed, I mean evolved, from an Unknown Common Ancestor of chimpanzees, bonobos, and some others?

And that ancestor was a primate. And chimps, bonobos and humans = still primates.

Oh darn, I gave you the answer...

You think you did. But all you did was show once again how you quadrupple down on strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, I don't follow long posts usually.

Yes, we already noticed how you have problems digesting information that exceeds 5 sentences.

Are you saying scientists do not assert that humans eventually evolved from fish?

Just don't think these were like modern fish. Nobody claims we are descendents of salmons or whatever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But rather that gorillas, as one example, are not seen to be evolving.

Why would you expect to "see" processes that take hundreds of thousands of years to be noticeable, in a single human lifetime?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Supposedly there is an unknown common ancestor for the great apes, is there not? Let's answer that question first.

You don't need to be able to identify a common ancestor in order to KNOW that one existed.

If you have 2 sibling orphans of unknown origins, with ancestors that have been burned and turned into ashes with zero documentation, you can still determine through DNA testing that these orphans shared ancestors.


It's about time that you learn that DNA allows us to determine individuals (or species) share ancestry, without being able to identify that ancestor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All trees have a trunk from which the first branches emerge, and all branches belong to the same kind of tree. Humans are supposedly a branch that is on the edge of the tree, but evolutionists cannot prove that humans have any connection with the trunk of that supposed tree.

Except that we can. Quite easily also. It's called DNA. Maybe you've heared of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most of them believe that the seed of that supposed phylogenetic tree came out of nowhere.

Nobody I know of believes that. Maybe creationists who believe in "creation ex nihilo". Other then that, no.

Others believe that this seed came from space, where there were supposedly already trees of that type.

In the end, they have a lot of faith in their own beliefs, and they want people to adopt their religion and accept what their priests say.

I love it when creationists accuse science of using "faith", as if they agree that "faith" is a bad thing.


Glass houses and throwing bricks, and all that....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Phylogenetic trees are hypotheses

No, they aren't.
Instead, they are graphical representations of comparative genomics from fully sequenced genomes.
They aren't "hypothetical". They are instead factual representations of the structure of DNA of all living things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no intermediate link between different species of animals.

DNA. Anatomy. Geographic distribution of species. Fossil record.


4 independent lines of evidence that all converge on the same answers of exactly that.

Talk about having your head lodged firmly into the ground!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Genetics contradicts evolutionary doctrine.

No

The genetic laws that deal with mutations show

What law?

that one species could never become another.

Citation required.


Queue creationist propaganda in 3...2...1...