I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Regardless of how something is categorized, it does not prove evolution by "natural selection,"

That’s true. But it does support the theory of evolution. For any scientific theory to be valid it must have predictive qualities. If evolution is true it predicts that the species we see will fit some form of categorization. The creationist view does not predict any sort of categorization. If the creationist view is true then there’s no reason I can’t have animals made of rubber or diamonds or unicorns or fire breathing dragons or any other weird thing that defies any sort of categorization. There could be sentient rocks, golems made of straw, fire elementals, wind monsters. Creationism predicts zero classification.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

A good question that deserves an actual answer, rather than just a handwaving and a flippant comment.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Did you notice how you didn't actually answer my question there?

I want YOU to tell ME what characteristic is found in all fish and ONLY in fish.

 

[Tiberius]

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

Is a hagfish a fish? Is a shark a fish?

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Is a hagfish a fish? Is a shark a fish?

Yes, to both.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

And the diagnosis may be wrong, as well as the possibility of another doctor knowing a better way to treat the problem. Sooo with all that being said, <smile>, I guess you can figure, or might figure, that I'm sticking with the Bible's diagnosis, even if the wording doesn't agree with some. (Have a good one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Is a hagfish a fish? Is a shark a fish?

Does it matter? Where does evolution "fit in," and I mean really fit with analysis, including dates, seeing things evolve in that spectrum, not like sheep giving birth to flocks of different colors, not just figuring out what might have happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

But they have to go back to water to survive, don't they? In actuality though, it doesn't matter, since (and I will say it once again) there is no proof, only supposing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did you notice how you didn't actually answer my question there?

I want YOU to tell ME what characteristic is found in all fish and ONLY in fish.

Here's the answer, and likely you won't be satisfied with it, but here's the answer I am giving you. I don't care really how fish are classified. My point isn't whether they breathe or don't breathe out of water.

 

[YoursTrue]

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, I appreciate your wisdom. However, I don't agree that 'things' happened by the course of evolution via natural selection. Or just plain old evolution. So without any further ado, I shall leave it there for now. And I appreciate your wisdom about insects, really I do. Another study of wonderous works.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Let's just say that's true, even if it's not about water breathing only fish evolving to not all water breathing. It again doesn't show they evolved, but even if they did, there is no proof, only supposition. Now some might not think it's a good argument, but at this point in my life, I have to say I do. Because, and simply because, there is no proof. Now yes, I understand that there is no proof in scientific supposition, but again -- I'm saying there are apparently Siamese fighting fish (I'm taking your word for it) and others not quite like them. I'm saying it's like taking a card game and guessing what's covered.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

But they have to go back to water to survive, don't they? In actuality though, it doesn't matter, since (and I will say it once again) there is no proof, only supposing.

Yes, they do have to go back to water to survive. No proof of what? That these are fish? No proof that these organisms meet the definition that humans have assigned to them?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they do have to go back to water to survive. No proof of what? That these are fish? No proof that these organisms meet the definition that humans have assigned to them?

Some people tend to miss the point. OK, here's the point: there is no ... proof ...of -- evolution.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Some people tend to miss the point. OK, here's the point: there is no ... proof ...of -- evolution.

I was responding to the question “are these fish.” Do you get the point? If that’s not the point than maybe you should ask a different question. If your question is “is there such a thing as proof” then maybe you should look into the discipline of epistemology. Please tell me what you do have proof of?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, to both.

How can that be when sharks are more closely related to us Humans than they are to hagfish?

It's like saying that my brother is more closely related to my cousin than he is to me.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

How can that be when sharks are more closely related to us Humans than they are to hagfish?

It's like saying that my brother is more closely related to my cousin than he is to me.

View attachment 63566

LOL

 

[Tiberius]

Does it matter? Where does evolution "fit in," and I mean really fit with analysis, including dates, seeing things evolve in that spectrum, not like sheep giving birth to flocks of different colors, not just figuring out what might have happened.

If you can't answer the question, then I'd suggest that you don't know enough about evolution to dismiss it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can that be when sharks are more closely related to us Humans than they are to hagfish?

It's like saying that my brother is more closely related to my cousin than he is to me.

Hagfish? I have to look that up, but aren't those the ones from the North Atlantic that get snot all over the place when they are caught?

 

[Tiberius]

LOL

And what does that mean?

 

[Tiberius]

Here's the answer, and likely you won't be satisfied with it, but here's the answer I am giving you. I don't care really how fish are classified. My point isn't whether they breathe or don't breathe out of water.

So you don't actually know how evolution works then. You have no valid reason for dismissing it.