|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Species | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Of course, since all evidence points in that direction.
If you can't believe that fish evolved from monkeys, can you believe that monkeys evolved from fish?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Huntard writes: Of course, since all evidence points in that direction. But the ToE states that monkeys didn't evolve from fish...but fish-like creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
You do this stuff on purpose don't you? But the ToE states that monkeys didn't evolve from fish...but fish-like creatures. Ok, fine I should've corrected you on that in your previous post. There, happy now? I didn't correct a mistake you made. It's still dumb to say that fish evolved from monkeys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes: Big_Al35 writes: Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys. jar writes: Huh? Sorry but exactly how would that work? If you can't believe that fish evolved from monkeys, can you believe that monkeys evolved from fish? It is not a matter of belief. It is a conclusion based on the evidence. The evidence shows that there was life in the seas before any life on land. The evidence shows that there is some common fish ancestor(s) that made a transition to land. All amphibians and mammals are descended from those earlier critters. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Huntard writes: You do this stuff on purpose don't you? So monkeys evolved from fish-like creatures?Humans evolved from fish-like creatures? Fish evolved from fish-like creatures? Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is?
Why bother? You have shown you have no interest in learning anything. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
We could, but you'd probably misrepresent or misinterpret it and ask another stupid question or make a dumb statement. So no, thanks.
Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes: Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is? We can try. A short sequence of some of the critters that existed during the transitional phase from water to land would be: EusthenopteronPanderichthys Tiktaalik Acanthosega Ichtheostega These are all critters that show transitional feature, some traits common to land animals, others common to fish. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Big_All35 writes:
If modern-day apes could argue at all, then they could argue that they evolved from human-like creatures - but they'd be wrong. Evolution doesn't have a direction but history does. We can figure out the order that events happened. Modern apes could equally argue that they evolved from human-like creatures. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
jar writes: These are all critters that show transitional feature, some traits common to land animals, others common to fish. So would I be right in saying that none of the examples given are actually ancestors of modern day fish?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes: So would I be right in saying that none of the examples given are actually ancestors of modern day fish? Since you had asked for examples of fish-like critters I don't see how that question is even relevant.
Big_Al35 in Message 95 asks "Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is?" The examples I listed are critters that have traits common to fish but also traits not seen in modern fish but seen in modern land animals. Edited by jar, : change subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
But the ToE states that monkeys didn't evolve from fish...but fish-like creatures. You do this stuff on purpose don't you? Ok, fine I should've corrected you on that in your previous post. There, happy now? I didn't correct a mistake you made. Under what silly definition of fish did monkeys not evolve from them? If we're defining 'fish' as synonomous with 'ray-finned fish' then monkeys didn't evolve from fish, but in this case lungfish aren't fish, sharks aren't fish and all manner of fossil fish groups aren't fish. Of course monkeys evolved from fish. In a different post you asked what a 'fish-like creature' was. It's a creature like a fish. A fish is a scaly, aquatic vertebrate with fins. Monkeys, along with all other land vertebrates, evolved from scaly aquatic vertebrates with fins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Big Al.
Big_Al35 writes: So monkeys evolved from fish-like creatures?Humans evolved from fish-like creatures? Fish evolved from fish-like creatures? Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is? A "fish-like creature" is another fish. Like Caffeine said, monkeys and humans and modern fish all evolved from ancient fish. If you were to display the evolutionary history of fish as a tree diagram, you would see amphibians, reptiles and mammals forming a single branch sprouting out of the middle of the tree somewhere. Some fish evolved legs (and eventually arms) from fins; while others evolved more kinds of fins from fins. By the way, how can we relate this back to the definition of species (which is what we're supposed to be discussing here)? Edited by Bluejay, : "qs" problem -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Bluejay writes: By the way, how can we relate this back to the definition of species (which is what we're supposed to be discussing here)? The issue I am raising here is one of complexity. Dr Adequate argues that he is not more complex than say a lobster. Extrapolating this argument a monkey is not more complex than a fish. However, when I suggest that a fish might have evolved from a monkey you baulk at this idea. You can only see evolution going one way...ie from a fish to a monkey. This suggests to me that a monkey is more complex than a fish. If it wasn't then evolution, which is directionless, should have the capacity to go both ways. Now if you suggested that a complex creature could evolve into a simpler creature where its very survival depended on it I might understand this. However, if I gave any example of this you would no doubt claim I was raving mad. I see huge holes in the logic being applied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
Only because the evidence shows that it happened the other way around.
However, when I suggest that a fish might have evolved from a monkey you baulk at this idea. You can only see evolution going one way...ie from a fish to a monkey.
Yes, the evidence only shows this.
This suggests to me that a monkey is more complex than a fish. If it wasn't then evolution, which is directionless, should have the capacity to go both ways.
It has, look at whales for example. Land animals "returning" to the sea. Of course, whales aren't fish, but it shows that evolution isn't bound to go in one driection.
Now if you suggested that a complex creature could evolve into a simpler creature where its very survival depended on it I might understand this. However, if I gave any example of this you would no doubt claim I was raving mad. I see huge holes in the logic being applied.
It's not about logic, it's about what the evidence shows. And the evidence shows that there were fish first, and monkeys later, there is no denying this.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024