Summations Only

Message 106 of 450 (570352) 07-27-2010 7:32 AM

Reply to: Message 105 by Huntard 07-27-2010 7:15 AM

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?

Message 108 of 450 (570366) 07-27-2010 8:54 AM

Reply to: Message 107 by Huntard 07-27-2010 7:38 AM

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!

Message 110 of 450 (570372) 07-27-2010 9:08 AM

Reply to: Message 108 by Big_Al35 07-27-2010 8:54 AM

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

Message 111 of 450 (570376) 07-27-2010 9:18 AM

Reply to: Message 109 by Huntard 07-27-2010 9:05 AM

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.

Message 113 of 450 (570390) 07-27-2010 9:52 AM

Reply to: Message 110 by Wounded King 07-27-2010 9:08 AM

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.

Message 114 of 450 (570395) 07-27-2010 10:02 AM

Reply to: Message 104 by Big_Al35 07-27-2010 6:45 AM

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.

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.

Message 115 of 450 (570397) 07-27-2010 10:04 AM

Reply to: Message 113 by Big_Al35 07-27-2010 9:52 AM

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.

Message 116 of 450 (570400) 07-27-2010 10:09 AM

Reply to: Message 104 by Big_Al35 07-27-2010 6:45 AM

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.

Message 117 of 450 (570407) 07-27-2010 10:15 AM

Reply to: Message 114 by jar 07-27-2010 10:02 AM

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?

Message 118 of 450 (570408) 07-27-2010 10:16 AM

Reply to: Message 113 by Big_Al35 07-27-2010 9:52 AM

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

Message 119 of 450 (570410) 07-27-2010 10:39 AM

Reply to: Message 117 by Big_Al35 07-27-2010 10:15 AM

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.

Message 120 of 450 (570413) 07-27-2010 10:48 AM

Reply to: Message 118 by Wounded King 07-27-2010 10:16 AM

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.