I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[joelr]

@joelr, Hi there. So I'm not sure if you answered the question about "natural selection." Is evolution supposed to work by the process of what is called "natural selection"?

In part.


Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population.[4] The evolutionary pressures that determine whether a characteristic should be common or rare within a population constantly change, resulting in the change in heritable characteristics arising over successive generations. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.[5][6]

 

[Astrophile]

Nothing personal, but..
3. It is all supposition, otherwise fish would still be evolving, NOT to "other" fish, but to organisms that are NOT water-dwellers.

At the present time, the teleost fishes are the dominant marine vertebrates. According to Teleost - Wikipedia , more than 26,000 species of teleosts have been described, divided into about 40 orders and 448 families.

The first teleost fishes appeared during the Permian or the Early Triassic, between about 300 and 240 million years ago, and therefore after the first appearance of amphibians, reptiles and synapsids (mammal-like reptiles); in the succeeding 240-300 million years these first teleosts have evolved and diversified into more species of '"other" fish' than the number of extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians. The fact that they have not evolved into 'organisms that are NOT water-dwellers' does not diminish the magnitude of this evolutionary diversification.

To say that the modern descendants of the first teleosts are merely '"other" fish' because they have not evolved into 'organisms that are NOT' water-dwellers' is as bad as saying that giraffes, humans, leopards and hedgehogs are merely '"other" mammals' because they have not evolved into animals that are NOT land-dwellers.

 

[YoursTrue]

At the present time, the teleost fishes are the dominant marine vertebrates. According to Teleost - Wikipedia , more than 26,000 species of teleosts have been described, divided into about 40 orders and 448 families.

The first teleost fishes appeared during the Permian or the Early Triassic, between about 300 and 240 million years ago, and therefore after the first appearance of amphibians, reptiles and synapsids (mammal-like reptiles); in the succeeding 240-300 million years these first teleosts have evolved and diversified into more species of '"other" fish' than the number of extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians. The fact that they have not evolved into 'organisms that are NOT water-dwellers' does not diminish the magnitude of this evolutionary diversification.

To say that the modern descendants of the first teleosts are merely '"other" fish' because they have not evolved into 'organisms that are NOT' water-dwellers' is as bad as saying that giraffes, humans, leopards and hedgehogs are merely '"other" mammals' because they have not evolved into animals that are NOT land-dwellers.

Except there is no evidence beyond speculation of any change like that, from one format, such as fish, to another eventually, such as mammals. Only surmise, based on either fossils, the organisms (living) themselves, or the theory, period.
Fish remain fish, within their limits. It doesn't matter if they are salmon or trout, they are fish. It is the same with bacteria. They can morph, use the word evolve if you want to, but they remain bacteria. Once again, I see absolutely no evidence that evolution by "natural selection" or simple or complex movement caused water dwelling fish to eventually turn into mammals. It has not been proved, ok bad word proved, so I'll say demonstrated, or shown that the different types of life (such as insects, fishes, mammals) came about in their different formats by evolution. Natural or unnatural selection. P.S. I'm learning a lot, though, I hope I remember it.

 

[Darkstorn]

Except there is no evidence beyond speculation of any change like that, from one format, such as fish, to another eventually, such as mammals. Only surmise, based on either fossils, the organisms (living) themselves, or the theory, period.

Except there is, including in this very thread. Period. The limit / problem is your understanding. You've been presented with some evidence, but for some reason your sensory apparatuses don't pick it up and/or you don't understand what is being presented. Almost like you don't understand what "evidence" means. Which is doubly odd because it has been explained to you several times. For some reason you don't pick that up either.

And for some reason this inspires you to make bold claims about science rather than admitting the limits of your understanding.

This is a sign of a certain cognitive bias.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except there is no evidence beyond speculation of any change like that, from one format, such as fish, to another eventually, such as mammals. Only surmise, based on either fossils, the organisms (living) themselves, or the theory, period.
Fish remain fish, within their limits. It doesn't matter if they are salmon or trout, they are fish. It is the same with bacteria. They can morph, use the word evolve if you want to, but they remain bacteria. Once again, I see absolutely no evidence that evolution by "natural selection" or simple or complex movement caused water dwelling fish to eventually turn into mammals. It has not been proved, ok bad word proved, so I'll say demonstrated, or shown that the different types of life (such as insects, fishes, mammals) came about in their different formats by evolution. Natural or unnatural selection. P.S. I'm learning a lot, though, I hope I remember it.

There is evidence. It is science, so evidence is a must. It just isn't evidence that you want. There are no photos or video of the major evolutionary changes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except there is no evidence beyond speculation of any change like that, from one format, such as fish, to another eventually, such as mammals. Only surmise, based on either fossils, the organisms (living) themselves, or the theory, period.
Fish remain fish, within their limits. It doesn't matter if they are salmon or trout, they are fish. It is the same with bacteria. They can morph, use the word evolve if you want to, but they remain bacteria. Once again, I see absolutely no evidence that evolution by "natural selection" or simple or complex movement caused water dwelling fish to eventually turn into mammals. It has not been proved, ok bad word proved, so I'll say demonstrated, or shown that the different types of life (such as insects, fishes, mammals) came about in their different formats by evolution. Natural or unnatural selection. P.S. I'm learning a lot, though, I hope I remember it.

Are these fish?

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

If we come from monkeys.Why are monkeys not turning into humans still?

First off humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans have a common ancestor millions and millions of years removed.

That said let’s take a look at the basic principles.

Adaptive radiation is the observation that life branches out similar to a tree or a river system. This is contrasted to a linear progression of life. Life does not evolve in a linear fashion towards a single goal.

Niche refers to a place where a species can fit in, comfortably compete, make a living so to speak.

Natural selection will tend to favor individuals and populations that evolved towards filling niches to where there is less competition.

If a given niche is highly competitive then a given species will tend to evolve towards a less competitive niche. If a niche is completely dominated by one species no other species will evolve towards that niche, but will radiate away from that niche.

Now speaking directly towards other animals evolving into being human; any animal that has shown any ability to compete with humans on any level anyway whatsoever would be destroyed, hunted, shot. They don’t even have to come close to being human. Just demonstrating that they could possibly compete with us for resources would drive their destruction on a competitive basis.

 

[Tiberius]

Fish remain fish, within their limits. It doesn't matter if they are salmon or trout, they are fish.

Please tell me, what characteristics does an organism need to have in order to classify it as a fish?

As in, if you say, "If an organism has X, then it is a fish. If it does not have X, then it is not a fish. Only fish have X, and there are no fish that do not have X," what is an example of X?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please tell me, what characteristics does an organism need to have in order to classify it as a fish?

As in, if you say, "If an organism has X, then it is a fish. If it does not have X, then it is not a fish. Only fish have X, and there are no fish that do not have X," what is an example of X?

Scientists should know what characteristics an organism must have in order to be categorized. Regardless of how something is categorized, it does not prove evolution by "natural selection," as they say, in a very slow way for the most part. Categorizing something does not mean evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are these fish?

That's a good question. They look like they're gasping for air.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence. It is science, so evidence is a must. It just isn't evidence that you want. There are no photos or video of the major evolutionary changes.

That's kinda what I'm saying. Besides, despite timelines, I no longer believe that the various types (such as lions vs. fish) came about by slow evolving and then, of course, by that nice phrase, "natural selection."

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence. It is science, so evidence is a must. It just isn't evidence that you want. There are no photos or video of the major evolutionary changes.

Evidence is like sunlight. We have sunlight. It does fabulous things. To analyze it, or figure how it got there is a different story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidence is like sunlight. We have sunlight. It does fabulous things. To analyze it, or figure how it got there is a different story.

Sunlight is evidence of a star. It can be analyzed. But light is not the only evidence that we have of stars.

There is no reason that we cannot study, hypothesize, learn and theorize about stars or any other natural phenomenon from the evidence.

A person might not like the diagnosis they get from a doctor, but not liking it is not a cure.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's a good question. They look like they're gasping for air.

To me, they look like they are howling at each other.

They are fish. Fish that have evolved traits that allow them live out of water as well as in it. They are in a group commonly known as mudskippers. Now we know that fish can move from water to land. They are not the only group of fish that have evolved traits to exist on land for a time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's kinda what I'm saying. Besides, despite timelines, I no longer believe that the various types (such as lions vs. fish) came about by slow evolving and then, of course, by that nice phrase, "natural selection."

You can choose to ignore the evidence and any rational conclusions drawn upon that evidence. You are certainly free to do so. No one can force you to do otherwise if that is your will. You can reject it and believe in God and others can accept it an believe in God. Others can believe in any other deity or none at all and accept or reject science as well.

The problem isn't in what you believe, but the action taken on that belief and the claims made. When anyone takes their believed views of reality public, they are putting it under public scrutiny. People that do this should not expect that their personal views based on belief be accepted as fact against evidence that supports other conclusions.

By the way, I have never stated I do not believe in the Bible. That is a conclusion that I think you have made based on bias and not on the evidence. Not following a literal view of the Bible is not the same as not believing in the Bible. Do you take a literal view of Revelations? If you do not, does that mean that you are not a believer in the Bible?

 

[Darkstorn]

To me, they look like they are howling at each other.

They are fish. Fish that have evolved traits that allow them live out of water as well as in it. They are in a group commonly known as mudskippers. Now we know that fish can move from water to land. They are not the only group of fish that have evolved traits to exist on land for a time.

Somewhat related: Some fully aquatic fish can breathe air. The Siamese fighting fish is probably the most notable example. In this case it's an adaptation for poor water quality, their preferred habitat being low-oxygen, muddy rice paddy fields.

Evolution is wonderful.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Please tell me, what characteristics does an organism need to have in order to classify it as a fish?

As in, if you say, "If an organism has X, then it is a fish. If it does not have X, then it is not a fish. Only fish have X, and there are no fish that do not have X," what is an example of X?

Fish are non-tetrapod vertebrates. All organisms that are vertebrates but are not tetrapods, are fish.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists should know what characteristics an organism must have in order to be categorized. Regardless of how something is categorized, it does not prove evolution by "natural selection," as they say, in a very slow way for the most part. Categorizing something does not mean evolution.

The act of categorizing does not support the theory of evolution in itself, but the products of categorizing living organisms is both illuminated in the light of evolution while lending support as evidence for evolution.

Again, you are free to ignore this evidence and believe as you wish, but their are consequences (at least intellectually in this case) for ignoring evidence.

I recall the story of a mom that did not want here son playing at a nearby construction site. When the boy asks why, she tells him it is because their are dangerous bears on the construction site. She figures that bears are real, scary and believing they are on that site would be sufficient reason to keep the boy safely away from it. One day his friends suggest playing on that site. The boy tells them he doesn't want to because of the bears. His friends laugh and explain that there are no bears there, so they go an play on the construction site. He gets seriously hurt playing where it was not safe for children to play. If his mother had given him sound reason and actual evidence against playing in a dangerous place it would have reduced the chance or spared both of them the pain and suffering of his injuries.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Somewhat related: Some fully aquatic fish can breathe air. The Siamese fighting fish is probably the most notable example. In this case it's an adaptation for poor water quality, their preferred habitat being low-oxygen, muddy rice paddy fields.

Evolution is wonderful.

Certainly another good example and from a different group of fish. I thought of those guys as well as snakeheads and walking catfish when thinking of examples of fish that can exist on land or breathe air. But I have a personal bias for the mudskippers I guess.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Are these fish?

Yes these are fish. Lungfish may leave the water and crawl around on mud flats breathing air while foraging. Another example of air breathing fish many may be familiar with is the Beta or Fighting Fish and numerous of its relatives known as bubble nesters. Betas have actually been documented living in hove prints. They can survive for extended periods in completely oxygen depleted water by gulping a bubble of air at the surface of the water. There are quite a few other examples of air breathing fish.