Evolution of what?

[YoursTrue]

That was not what I said. You should know that.

Why, when birds develop beaks larger or smaller as a group, do they or don't they remain birds, in your opinion? One step closer -- in your opinion, is it possible that humans can evolve to become fish again? If not, why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why, when birds develop beaks larger or smaller as a group, do they or don't they remain birds, in your opinion? One step closer -- in your opinion, is it possible that humans can evolve to become fish again? If not, why not?

Please, when you say "gorillas stay gorillas" in opposition to the theory of evolution what point are you trying to make?

 

[gnostic]

Nah humans are not apes. You might as well say fish are apes as well.

Fishes are not "species", it isn't name of species.

The name "fish", isn't even taxon classification, it is informal classification, due to being paraphyletic group, not monophyletic.

While a tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) and Atlantic salmon (Salamo salar) are both fishes, they are not of the same species, not of the genera (Galeocerdo vs Salmo), not of same families (Galeocerdonidae vs Salmonidae), orders (Carcharhiniformes vs Salmoniformes), or classes (Chondrichthyes vs Actinopterygii).

And even shark is not taxon name or classification, as there are number of physical features that distinguish one species of shark from another species, eg the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias).

The tiger shark and great white are not of the same genera (Carcharodon), families (Lamnidae), order (Lamniformes); the only taxons that are the same is subclass (Elasmobranchii), class (Chondrichthyes).

You don't need to study fossils of extinct sharks or extinct salmons, to distinguish the differences between tiger sharks and Atlantic salmons.

As I said, apes (superfamily Homoinoidea, family Homoinidae "great apes") are not name for species, but classification of shared physical traits that exist in all apes.

Not all biologists are paleontologists, so they studied the living and extant species of the anatomy like their morphology (form and structure), DNA and so on, and that allow for the determination of taxon classifications.

What you see in taxon tree, is that organisms changes over generations (time), that's fact.

All life seems to have come from the ground. And water.

But not directly and magically from soil.

Soil don't contain cells, and they are mainly of silicate minerals, which are inorganic. You cannot simply transform silicates into proteins.

A large of all life are made from cells that make up proteins, and for multicellular organisms like animals, proteins are building blocks of tissues and organs, and proteins are made of amino acids, so not silicates from soil.

Amino acids are made of carbon-based molecules (including hydrogen, oxygen), while silicates are made of silicon-based molecules. And silicon cannot turn into carbon.

That's just chemistry, and soil cannot turn into fully grown human, as you (and other creationists) clearly don't seem to understand.

Miracles defied natural reality, like Jesus turning water into wine. Water cannot chemically turn into wine, not unless involve fairytale magic. Wine come from grape juice that have been fermented over a period of time. What Gospel of John narrated about this miracle is simply not real, nor natural.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fishes are not "species", it isn't name of species.

The name "fish", isn't even taxon classification, it is informal classification, due to being paraphyletic group, not monophyletic.

While a tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) and Atlantic salmon (Salamo salar) are both fishes, they are not of the same species, not of the genera (Galeocerdo vs Salmo), not of same families (Galeocerdonidae vs Salmonidae), orders (Carcharhiniformes vs Salmoniformes), or classes (Chondrichthyes vs Actinopterygii).

And even shark is not taxon name or classification, as there are number of physical features that distinguish one species of shark from another species, eg the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias).

The tiger shark and great white are not of the same genera (Carcharodon), families (Lamnidae), order (Lamniformes); the only taxons that are the same is subclass (Elasmobranchii), class (Chondrichthyes).

You don't need to study fossils of extinct sharks or extinct salmons, to distinguish the differences between tiger sharks and Atlantic salmons. Not all biologists are paleontologists, so they studied the living and extant species of the anatomy like their morphology (form and structure), DNA and so on, and that allow for the determination of taxon classifications.

What you see in taxon tree, is that organisms changes over generations (time), that's fact.



But not directly and magically from soil.

Soil don't contain cells, and they are mainly of silicate minerals, which are inorganic. You cannot simply transform silicates into proteins.

A large of all life are made from cells that make up proteins, and for multicellular organisms like animals, proteins are building blocks of tissues and organs, and proteins are made of amino acids, so not silicates from soil.

Amino acids are made of carbon-based molecules (including hydrogen, oxygen), while silicates are made of silicon-based molecules. And silicon cannot turn into carbon.

That's just chemistry, and soil cannot turn into fully grown human, as you (and other creationists) clearly don't seem to understand.

Miracles defied natural reality, like Jesus turning water into wine. Water cannot chemically turn into wine, not unless involve fairytale magic. Wine come from grape juice that have been fermented over a period of time. What Gospel of John narrated about this miracle is simply not real, nor natural.

Homo sapiens, and I suppose before that (hominids) are supposed by evolutionists to have evolved from fish, isn't that right? Thanks for your reply though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, when you say "gorillas stay gorillas" in opposition to the theory of evolution what point are you trying to make?

I think I'll let you guess what point I'm trying to make. 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? Oh darn, I gave you the answer...

 

[gnostic]

Homo sapiens, and I suppose before that (hominids) are supposed by evolutionists to have evolved from fish, isn't that right? Thanks for your reply though.

That's all take from my post?

You didn't understand that fish is not taxon classification, and that not all species share every single traits.

A tiger shark cannot give birth to or evolve into Atlantic salmon, anymore than the reverse. They are definitely not of the same species. And please, don't say "they are still fishes", that will only make you sounds uneducated.

Clearly you have no interests in understanding biology.

As I said, you are anti-science. It's pathetic.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's all take from my post?

You didn't understand that fish is not taxon classification, and that not all species share every single traits.

A tiger shark cannot give birth to or evolve into Atlantic salmon, anymore than the reverse. They are definitely not of the same species. And please, don't say "they are still fishes", that will only make you sounds uneducated.

Clearly you have no interests in understanding biology.

As I said, you are anti-science. It's pathetic.

Sorry, I don't follow long posts usually. Are you saying scientists do not assert that humans eventually evolved from fish?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Homo sapiens, and I suppose before that (hominids) are supposed by evolutionists to have evolved from fish, isn't that right? Thanks for your reply though.

If you go back far enough, and that is hundreds of millions of years ago, yes, we had fish ancestors.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's all take from my post?

You didn't understand that fish is not taxon classification, and that not all species share every single traits.

A tiger shark cannot give birth to or evolve into Atlantic salmon, anymore than the reverse. They are definitely not of the same species. And please, don't say "they are still fishes", that will only make you sounds uneducated.

Clearly you have no interests in understanding biology.

As I said, you are anti-science. It's pathetic.

I'm just going by what scientists are saying.
"This, according to a recent genome mapping of primitive fish conducted by the University of Copenhagen, among others. The new study changes our understanding of a key milestone in our own evolutionary history. There is nothing new about humans and all other vertebrates having evolved from fish."
I didn't make it up. Here is the link from sciencedaily.com -- We're more like primitive fishes than once believed, new research shows.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you go back far enough, and that is hundreds of millions of years ago, yes, we had fish ancestors.

Oh, thank you!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I'll let you guess what point I'm trying to make. 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? Oh darn, I gave you the answer...

Yes, and you keep confirming that you do not understand evolution.

You should Google the concept of "Emergent processes". Evolution is one constant example of that. New traits do not generally arrive "Tah Dahhh!!" The slowly develop over the ages so that no one will suddenly say "Ooohh! That's the first Coho Salmon!" When it comes to the first anything there is bound to be some disagreement since different traits would show up at different times.

The only sorts of changes that are that immediate might be something rather minor such as having blue eyes. A single mutation can cause that. But most new traits are either multiple new mutations or a remixing of older existing genes in anew way.

 

[sayak83]

So far no response from those who believe evolution and that God exists. All quiet on that front.

Your question is only towards Christians correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm just going by what scientists are saying.
"This, according to a recent genome mapping of primitive fish conducted by the University of Copenhagen, among others. The new study changes our understanding of a key milestone in our own evolutionary history. There is nothing new about humans and all other vertebrates having evolved from fish."
I didn't make it up. Here is the link from sciencedaily.com -- We're more like primitive fishes than once believed, new research shows.

And the problem with fish is that the concept is not monophyletic. So I often prefer the term Vertebrata. And here is a cladogram of all vertebrates. It is human centered. That unfortunately makes it look as if humans were the goal:

Please note, one could redraw this diagram so that any of the species shown would be on the far right.

 

[sayak83]

Oh, thank you!

Humans (and all land vertebrates) evolved from and continue to remain FISH.
That is problem with regular language and scientific language.
Scientifically we are a type of land living fish along with cows, lizards, tigers, sparrows etc.

Once a fish, always a fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and you keep confirming that you do not understand evolution.

You should Google the concept of "Emergent processes". Evolution is one constant example of that. New traits do not generally arrive "Tah Dahhh!!" The slowly develop over the ages so that no one will suddenly say "Ooohh! That's the first Coho Salmon!" When it comes to the first anything there is bound to be some disagreement since different traits would show up at different times.

The only sorts of changes that are that immediate might be something rather minor such as having blue eyes. A single mutation can cause that. But most new traits are either multiple new mutations or a remixing of older existing genes in anew way.

That's not what I'm asking though. So going back to the question, and I understand that scientists say the particular apes (including those they include in that category called humans) have an unknown common ancestor. I'm not discussing things like albinos, long legged or short legged tribes. But rather that gorillas, as one example, are not seen to be evolving.

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans (and all land vertebrates) evolved from and continue to remain FISH.
That is problem with regular language and scientific language.
Scientifically we are a type of land living fish along with cows, lizards, tigers, sparrows etc.

Once a fish, always a fish.

ok, so if I understand you correctly, just to reiterate, humans are fish, is that what you are saying? Yes, that is what you are saying. And you believe, I suppose, everything before fish and in between fish and humans. Although I can't hold my breath too long under water. Thus the ancestry must be, as they say, long gone.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and you keep confirming that you do not understand evolution.

You should Google the concept of "Emergent processes". Evolution is one constant example of that. New traits do not generally arrive "Tah Dahhh!!" The slowly develop over the ages so that no one will suddenly say "Ooohh! That's the first Coho Salmon!" When it comes to the first anything there is bound to be some disagreement since different traits would show up at different times.

The only sorts of changes that are that immediate might be something rather minor such as having blue eyes. A single mutation can cause that. But most new traits are either multiple new mutations or a remixing of older existing genes in anew way.

I understand new traits do not emerge immediately, according to the theory, I suppose. It took a while for fish, although still existing, to become humans. According to the theory, of course. And of course that unknown common ancestor of the great apes, so to speak, has not been found and...gorillas are still remaining as gorillas, humans as humans. Now yes, there are thousands of various species of fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, when you say "gorillas stay gorillas" in opposition to the theory of evolution what point are you trying to make?

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

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone I didn't realize there are so few gorillas left in the world. Maybe I'm wrong, but while looking up certain things about gorillas, I find this: Conservation Through Public Health | Just 1,000 mountain gorillas remain in the wild. What happens if they get Covid-19?.

 

[sayak83]

ok, so if I understand you correctly, just to reiterate, humans are fish, is that what you are saying? Yes, that is what you are saying. And you believe, I suppose, everything before fish and in between fish and humans. Although I can't hold my breath too long under water. Thus the ancestry must be, as they say, long gone.

Yes we are land living and land breathing fish, along with all mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Science does not classify living things based on what it does now but what is it's lineage is.