Summations Only

Huntard writes: 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.

Not in all cases. The red colobus monkey is no longer. However, we still have fish in the sea. Does this mean that the red colobus has evolved into a form of fish?

Big_Al35 writes: Not in all cases. The red colobus monkey is no longer. However, we still have fish in the sea. Does this mean that the red colobus has evolved into a form of fish?

No. It's not about what is around today and what isn't. There were never monkeys before there were fish. Unless you can show evidence that monkeys evolved into fish, all you have is the evidence that fish evolved into monkeys. And until that time, saying that monkeys evolved into fish is not waranted by anything.

And until that time, saying that monkeys evolved into fish is not waranted by anything.

But clearly the red colobus monkey failed to adapt to the modern world. Its cousins, the fish, however have continued to thrive and demonstrated that they don't need this relics attributes or features. Surely, this is evolution in action. Survival of the fittest!

Big_Al35 writes: But clearly the red colobus monkey failed to adapt to the modern world.

Yes.

Its cousins, the fish, however have continued to thrive and demonstrated that they don't need this relics attributes or features.

Not in their environment, no. Put it in a tree, however, and I gurantee you it will die out more quickly than that monkey did.

Surely, this is evolution in action. Survival of the fittest!

Uhm yes. However, since the two envirnoments are so far apart, there's no real competition between the two, and so, comparing them is rather pointless. They either continue to adapt to their environment, or they go extinct, it's as simple as that.

But clearly the red colobus monkey failed to adapt to the modern world. Its cousins, the fish, however have continued to thrive and demonstrated that they don't need this relics attributes or features. Surely, this is evolution in action. Survival of the fittest!

You seem to be becoming a master of the non sequitur, What you have written here is in fact entirely correct, but has absolutely no connection to Huntard's point that the red colobus monkey was not an ancestor of modern fish just because it became extinct while modern fish survive. So the use of the word 'but' at the start of your post is confusing.

Of course you ignore the fact that many species of fish have also become extinct, clearly showing their evolutionary inferiority to all extant species of monkey,but then it wouldn't be cherry picking if you actually tried to accurately evaluate the evidence I guess.

TTFN,

WK

Big_Al35 writes: Surely, this is evolution in action. Survival of the fittest!

Huntard writes: Uhm yes.

I think this is clear evidence then that a monkey can evolve into a fish and that at least one has evolved into a fish.

Big_Al35 writes: I think this is clear evidence then that a monkey can evolve into a fish and that at least one has evolved into a fish.

I'm sorry what? Could you please explain to me how you reached that conclusion from anyhting I said?

Wounded King writes: Of course you ignore the fact that many species of fish have also become extinct, clearly showing their evolutionary inferiority to all extant species of monkey,but then it wouldn't be cherry picking if you actually tried to accurately evaluate the evidence I guess.

You use extinct fish to conclude that they evolved into monkeys. I am using an extinct monkey to conclude that it evolved into a fish. Same logic. Why should either conclusion be wrong.

Big_Al35 writes: You can only see evolution going one way...ie from a fish to a monkey.

That is because that is what the evidence shows. There were critters in the seas before there were any land critters.

It really is that simple.

Big_Al35 writes: 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.

And guess what. There are examples of critters becoming less complex as they evolve. Hell, even in humans you can see that. All of us Primates are becoming less complex, losing our tails as one obvious example.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Big_Al35 writes: You use extinct fish to conclude that they evolved into monkeys. I am using an extinct monkey to conclude that it evolved into a fish. Same logic. Why should either conclusion be wrong.

Because the evidence shows that there was life in the sea before there was life on land. It is not a matter of logic, it is a conclusion based on the evidence.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Things can evolve into simpler forms if this turns out to be better for them. There was a famous experiment conducted with the virus Q-beta, which in the wild normal has a genome length of about 4,500 base pairs, and which creates four different proteins to do its work. Scientists watched it evolve after putting it in environment which already contained the enzyme and the nutrients it needed to replicate itself. Without any necessicity to make any proteins to deal with the challenges it normally faced, the genome eventually reproduced to only a couple of hundred base pairs - not enough to make any proteins and about the minimum necessary to replicate itself. Simplicity was selected for rather than complexity.

The reason people balk at the idea of fish evolving from monkeys isn't because they don't believe animals can get simpler. It's because fish have been around for hundreds of millions of years, while monkeys don't appear in the fossil record until about 35 million years ago. For fish to have evolved from monkeys, there would have to have been monkeys around for about 500 million years without leaving any trace of their existence, monkeys which evolved from ancestors who also left no trace, and who evolved into fish without leaving any trace of animals transitional between fish and monkeys. And then, of course, the rest of the terrestrial verebrates would have somehow had to evolve so as to look exactly as if monkeys were one of them when they finally appear - fitting on neatly to the primate branch of the tree, even at the molecular level.

This is how we know fish never evolved from monkeys.

And guess what. There are examples of critters becoming less complex as they evolve.

I think Dr Adequate would disagree about the complexity issue. He's already stated that one species is not more complex than another. They are simply more adapted to their particular niche.

I do wish you scientists would at least maintain some meaningful set of rules or axioms whenever you discuss these topics. Are some species more complex than others or not?

You use extinct fish to conclude that they evolved into monkeys.

You seem confused. As Jar points out the key fact isn't that the fish are extinct, the key facts are when fish start to appear in the fossil record and their morphological features.

It isn't that the fish are extinct that means they are ancestral, it is their morphology and what we know of stratigraphy. Even if there was still an extant morphospecies identical to the putative latest common ancestor of fish and monkeys it wouldn't change the conclusions.

TTFN,

WK

Big_Al35 writes: jar writes: And guess what. There are examples of critters becoming less complex as they evolve. I think Dr Adequate would disagree about the complexity issue. He's already stated that one species is not more complex than another. They are simply more adapted to their particular niche. I do wish you scientists would at least maintain some meaningful set of rules or axioms whenever you discuss these topics. Are some species more complex than others or not?

I wish you would read what I write.

I gave you an example of one species becoming less complex. That has nothing to do with whether it is more or less complex then any other critter.

The point is that you are factually wrong in almost everything you post.

The evidence shows that there was life in the seas before life on land so the idea that fish evolved from monkeys is refuted.

The fact is that evolution can move from less complex to more complex or from more complex to less complex and so the idea that evolution is directional is refuted.

The question of whether some critter is more or less complex than another is not just irrelevant, it is silly; pretty much meaningless.

The evidence shows that as long as a critter is "just barely good enough to live long enough to reproduce" all is fine.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Wounded King writes: It isn't that the fish are extinct that means they are ancestral, it is their morphology and what we know of stratigraphy. Even if there was still an extant morphospecies identical to the putative latest common ancestor of fish and monkeys it wouldn't change the conclusions.

I appreciate that fish appear before monkeys in the rock layers. So there might be a living common ancestor for fish and monkeys right? Can't we track this down? DNA evidence should do the trick.