I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[IThoughtAboutIt]

That was not exactly what was said or implied. The problem is that biologically "fish" is a very poorly defined term. If you call a shark a "fish" then you would have to call a human a fish too. The old Linnaean classification system has problems. It is not consistent. Cladistics fixes that problem, but as a result in technical terms some concepts will have to be either redefined or abandoned.

All classification systems have issues. As this example obviously points out. Fish are easily definable as non-tetrapod vertebrates. That doesn’t mean this definition fits cladistics. It certainly doesn’t mean that fish don’t exist. Why do I have to say that a human is a fish if I think a shark is a fish? Because one certain classification system says so? I don’t have to say fish is a monophyletic group in order to say that fish exist. If the idea is that we have to abandon any concept that isn’t perfect then we’re gonna have to abandon all thought. No concept reflects reality perfectly . It doesn’t mean they’re not useful.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

The "stick figure" is what results when one analyzes the evidence. It is best not to try to insult what one does not understand. Asking questions is reasonable. Laughing when one is ignorant only makes a person look foolish.

Then why are you trying to insult me? When you said I obviously didn’t read your source, but you hadn’t even provided a source? I’m not the one using terms like ignorant and foolish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All classification systems have issues. As this example obviously points out. Fish are easily definable as non-tetrapod vertebrates. That doesn’t mean this definition fits cladistics. It certainly doesn’t mean that fish don’t exist. Why do I have to say that a human is a fish if I think a shark is a fish? Because one certain classification system says so? I don’t have to say fish is a monophyletic group in order to say that fish exist. If the idea is that we have to abandon any concept that isn’t perfect then we’re gonna have to abandon all thought. No concept reflects reality perfectly . It doesn’t mean they’re not useful.

No one claimed that fish do not exist. You are taking a title of an article as if it reflected what the article says.

Here is why claiming that saying that a shark is a fish is stating the humans are fish. We are and other bony fishes are more closely related to each other than either of us are related to sharks. As a result it would be inconsistent to claim that sharks are "fish" when people are not. It would be like saying that your cousin is a member of you "family" but your even more closely related brother is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why are you trying to insult me? When you said I obviously didn’t read your source, but you hadn’t even provided a source? I’m not the one using terms like ignorant and foolish.

I am not trying to insult you. I am calling out improper behavior.

If you want sources you can always ask. There is nothing wrong with that. Laughing at what one does not understand is wrong no matter who does it.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

And here you go moving the goalposts.

I was not presenting this as proof of evolution.

I was presenting this as proof that your viewpoint about evolution is incorrect, namely, in post 577 where you said, "Fish are non-tetrapod vertebrates. All organisms that are vertebrates but are not tetrapods, are fish." I'm, pointing out that the creatures you call fish do not all share a single common ancestor that is not also shared with non-fish.

Your views about evolution are wrong.

Why are you replying to Tiberius and yet in your post quoting something I said? Your ideal that the definition must necessarily rely on cladistics is what’s wrong. I never said fish are a monophyletic group. And that’s what cladistics. You are suggesting that recognizing an organism that has a backbone and yet is not a tetrapod is a useless concept.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

No one claimed that fish do not exist. You are taking a title of an article as if it reflected what the article says.

Here is why claiming that saying that a shark is a fish is stating the humans are fish. We are and other bony fishes are more closely related to each other than either of us are related to sharks. As a result it would be inconsistent to claim that sharks are "fish" when people are not. It would be like saying that your cousin is a member of you "family" but your even more closely related brother is not.

No I’m taking what Tiberius said. He said fish do not exist. I even asked him point blank to clarify do you believe fish do not exist. And he said fish do not exist. Reread what you just wrote. You basically gave two options one either you believe sharks or not fish. Are you believe that humans are fish. And then you point out that any other conclusion would be inconsistent.

I completely understand the fish are not a monophyletic group according to cladistics. I reject that sharks are not fish. And I reject that humans are fish. I see no inconsistency in those three statements.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

I am not trying to insult you. I am calling out improper behavior.

If you want sources you can always ask. There is nothing wrong with that. Laughing at what one does not understand is wrong no matter who does it.

I understand what he said. He said fish do not exist. I apologize to you for laughing at that ridiculously funny statement. I won’t let it happen again.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

The "stick figure" is what results when one analyzes the evidence. It is best not to try to insult what one does not understand. Asking questions is reasonable. Laughing when one is ignorant only makes a person look foolish.

Yes I understand what the stick figure was meant to represent. And yet I asked for a source. Which is what you just said is completely appropriate. I even asked point blank are you saying fish do not exist. And I was told fish do not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I’m taking what Tiberius said. He said fish do not exist. I even asked him point blank to clarify do you believe fish do not exist. And he said fish do not exist. Reread what you just wrote. You basically gave two options one either you believe sharks or not fish. Are you believe that humans are fish. And then you point out that any other conclusion would be inconsistent.

I completely understand the fish are not a monophyletic group according to cladistics. I reject that sharks are not fish. And I reject that humans are fish. I see no inconsistency in those three statements.

I understand what he said. He said fish do not exist. I apologize to you for laughing at that ridiculously funny statement. I won’t let it happen again.

Where did he say that fish do not exist? Quote and link please.

And yes, if you say that sharks are fish but people are not you are stating the equivalent of "My cousin is in my family but my brother is not".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I understand what the stick figure was meant to represent. And yet I asked for a source. Which is what you just said is completely appropriate. I even asked point blank are you saying fish do not exist. And I was told fish do not exist.

Once again, quote and link.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Where did he say that fish do not exist? Quote and link please.

And yes, if you say that sharks are fish but people are not you are stating the equivalent of "My cousin is in my family but my brother is not".

You should be able to read up just as well as I can. As far as your statement regarding the equivalence of your cousins; I reject that. Those are not equivalent statements. They are not logically equivalent. And they have no practical consistency. If I were to say that hagfish and sharks are part of a monophyletic group that do not include humans, that would be logically inconsistent with the statement that my cousin and I are part of monophyletic group that doesn’t include my brother.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Once again, quote and link.

Once again, read up. Am I gonna have to repeat every post in this thread?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should be able to read up just as well as I can. As far as your statement regarding the equivalence of your cousins; I reject that. Those are not equivalent statements. They are not logically equivalent. And they have no practical consistency. If I were to say that hagfish and sharks are part of a monophyletic group that do not include humans, that would be logically inconsistent with the statement that my cousin and I are part of monophyletic group that doesn’t include my brother.

I looked. I could not find him making that claim. Also if you are new to internet debating when you make a claim the burden of proof is upon you.

And you are wrong. Logically my claim is equivalent. You are more closely related to your brother than you are to your cousin. Denying that your brother is not a member of your family is not reasoning consistently. We are more closely related to bony fishes and they are more closely related to us than either of us are to sharks. So saying that we are not part of the same family is once again reasoning inconsistently. It is the same exact error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, read up. Am I gonna have to repeat every post in this thread?

Only when you make a claim that does not appear to be supported by the existing evidence.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

I looked. I could not find him making that claim. Also if you are new to internet debating when you make a claim the burden of proof is upon you.

And you are wrong. Logically my claim is equivalent. You are more closely related to your brother than you are to your cousin. Denying that your brother is not a member of your family is not reasoning consistently. We are more closely related to bony fishes and they are more closely related to us than either of us are to sharks. So saying that we are not part of the same family is once again reasoning inconsistently. It is the same exact error.

The burden of proof is on me to ensure that you’ve read all the post in this thread? You took exception to me saying laugh out loud. And you didn’t bother to read up two or three posts at the time to see what I was laughing about? Source; it’s in this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The burden of proof is on me to ensure that you’ve read all the post in this thread? You took exception to me saying laugh out loud. And you didn’t bother to read up two or three posts at the time to see what I was laughing about? Source; it’s in this thread.

The claim appears to be a recent one and I went back several pages. Are you saying that he made it a long time ago?


To me right now it looks like you know that you are wrong and are running away and pretending to be right.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

And you are wrong. Logically my claim is equivalent. You are more closely related to your brother than you are to your cousin.

Agreed.

Denying that your brother is not a member of your family is not reasoning consistently.

Where did I make such a ridiculous claim? Source? Or should I read up? You are attributing ridiculous claims to me in error, pointing out that those claims are ridiculous, then stating that my reasoning is inconsistent?

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

The claim appears to be a recent one and I went back several pages. Are you saying that he made it a long time ago?


To me right now it looks like you know that you are wrong and are running away and pretending to be right.

He made that statement three or four posts before I responded with a laugh out loud which is what you objected to.

i’m wrong about what? I have claimed that fish do in fact exist. I have claimed fish do not form a monophyletic group. I have claimed that sharks are fish. I have claimed that humans are not fish. I have also claimed that cladistics has issues like any other classification concept, and is not the only way to conceptualize taxonomy. Are you saying I’m wrong about ALL of these claims? Or is there a particular one you’re saying I’m wrong about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed.Where did I make such a ridiculous claim? Source? Or should I read up? You are attributing ridiculous claims to me in error, pointing out that those claims are ridiculous, then stating that my reasoning is inconsistent?

You should have quoted the entire post. But I am beginning to see how you misunderstood what @Tiberius posted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He made that statement three or four posts before I responded with a laugh out loud which is what you objected to.

i’m wrong about what? I have claimed that fish do in fact exist. I have claimed fish do not form a monophyletic group. I have claimed that sharks are fish. I have claimed that humans are not fish. I have also claimed that cladistics has issues like any other classification concept, and is not the only way to conceptualize taxonomy. Are you saying I’m wrong about ALL of these claims? Or is there a particular one you’re saying I’m wrong about?

You appear to be wrong about what Tiberius claimed.