The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Quoting from the post and the idea -- from @sayak83
"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."

So since I was not sure what sayak83 really meant, I asked again. Perhaps sayak83 will clarify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I checked, and sometimes I like to double check to make sure, so here is another response about humans and fish. Evolution of what?

And that response had the silly "change in kind" claim of creationists in mind. Thank you for confirming my post that was just before yours.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I checked, and sometimes I like to double check to make sure, so here is another response about humans and fish. Evolution of what?

You are welcome to enjoy my ROFL at Evolution of what?

 

[sayak83]

Quoting from the post and the idea -- from @sayak83
"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."

So since I was not sure what sayak83 really meant, I asked again. Perhaps sayak83 will clarify.

I have explained already in other posts. Here is a reference wiki article. All land vertebrates, including us, belong to the "lobe-finned-fish" taxa.
Sarcopterygii - Wikipedia
Sarcopterygii (/ˌsɑːrkɒptəˈrɪdʒi.aɪ/; from Ancient Greek σάρξ (sárx) 'flesh', and πτέρυξ (ptérux) 'wing, fin') — sometimes considered synonymous with Crossopterygii (from Ancient Greek κροσσός (krossós) 'fringe') — is a taxon (traditionally a class or subclass) of the bony fish known as the lobe-finned fish or sarcopterygians, characterised by prominent muscular limb buds (lobes) within the fins, which are supported by articulated appendicular skeletons. This is in contrast to the other clade of bony fish, the Actinopterygii, which have only skin-covered bony spines (lepidotrichia) supporting the fins.

The group Tetrapoda, a mostly terrestrial superclass of limbed vertebrates including amphibians, sauropsids (reptiles, including birds and other dinosaurs) and synapsids (mammals and their ancestors), evolved from sarcopterygian ancestors; under a cladistic view, tetrapods are themselves considered a subgroup (or rather, the dominant crown group) within Sarcopterygii.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All land vertebrates, including us, belong to the "lobe-finned-fish" taxa.

No, most vertabrates are not fish, lobe finned or otherwise.

 

[sayak83]

No, most vertabrates are not fish, lobe finned or otherwise.

This is your opinion?
Science says otherwise.
You are confusing common use of a term vs scientific use of a term. In common use, in many languages, even prawns and snails are called fish. In evolutionary biology and systematic phylogenetics, all subgroups necessary belong to the supergroup. The lobe finned fish supergroup contains the living and extinct aquatic ancestor forms and the later radiation of these forms to land to get to all land vertebrates. They therefore necessarily belong in the lobe finned fish taxa...just as surely as humans belong to the ape taxa and apes belong to the Catarrhini taxa etc.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is your opinion?
Science says otherwise.

No it doesn't. Here is the official scientific classification of homo sapiens. Notice "fish" is missing:

Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Class Mammalia
Order Primates
Suborder Haplorini
Family Hominidae
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
Subspecies sapiens

 

[sayak83]

No it doesn't. Here is the official scientific classification of homo sapiens. Notice "fish" is missing:

Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Class Mammalia
Order Primates
Suborder Haplorini
Family Hominidae
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
Subspecies sapiens

This is a shorthand only. There are hundreds of monophyletic groups (clades) that exist between each of these level that are omitted to keep the thing simple. You must have heard of synapsids...the mammal like reptiles whose subgroup would be modern mammals.
Synapsid - Wikipedia
As a result, the paraphyletic terms "mammal-like reptile" and "pelycosaur" are seen as outdated and disfavored in technical literature, and the term stem mammal (or sometimes protomammal or paramammal) is used instead. Phylogenetically, it is now understood that synapsids comprise an independent branch of the tree of life.[15] The monophyly of Synapsida is not in doubt, and the expressions such as "Synapsida contains the mammals" and "synapsids gave rise to the mammals" both express the same phylogenetic hypothesis. This terminology reflects the modern cladistical approach to animal relationships, according to which the only valid groups are those that include all of the descendants of a common ancestor: these are known as monophyletic groups, or clades.

Additionally, Reptilia (reptiles) has been revised into a monophyletic group and is considered entirely distinct from Synapsida, falling within Sauropsida, the sister group of Synapsida within Amniota.[16]

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is a shorthand only. There are hundreds of monophyletic groups (clades) that exist between each of these level that are omitted to keep the thing simple. You must have heard of synapsids...the mammal like reptiles whose subgroup would be modern mammals.
Synapsid - Wikipedia
As a result, the paraphyletic terms "mammal-like reptile" and "pelycosaur" are seen as outdated and disfavored in technical literature, and the term stem mammal (or sometimes protomammal or paramammal) is used instead. Phylogenetically, it is now understood that synapsids comprise an independent branch of the tree of life.[15] The monophyly of Synapsida is not in doubt, and the expressions such as "Synapsida contains the mammals" and "synapsids gave rise to the mammals" both express the same phylogenetic hypothesis. This terminology reflects the modern cladistical approach to animal relationships, according to which the only valid groups are those that include all of the descendants of a common ancestor: these are known as monophyletic groups, or clades.

Additionally, Reptilia (reptiles) has been revised into a monophyletic group and is considered entirely distinct from Synapsida, falling within Sauropsida, the sister group of Synapsida within Amniota.[16]

I'm sorry, but for the purposes of this argument, I'm going to ask you to limit yourself to official scientific criteria, which I've already given you. If you can't or won't do that, I'm perfectly willing to move on. Show me where the accepted classification says that homo sapiens are a fish.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sorry, but for the purposes of this argument, I'm going to ask you to limit yourself to official scientific criteria, which I've already given you. If you can't or won't do that, I'm perfectly willing to move on. Show me where the accepted classification says that homo sapiens are a fish.

The point is that subgroups belong to groups, and groups belong to supergroups. There is a nested hierarchy of taxa. Each is a subset of the larger taxon containing it, so, technically, each set -- and the word designating it -- can be applied to all subsets.
This may be technically correct, and understood by taxonomists, but it's confusing and pointless to laymen, to whom "fish" designated a fully aquatic, water-breathing creature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, but for the purposes of this argument, I'm going to ask you to limit yourself to official scientific criteria, which I've already given you. If you can't or won't do that, I'm perfectly willing to move on. Show me where the accepted classification says that homo sapiens are a fish.

"Official" scientific criteria? What makes it official? Why limit it to the terms that you used? I sense a strawman.

 

[sayak83]

I'm sorry, but for the purposes of this argument, I'm going to ask you to limit yourself to official scientific criteria, which I've already given you. If you can't or won't do that, I'm perfectly willing to move on. Show me where the accepted classification says that homo sapiens are a fish.

I am giving you scientific criteria only. In science the older Linnean system has mostly been replaced by the phylogenetic classification system. The Linnean system is still used for popular communication as its simpler though much less scientifically grounded. You can see the two compared here below
Just read the set of sections here to understand how modern classification according to phylogenetics is done.
Using trees for classification - Understanding Evolution
Your replied confuse me. I am giving you links to standard science websites and technical books in biological sciences to make my point. Why are you continuing to claim that what I am saying is not according to science?
Anyways. Here is a science article figure on the phylogenetic classification of bony fishes. See the frog figure? That represents the tetrapodomorpha (land vertebrates ie, tetrapods) and their closest aquatic ancestors like Tiktaalik fossil. As you can see, they are within the monophyletic groups of Sarcopterygii (lobe finned fish), which itself is in the monophyletic group of bony fish (Osteichthyes).

As you can see, modern phylogenetic classification directly puts all land vertebrates inside the lobe-finned fish and (further down) bony fish group.

Full paper link is below
Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes - BMC Ecology and Evolution

A full resolution image of the above is available in this link
https://static-content.springer.com...-3/MediaObjects/12862_2017_958_MOESM6_ESM.pdf

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you believe man started out in an apelike form. Why are you unable to believe he couldn't have just started out in the form of a man?

Because we follow the evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's another link to the claim that humans are fish -- Evolution of what?

It all comes down with what you mean by "fish".
Note that "fish" is not an actual taxonomical term.

If by "fish" you mean modern fish like salmon and trout, then no.
If by "fish" you mean ancient sea life part of the caldistics "chordates", then yes.

It's important to get your terms right when talking about scientific technicalities.

For example, a dolphin lives in the sea, looks like a fish and has fins. But it is not a "fish" like salmon or trout. It is actually a mammal that merely lives in the sea and looks like a fish. But it's not a fish like a trout is a fish.

So, "looking like a fish" and living in the sea, does not make one a "fish"-fish.

It's more correct to talk about chordates when referring to the distant human ancestor that looked like a fish and lived in the sea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it doesn't. Here is the official scientific classification of homo sapiens. Notice "fish" is missing:

Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Class Mammalia
Order Primates
Suborder Haplorini
Family Hominidae
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
Subspecies sapiens

Note the bolded phylum. There's your "fish". Note the quotes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sorry, but for the purposes of this argument, I'm going to ask you to limit yourself to official scientific criteria, which I've already given you. If you can't or won't do that, I'm perfectly willing to move on. Show me where the accepted classification says that homo sapiens are a fish.

I already did that. Phylum: chordata

 

[exchemist]

The point is that subgroups belong to groups, and groups belong to supergroups. There is a nested hierarchy of taxa. Each is a subset of the larger taxon containing it, so, technically, each set -- and the word designating it -- can be applied to all subsets.
This may be technically correct, and understood by taxonomists, but it's confusing and pointless to laymen, to whom "fish" designated a fully aquatic, water-breathing creature.

Quite so. I can't help thinking it might be more helpful to the discussion if, when talking in technical terms, e.g. cladistics, one sticks to the technical name of the taxon, viz. Sarcopterygii, instead of dubbing every member of the group "fish", since the everyday meaning of "fish" (which long predates taxonomy) obviously does not include tetrapods.

This is especially so when dealing with silly creationists who are constantly on the lookout for things in evolutionary biology to ridicule for rhetorical purposes. (I can just imagine an idiot pastor, at one of these fundy "churches" in the US Bible Belt, making his redneck congregation roar with laughter on being told that "the evilutionists" [sic] think cows are fish! )

 

[sayak83]

Quite so. I can't help thinking it might be more helpful to the discussion if, when talking in technical terms, e.g. cladistics, one sticks to the technical name of the taxon, viz. Sarcopterygii, instead of dubbing every member of the group "fish", since the everyday meaning of "fish" (which long predates taxonomy) obviously does not include tetrapods.

This is especially so when dealing with silly creationists who are constantly on the lookout for things in evolutionary biology to ridicule for rhetorical purposes. (I can just imagine an idiot pastor, at one of these fundy "churches" in the US Bible Belt, making his redneck congregation roar with laughter on being told that "the evilutionists" [sic] think cows are fish! )

I have a different opinion on this matter. Prejudiced people have always laughed at seemingly outlandish scientific discoveries like:-
1) The earth revolves round the Sun and rotates rapidly around its axis.
2) Time can slow down or speed up depending on your speed
3) Continents move over time.
4) Stars are in fact distant suns
5) physical phenomena are intrinsically probabilistic and reality is dependent on how one interacts with it.
Etc.
Modern phylogenetics and cladistics is an outcome of the toil of hundreds of researchers and evolutionary biologists who tracked down lineage lines based on painstaking DNA and anatomical information. It's information rich and vital to biological research. It realises Darwin's idea of the brachiating tree of life and the fundamental concepts of nested hierarchies in beautiful detail. Why should we not talk about its findings as confidently as other mind bending claims of science! Indeed we are apes who walked on two legs, birds are dinosaurs who took flight and all land animals with backbone are fish who adapted to land.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

OK. Seems there are those on the forum who declare that humans are fish. Took me by surprise but they also declare logic and science is behind it. Evolutionary logic, that is. In the thread "evolution of what" there has been a discussion. Evolution of what? (That is a link to the discussion)

Anyone who is saying that "humans are fish" is saying something really rather silly. Humans are humans, fish are fish, apes are apes, millipedes are millipedes.

Now, as it happens, this human was born into a "white, anglo-saxon, protestant" family. I remain white, and essentiallly anglo-saxon, but protestant is something I can do without. My father was likewise born into a white, anglo-saxon, protestant family, and that's how he identified, as did his father, his grand-father and great-grand-father -- I can go back 7 generations from me, to about 1740. BUT, what if I could go back 20 generations? Well, there were no protestants then, so I suppose it would be catholic. And 100 generations ago, there were no Catholics, or even Christians. Nor were there Anglo-Saxons. So what would my grandsire of 100 generations ago be?

Well, I don't know. I cannot even be sure he would have been white. And 500 generations ago, he would have definitely been black and in Africa!

No, a human is not a fish, but somewhere in his very distant list of ancestors was a fish. And long before that, a single-celled something. As Pooh Bah says, in the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta the Mikado, "Don't mention it. I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule." Silly, I know, but surely you can see the point.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The point is that subgroups belong to groups, and groups belong to supergroups. There is a nested hierarchy of taxa. Each is a subset of the larger taxon containing it, so, technically, each set -- and the word designating it -- can be applied to all subsets.
This may be technically correct, and understood by taxonomists, but it's confusing and pointless to laymen, to whom "fish" designated a fully aquatic, water-breathing creature.

Of course, but then, to whoever said "humans are fish," what was the point of stopping at fish? Fish also have ancestors, and some of them were not chordates -- deuterostomia, and before them bilateria, and all in the "kingdom" animalia. So I think we should be able to say that humans (and fish) are animals, and be done with it.