I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[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?

I just followed the trail backwards from your LOL post and he did not make that claim anywhere.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

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

I did quote the entire post when I said “lol“ then I was asked what does that mean to which I replied laugh out loud. it should have been an easy matter to read up at that point if you took exception.

What he said was that fish do not exist. I accept your use of the term “misunderstood“ (in your opinion). It is much preferred to your multiple uses of the terms ignorant and wrong.

if you dispute any of the claims I made, just two or three posts above, just right there, I’m more than happy to discuss those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did quote the entire post when I said “lol“ then I was asked what does that mean to which I replied laugh out loud. it should have been an easy matter to read up at that point if you took exception.

What he said was that fish do not exist. I accept your use of the term “misunderstood“ (in your opinion). It is much preferred to your multiple uses of the terms ignorant and wrong.

if you dispute any of the claims I made, just two or three posts above, just right there, I’m more than happy to discuss those.

I was talking about your failed attempt to refute my post.

And you have still failed to show where he said that fish do not exist.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

I was talking about your failed attempt to refute my post.

Regardless of what you were disputing, I much prefer the term misunderstood to the term ignorant. Thank you for that small concession.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regardless of what you were disputing, I much prefer the term misunderstood to the term ignorant. Thank you for that small concession.

I never directly stated that you were ignorant, I was calling out behavior.

But I did notice one earlier mistake of yours. You claimed that we did not evolve from monkeys. Actually we did and still are "monkeys". We did not evolve from modern monkeys. By the way "monkeys" is most a problem with English. Possibly one or two other languages as well. For example in Spanish there is not a separate word for monkeys and apes. They are all "monos". And by cladistics we are monkeys since to make them a monophyletic group apes have to be included. The break between apes and African monkeys occurred after the break between the common ancestor with New World monkeys.

It is well known that humans are apes. And in Spanish that would include "monkeys" as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

The goalposts are there. Either fish evolved to mammals or they did not. Which is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The goalposts are there. Either fish evolved to mammals or they did not. Which is it?

The descendants of some fish became mammals. Cladistically one cannot evolve out of one's heritage so they still are "fish".

In a scientific discussion one needs to use proper scientific terminology.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

I never directly stated that you were ignorant, I was calling out behavior.

But I did notice one earlier mistake of yours. You claimed that we did not evolve from monkeys. Actually we did and still are "monkeys". We did not evolve from modern monkeys. By the way "monkeys" is most a problem with English. Possibly one or two other languages as well. For example in Spanish there is not a separate word for monkeys and apes. They are all "monos". And by cladistics we are monkeys since to make them a monophyletic group apes have to be included. The break between apes and African monkeys occurred after the break between the common ancestor with New World monkeys.

It is well known that humans are apes. And in Spanish that would include "monkeys" as well.

I understand that we are apes and we are monkeys. That is not at issue. What is the common ancestor of all monkeys? What are the criteria that all monkeys share that no other taxa have?(I don’t like asking that question, but it seems like that question is important around here.) if we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees then I think it’s obvious we evolved from that monkey, In that regard I have to agree with you. Was the common ancestor of all monkeys a monkey? Or was it almost a monkey? I’m asking because it’s a good question.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think of Linnaean classification as a favorite old hammer. We know it, it works in general and has its utility, but they did invent nail guns.

Gotta say that I was thinking about insects lately and their role in a healthy environment. Or necessity. Meanwhile, maybe another thread as to the relationship between insects, fish and the supposed evolution to mammals, or maybe not mammals? Insects are still insects, aren't they?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that we are apes and we are monkeys. That is not at issue. What is the common ancestor of all monkeys? What are the criteria that all monkeys share that no other taxa have?(I don’t like asking that question, but it seems like that question is important around here.) if we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees then I think it’s obvious we evolved from that monkey, In that regard I have to agree with you. Was the common ancestor of all monkeys a monkey? Or was it almost a monkey? I’m asking because it’s a good question.

The common ancestor of all of today's monkeys would have been a monkey today. It became a monkey some time before that. Don't ask me when. There were almost certainly species split off from before our common monkey ancestor that went extinct.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

The common ancestor of all of today's monkeys would have been a monkey today. It became a monkey some time before that. Don't ask me when. There were almost certainly species split off from before our common monkey ancestor that went extinct.

So, was the ancestor of all mammals a mammal? What are (were) mammal like reptiles? Was archaeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur? The point here is not to argue but understand. Cladistic’s defines species and monophyletic groups as distinct moments in evolution. That is very useful as a conceptual construct. But it does not represent reality completely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, was the ancestor of all mammals a mammal? What are (were) mammal like reptiles? Was archaeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur? The point here is not to argue but understand. Cladistic’s defines species and monophyletic groups as distinct moments in evolution. That is very useful as a conceptual construct. But it does not represent reality completely.

Now you are getting into the point of defining what a mammal is. Since platypus are mammals then the common ancestor of all mammals would have almost certainly have been an egg layer

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Now you are getting into the point of defining what a mammal is. Since platypus are mammals then the common ancestor of all mammals would have almost certainly have been an egg layer

Well, traditionally all mammals have hair. Yet that has nothing to do with what defines a a mammal. A mammal is any animal that has mammary glands. Mammal, mammary gland. That concept is useful. But it’s not right. It’s not wrong. It’s a mental construct.

In cladistics, it doesn’t matter if the common ancestor of all mammals had mammary glands or not. All that matters is can you circumscribe a group of species (whatever that is) all of the descendants of a common ancestor and no other species. That concept is useful. It is not right. It is not wrong. It is a mental construct.

That brings up another question. How can you describe or define a clade of species, if you can’t define what a species is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, traditionally all mammals have hair. Yet that has nothing to do with what defines a a mammal. A mammal is any animal that has mammary glands. Mammal, mammary gland. That concept is useful. But it’s not right. It’s not wrong. It’s a mental construct.

In cladistics, it doesn’t matter if the common ancestor of all mammals had mammary glands or not. All that matters is can you circumscribe a group of species (whatever that is) all of the descendants of a common ancestor and no other species. That concept is useful. It is not right. It is not wrong. It is a mental construct.

That brings up another question. How can you describe or define a clade of species, if you can’t define what a species is?

Species as a concept began as a creationist idea. It does not have change built into it. Cladistics deals with populations so it has no problem with change.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Species as a concept began as a creationist idea. It does not have change built into it. Cladistics deals with populations so it has no problem with change.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. What is your concept of what a species is? How is it to find? And how is there no problem with it?

Darwinism, evolutionarily ecology, and historical evolution, all deal with populations. And yet there are problems with species concepts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. What is your concept of what a species is? How is it to find? And how is there no problem with it?

Darwinism, evolutionarily ecology, and historical evolution, all deal with populations. And yet there are problems with species concepts.

There are several definitions of "species". And as you pointed out they all have problems. Cladistics avoids that problem since it deals with populations. When a population splits it is then two populations that can be treated as different "species" if they fit a chosen definition. But the original population still exists too. It is not a problem for cladistics if a population splits. If one of the splits dies out, If one of the splits undergoes future splitting. It merely traces each population.

Personally I like the breeding definition of species, but I know even that is not absolute. There can be exceptions.

18.2A: The Biological Species Concept

 

[Tiberius]

I’m sorry I didn’t see a source? I saw a stick figure. I tried clicking on your stick figure and it didn’t take me anywhere. I looked but didn’t see an actual citation.

And yes I do know what a clade is. I learned that while I was earning my first masters degree in ecology and evolution. Do you know what a classification is? Do you know what taxonomy is? Do you understand that classification, taxonomy, and cladistics are three different things? Do you understand that just because a taxon may not be a monophyletic group doesn’t mean that it’s classification based on similar traits isn’t a useful concept?

By your reasoning dinosaurs don’t exist. By that reasoning reptiles don’t exist. By that reasoning amphibians don’t exist. And by that reason fish don’t exist. As you’ve already pointed out.

Personally I think all these things actually exist and that their classification is a useful concept. It’s like that painting of a painter painting himself painting himself painting himself. Without birds dinosaurs are not a monophyletic group. Without dinosaurs reptiles are not a monophyletic group. Without reptiles amphibians are not a monophyletic group. Without amphibians fish are not a monophyletic group.

Cladistics is extremely valuable. But just like any other mental construction, which all thoughts are, it has limits.

The source I was talking about was the one I gave in post 608. You can find the source here: Actually, There's No Such Thing as a Fish, Say Cladists

And you are missing my point. Reptiles exist, since all the creatures that we call reptiles have a single common ancestor. The same can not be said for fish.

 

[Tiberius]

I don’t claim that to be my best response. But it certainly is the most appropriate response. When somebody says they don’t believe that fish exist, yes I tend to laugh. And when you say I can’t refute that fish do not exist, goodness I have to wonder.

So you didn't read my source then, did you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you didn't read my source then, did you?

Apparently he read only the headline and assumed that that was your claim. He never did quote your post and link it.

Here is a general debating tip for everyone. If an opponent supplies a source check it out. If the person truly has no clue the article will often also have been written by a person that has not clue and can be used against the debater. Even better is when someone merely reads headlines and links an article. I had that happen earlier this week. The refutation of the claim made by my opponent was in the article that was linked by him. I made my job sooooooo easy!

 

[Tiberius]

Thanks. I appreciate this quote. Please note that it comes far after my request for a reference.

As I've already stated, I gave a source in post 608.

And well I guess I’ll take your word for please no it’s not an actual citation even with the title and while I guess I’ll take your word for the quote please no it’s not an actual citation even with the title what journal was what year what authors?

If you had actually clicked on the link in the post you were quoting, you would have seen that the paper was published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 21, Issue 8, August 2004, and could be found on pages 1512–1524. The authors were Naoko Takezaki, Felipe Figueroa, Zofia Zaleska-Rutczynska, Naoyuki Takahata, Jan Klein.

I do not think that you actually clicked on the link, because all this information was there staring you in the face as soon as the page opens.

please note that you did not previously supply this quote. So how could I have read it or understood it? All you provided previously was a stick figure.

I provided the diagram in post 595.

I provided THIS link in post 608.

I provided the scientific paper in post 610.

Also note that this does not provide the year or the journal of publication or any of the other pertinent information other than the names. I do appreciate the quote however. I asked for the source because I’m generally interested in the subject.

Again, I strongly doubt you even opened the link I provided. If you had opened it, you would have seen this.

The journal it was published in and the issue (including the year) are clearly stated. I have circled them in red in case you are having trouble finding this information.