Im not too sure on what you meant on the Bhagavad Gita part. Are you suggesting that the creation account of the Bhagavad Gita more accurately fits the available evidence we have?
"Evolution is an aspect of population mechanics. So when studying that aspect of biology, you find that those qualifiers were already applied in the lessons, and you quickly discover the reasons why they are applied, and why seven individual animals cannot constitute a biological population even if it does equate to a geological population."
However, I found this to be more in depth and correct, and certainly not confirmation of what Aron Ra said previously
" At least three different effective population sizes have been identified in literature: the inbreeding effective size, the variance effective size, and the effective size for random loss of alleles (L.Laikre & N.Ryman, Effects of intraspecific biodiversity from harvesting and enhancing natural populations, AMBIO 25(8), 1996)."
Hmm, one thing I need a bit of clearing up on is; "you can never outgrow your ancestry"
But mammals come from a form of reptiles according to evolution, yet mammals are no longer reptiles, though our ancestors laid eggs - how do I tally those two?
And how do I explain this to creationists who use this as their "one kind turning in to another kind" ?
@blazereef "human could be born with, or maybe gills"
yes, intereting. The cladist phylogenist tells us that we cannot scientifically talk about "fish". We are fish, he says, but not scientifically; we'd be talking like laymen, non scientifically, in the vulgar mode.
. We're Sarcopterygeans.
So looking up THAT, on a cladist site, we see it defined THUSLY
tail; yes. sometimes children are born with tails. if the child is healthy enough this tail gets cut off days (sometimes just hours) after birth.
but gills; no. thats to complex to just reappear. the dna for this is gone. the part that going to be the gills on fish embryos transformes to the inner ear on humans (and other lung breathers).
So if a child would redevelope gills they would be inside his head. he still had to breath trough his lungs and would be deaf.
@ProcInc "My stipulation always remained the same from the beginning based on the context. Ancestry."
False. You said you would entertain bowls and cups analogy, knowing full well that there is no biological inheritance or adaptation. However, when you reached the end of your rope, you no longer will entertain it.
Now you claim that you will not entertain it, * for a reason that was ALREADY put aside*.
@pointyhead1 bowls and cups do not have the same rulesof identity as biota.
As I explained you # can# apply the same system to crockery if it will help you understand. You are treating my generosity as admissions of some sort. Its not honest
We are eukarya like our ancestor and fish like our more recent ancestor. W have all the traits indicative of both still. That is what you wanted to know and if you understand how evolution works you don't need me to explain to you why
@ProcInc "bowls and cups do not have the same rulesof identity as biota." sure they do. This is exemplified by the fact that for both, they cannot be their own precursor. However, they can be same type.
That goes for bowls and bulls.
You got all excited and quit wen I would not say that teacups are bowls. that humans are fish.
That''s where your error lies.
Teacups are not bowls, they are niot their precursors, but theyare same type of thing.
@pointyhead1 Oh no, I don;t htink he'd be one, that after getting a clear and firm explanation, would take the route of the sleveen or common ganef :)
"Scientificially we know we are very different species that cannot breed together."
We aren't the same species of any modern fish but modern fish aren't the same species as other modern fish so your point is moot. DId you believe all fish can interbreed?
"Scientifically we know that Homo Sapiens is not a fish. Either branch."
Homo Sapiens are on the sarcopterygii branch, the branch of lobe-finned fish. We are also on the osteicthyes branch, the branch for bony fish
@pointyhead1 " they cannot be their own precursor."
All I meant by that is you can't literally be your own grandfather. Now that I understand what you meant when you confusingly said "your own precursor" I unbegrudgingly agree that by your definition we are in fact our own precursor.
If you say teacups are not bowls then you need to point out why. I did point out the difference and how when we analyse that the labels are nothing more than arbitrary.
Once changed sufficiently that we no linger call an item by the name of it's precursor, it's simply wrong to do so.
This is your error. Listen carefully.
You shift fields during speech and take a scientific finding of branching, and then say all modified items ARE the precursor. They're not. they're teh same type.
Not Type "Bowl", however. Both are Type: Feeding Utensil.
@pointyhead1 "Once changed sufficiently that we no linger call an item by the name of it's precursor, it's simply wrong to do so."
By your logic we should no longer be called mammals because our original mammalian ancestor was a small, furry noctural quadruped.
Crockery isn't heredity, the rules can be changed any time. You can apply the rules together if you want but that is subjective and unscentific and to be accurate we need a more rigid set of rules
@pointyhead1 "You shift fields during speech and take a scientific finding of branching, and then say all modified items ARE the precursor. They're not. they're teh same type."
I always said they are the same type.
"fish" is said type. That's why we are fish. If you agree that we are the same type as our ancestor then you would agree that we are fish.
That doesn't change the fact we are humans. Humans are apes, monkeys, mammals, fish and eukaryotes all at the same time.
"So you need to ask yourself "what "type" are fish ?"
that's the type both fish and human are."
I already answered this. The fish type is osteoicthyes, unless you want to inclue sharks in which case it's gnathostomes and if you want to include hagfish its craniate.
Humans belong to all these grousp but there is no phylogenetic group that "fish" belong to at the exclusion of humans.
@pointyhead1 "why would you include sharks or hagfishes ? It's you doing this, not I, remember."
I'm saying some people might choose to, some might not. It depends on your arbitrary definition of 'fish'. Ultimately it doesn't matter since humans belong to each type I outlined.
"You've categorically given that up, I hope ?"
What do you mean? Your question was "are we fish phylogenetically speaking" and the answer always will be yes as I explained.
Let me explain it once more and you can tell me exactly where you disagree.
Humans and trouts etc share an ancestor, it was a fish and our precursor. We aren't that precursor now, we descended from it. We aren't a trout either. One of the lines of descent from the fish led to tetrapods. Tetrapods are therefore a subset of fish and the term 'fish' applied monophyletically applies to us. We also have every trait all "fish" have in common *collectively*
@ProcInc "Let me explain it once more and you can tell me exactly where you disagree."
You can choose to call trouts, salmon, eels and sturgeons fish to the exclusion of humans if you want but phylogenetically that is incorrect.
You are merely giving them labels the same way you would give inanimate objects labels. That's fair enough for convience and layman's terms but your question was.
"3. Doesn't that make them "still fish", phylogenetically speaking?"
@pointyhead1 "Hono sapiens certainly are not fish. You;re taking liberties with the science."
Taking libeties with the sciences would be to arbitrarily designate a different label despite the circumstances laid out for us.
That's what I'm saying. You have the right to take the liberty of saying humans are not fish in layman's terms but if you want to speak phylogentically and be objective about it then if fish is to mean anything at all it is to include us.
@pointyhead1 "Scientifically we cannot be said to be fish."
The only way that this sentence has any truth behindit is by acknowledging that scientifically nothing can be said to be a fish. To be scientific one has to be objective and consistent and the term "fish" is neither.
It changes based on people's preferences so we need a more taxonomic system, that system is phylogeny/cladistics.
Within this system if our ancestors can be labelled as fish then so should we be
"Within this system if our ancestors can be labelled as fish then so should we be"
for bowls and teacups, they can both be labeled as crockery or chinaware or feed utenils or decorations on the mantle
However, if you are unaware of your positioning you might offer as foolish a statement as saying your teacup is a bowl. You could say it is a piece of crockery, a utensil, a chinaware piece. Just as a bowl would be.
"for bowls and teacups, they can both be labeled as crockery or chinaware or feed utenils or decorations on the mantle"
So it makes no sense to label these items the same way we would label animals.
You should never have used this analogy, it was foolish. I should never have tried to humour you with it because as much as it works in terms of form defining label you had it set in your mind already.
It doesn't matter anyway because phylogeny only applies to that which evolved
@pointyhead1 "By sliding between fields, you fouled yourself."
I haven't changed fields except when you forced me to by inappropriately mixing nonliving things into the mix.
You don't understand me, you are scientifically illiterate. As soon as you acknowledge and define the meaning of "paraphyly" we can finish this but you refuse to.
You said that ichthyology determines fishhood but that is polyphyletic.
So it means that your definition of fish is subjective and mine is objective.
That's all that had to be established.
Your definition of fish excludes us by definition. But if you define us by either our ancestry or by the traits that incorperate all of today's fish (or by both) we are fish.
In every situations I differentiate the two for clarity but the way you originally defined it demanded that we be referred to as fish.
"you are trying to cover everything with 2 D cladism."
In oppose to...3D cladism?
Cladism can only deal with real and objective terms. It renders terms like "reptiles" and "fish" useless because they depends on exceptions instead of rules.
So I'm not trying to cover everything, only everything that is real.
After all, you do acknowledge we descended from what you would call a fish, right? Please answer this question
@ProcInc you insist that cladismnm is free from subjectivity, means you KNOW NOTHING.
there is no pylogenic study you can show, not one, that has only form or pattern, not process, as it's interest. You are totally ignorant where you think you know something.
"Cladistics originated in the work of the German entomologist Willi Hennig.... The technique and sometimes the name have been successfully applied in other disciplines: for example, to determine the relationships between the surviving manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales.[4]"
you see, you were obstinately focused on your own interests, while crossing boundaries.
@ProcInc " you quoted an entirely irrelevent piece of text to anything that was covered."
False. The quote was talking about the fact that the notions and methods used in biological studies can be very similarly used with non biological items...such as teacups or manuscripts.
You seem to be grossly ignorant of this facet.
I doubt there is anything of import that you understand about this topic that I do not.
@ProcInc 'I haven't changed fields except when you forced me to by inappropriately mixing nonliving things into the mix.'
but now you admit manuscripts are OK subjects, , because I show an AUTHORITY TELLS YOU that you're a loser on that argument ...you're wrong aain. so you flip once more on the subject, but still insist that you're still right :).
@pointyhead1 out doesn't need to be "admitted" manuscripts work because they can be arranged in a way cups can't. Even dawkins explains this in in his 2004 book.
You claim you aren't a creationist. Confirm your acceptance that fish are or ancestor and I'll explain patiently the simple facts from there and cut through the deadweight you are obstructing progress with
@ProcInc You are so indocrinated that you believe that only if one believes fish are an ancestor is one free from the taint of being a creationist.
how odd.
No mistake is possible in teh figerrins !
Noted that he has claimed that it's all about form, not fuinction.
yet he denies teh analogy credibility because of function, not form considerations. Since dups are not biological in reproduction, therefore they do not count as having form.
@ProcInc Your mind is too wretchedly indoctinated, to understand that the analogy was never intended to show how cups are produced, it was strictly to show thinking and conventions on naming items. Names and form - not how items are sometimes used.
Idiotically, one early response from P{rocinc was that people drink from bowls too...a function/usage argument. iDIOTIC RESPONSES.
Just to reflect on the inanity Procinq displays: imagine the burden of indoctrination he is labouring under....he demands again and again that I must declare whether or not I believe that one of our ancestors is "fish " .....
....( a name for creatures that has NO SCIENTIFIC MEANING - according to himself, the one doing the demanding )
Let's look back to see what caused him to get excited. I was showing him that populations often show more variance within groups than between groups.
The kind of examples used make zero difference to the concept of "variance within group, and between".
Biological:
Look at height in "Black" vs "White" people. There are huge height differences amongst Whites and huge height differences amongst Blacks. So White and Black are SIMILAR in that respect.
so far, based on the evidence (or rather the lack of), all 'gods' seem to be on the same level of existence as any thought, which only resides in the mind of those who think that thought & are only as 'real' as the thought itself.
@XGralgrathor yes, he spoke about it from page 30 to page 19.
like this
"Evolution is an aspect of population mechanics. So when studying that aspect of biology, you find that those qualifiers were already applied in the lessons, and you quickly discover the reasons why they are applied, and why seven individual animals cannot constitute a biological population even if it does equate to a geological population."
@Nerusai I realize that humans are not aquatic. You are missing the point of my question.
Aron explained that humans are apes because they descend from a creature that modern apes descend from and that creature was an ape too. My point is: Humans share a common ancestor with modern fish, and THAT ANCESTOR WAS A FISH ... wasn't it?
And if we are part of a clade that is fully descended from something that was definitely a fish, doesn't that mean we are just extremely mutated fish?
Humans share a common ancestor with anything alive in the way you depict. I don't understand where you're trying to go with this?
Humans share a common ancestor with chimpansees. Lets call this common ancestor X. This X shared a common ancestor with monkeys. Lets call this ancestor Y. Y shared a common ancestor with ... and so on.
And yes, in a way we are very changed fish. We go through a fish embryonal stage for that matter.
The traits of organisms include their metabolic processes... so evolution would predict that higher lifeforms would share metabolic pathways with extremely primitive life... Your cells burn sugar for fuel, but more importantly, your cells burn sugar using the exact same metabolic process and enzymes that allow yeast to do the same thing.
So... we aren't just extremely mutated fish, those fish are extremely mutated yeast.
As primitive forms diverged into gradually more complex forms, each form that diverged shared the essential legacy traits that allowed a common basic set of cellular processes. It is a road map, back through each divergence. It is exactly what we would expect to see in evolution from simple to complex.
If you substitute the word "evolved" for the word "mutated" then. You only need to admit tiny changes in the genome in any particular speciation. Micro changes over very long periods of time. So, yeast did not turn into fish directly, nor did fish turn into homo sap directly, but by tiny incremental steps.
@pointyhead1 "but having all the traits of the group that makes something an ape or a fish."
We have all the traits indicitive of fish. Namely a notocord and pharyngeal arches. We usually attribute aquatic breathing gills and scales etc to indicative of the fish group however that is not necessarily the case.
Remember that "fish" is paraphyletic as members of the chordata clade that aren't tetrapods. That's why even today there are fish closer allied with us than other fish
@pointyhead1 ironically, not only do I have fins (limbs are a variant of fins) but find are not an indicative trait of fish because not all fish have them.
@ProcInc You're offering a slightly untruthful statement...you say we have gills , but we do not. First you make gills and arches the same thing, which they are not.
no, I said we have pharyngeal arches, like fish have to support their gills. Some tetrapods do. There is no definitive fin and there is too fine a grade to disqualify limbs. Remember that the find of some fish are more like that of tetrapods than teleosts.
@ProcInc Here you speak about fins that are more like tetrapod fins. However, quite small differences can delineate onw speicies from another. Certainly differences smaller than what you are doing...classing human arm with fish fin. "Our fins".
Nope. Not as long as you would insist that clades and species and genera are differentiated by much less.
@pointyhead1 tetrapods can have gills and fish can have lungs.fin has no definitive definition and even if it did not all fish have fins anyway
In short, silly creationist oversimplification of informal taxa fails. To group all fish together we must include tetrapods since we are a subset of sarcopterygii.
@ProcInc I'm interested in your opinion on what the ontogenic relationships are,amongst "lungs, gills, and pharyngeal arches" in fishes, and in humans.
humans and fish both both have pharyngeal arches. In fish they scaffold the gills and in humans they form a number of structures you can look up. Lungs are something completely diifferent that both fish and a tetrapods can have (some tetrapods still have gills too) fish and humans have the same pharyngeal structure in early embronic stages. they are not gills for either the humans NOR fish at this stage
@ProcInc What is really odd is that you have distanced yourself from reality so much through indoctrination, that you forget that everyone knows what is not a fish.
no, you simply don't understand simple rules of taxonomy. Fish is paraphyletic so definition we are excluded but from an objective point of view we and fish must be grouped together if all fish are to be grouped together because tetrapods are are a subset of fish.
This isn'ta matter of indoctrination. It is merely your inability and unwillimg to comprehend phyletics. Im not giving my opinion, im telling you the facts that can be demonstrated
Because we can't be our own ancestor. We belong to the same group as the original life form. "Fish" is an arbitrary term constructed in hindsight. We can demonstrate we descended from fish and that you can't group together fish without including us so saying we are or are not fish is entirely irrelevent to anythign I have been saying.
@ProcInc You're the fool if you do not realize that wehen you change fields that you cannot maintain your previous associtions with terms.
You'd surely be the Compleat Idiot to go to court on muder charges and claim that it's actually a hunting fishing game licensing issue. "It was only a fish, Your Honour".
If they don;t like that answer, then claim that no scientific paper ever has shown that any fish ever was capable of planning murders and firing a shotgun.
I already said that if you bothered to quote me entirely. They are as dissimilar as two osteichhyes can be but their similarities still exceed the the differences.
Just as the similarities between sarcopterygiian fish and tetrapods exceed the similarities between actinopteryigiian fish and sarcopterygiian fish.
@ProcInc If we do not stop at "fish", then why not go much further...it makes absolutely no difference to your argument's viability, whether or not you say "we cannot be our ancestor". You can call it whatever you desire to call it.
My argument remains. If we are fish then we can take it back further to the first organism and say we are it.
Once everything is seen as "THE SAME TYPE", it's MEANINGLESS.
@ProcInc I would say that the problem you face is that your approach is a negative approach compared to and in some kind of contradiction to, your tools and your basis for discussion.
You see, investigation here depends on differences, not similarities.
You're poiting to similarity in difference whereas to make more sense a round, you need to point to differences, as that's the real goal in "differentiation" of anything.
@ProcInc I think that in view of the fact that I'm currently investigating the relative merits of morphometric mapping, Procrustes Analyses, and so on, that I can understand you and am willing to investigate.
We are not fish.
You need to show that we are fish, not that we're grouped together.
@pointyhead1 "You need to show that we are fish, not that we're grouped together."
What's the difference?
The only way to incorperate all fish together so the term has any meaning but also exclude tetrapods is to specifically define it as "any chordate that isn't a tetrapod".
In that sense we aren't fish because we arbitrarily made it such. My point is that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that we descended from what we would identify as a fish and the group 'fish' must include us
@ProcInc Here's where you're making your error. The word "fish" is far older than tetrapod, teleost, or any of your words, so it's not tacked on after.
I have no idea how you can claim it was tacked on in hindsight.
We descended from an organism , of course. But that you would insist that we have fins is incredible - just as to claim that we are fish is incredible.
The recent book is entitled "Your Inner fish "... It's like "Your Inner Guitar", "Your Inner Child" etc etc.
"In 1933 Adolf Hitler commissioned Dr. Ferdinand Porsche to develop a cheap car that could get 40 miles per gallon of gas and provide a reliable form of transportation for the average German family. The result was the VW Beetle. This history, Hitler's plan, places constraints on the ways we can modify the Beetle today; the engineering can be tweaked only so far... before.. problems arise... reaches its limit."
Why can't you define fish? Or fins? I have asked several times and given the reason why you can't objectively separate the two. Why can't you make the case otherwise? Fish is in only a term in hindsight of the lineages splitting. It is now a ndefinition of no objective meaning
you admit definitions are fuzzy and they're are exceptions. So just like I said it is folly to say humans are not fish because fish has no definition.
And cups are not modified bowls...
You are trying very hard to play dumb, you seem to be succeeding.
entertaining the statement that cups are modified bowls. cups and bowls have no phylogeny so your analogy is moot. Some cultures in fact do drink tea from bowls.
Ignoring that, things are defined phylogenetically by form and not function.
@ProcInc "entertaining the statement that cups are modified bowls. cups and bowls have no phylogeny so your analogy is moot. [/quote] No, your argument is nullified, as it doesn;t need to be phylogeny to be analogy. In fact, with analogy, there must be a difference...you're missing "difference" again, and looking only for similarity.
"Some cultures in fact do drink tea from bowls" See ?.
Ignoring that, things are defined phylogenetically by form and not function.
@pointyhead1 differences doesn't work because there are far more differenes within "fish" as your designated group as there are between tetrapods and their closest extant "fish“ relatives.
@ProcInc "differences doesn't work because there are far more differenes within "fish" as your designated group as there are between tetrapods and their closest extant "fish“ relatives."
Here you clearly do not understand the logic of the science.
i.e there can be much more variance WITHIN populations than BETWEEN populations.
A species could display remarkable homogeneity overall, and yet have VERY wide variances within each group. All the groups could have the same big variance. See ?
@pointyhead1 "i.e there can be much more variance WITHIN populations than BETWEEN populations"
I'm not talking about populations, I'm talking about entire groups.
I understand the logic of the science perfectly well whereas you are stuck with not knowing what paraphyly is and comparing living things with cups and bowls.
You're just a silly creationist trying to play with jargon. Homogenuity is not relevent to what I have been discussing.
Comment removed
BlackHoleBird 4 months ago
Im not too sure on what you meant on the Bhagavad Gita part. Are you suggesting that the creation account of the Bhagavad Gita more accurately fits the available evidence we have?
bigredphenom 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigredphenom
I think he's pointing out that even if a fable comes into line with reality, it isn't necessarily true.
thissystemneeds 1 month ago
Thank gawd for AronRa!
sonykroket 8 months ago
check out menvall blog
Joeses15 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AronRa said:
"Evolution is an aspect of population mechanics. So when studying that aspect of biology, you find that those qualifiers were already applied in the lessons, and you quickly discover the reasons why they are applied, and why seven individual animals cannot constitute a biological population even if it does equate to a geological population."
continued
pointyhead1 1 year ago
However, I found this to be more in depth and correct, and certainly not confirmation of what Aron Ra said previously
" At least three different effective population sizes have been identified in literature: the inbreeding effective size, the variance effective size, and the effective size for random loss of alleles (L.Laikre & N.Ryman, Effects of intraspecific biodiversity from harvesting and enhancing natural populations, AMBIO 25(8), 1996)."
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@Demonyk1 yes, that's about the size of it. it's a meaningless term as most often used.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Hmm, one thing I need a bit of clearing up on is; "you can never outgrow your ancestry"
But mammals come from a form of reptiles according to evolution, yet mammals are no longer reptiles, though our ancestors laid eggs - how do I tally those two?
And how do I explain this to creationists who use this as their "one kind turning in to another kind" ?
Thank in advance if you answer :)..
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor pay attention to AronRa.
You see, an automobile is a piece of furniture.
It has all the qualities of a chair..every one of them.
The car never outgrew it's furniture ancestry
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
TeresielMF 1 year ago
i always wondered if that could happen with an atavism, i wonder how good a tail a human could be born with, or maybe gills
blazereef 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blazereef "human could be born with, or maybe gills"
yes, intereting. The cladist phylogenist tells us that we cannot scientifically talk about "fish". We are fish, he says, but not scientifically; we'd be talking like laymen, non scientifically, in the vulgar mode.
. We're Sarcopterygeans.
So looking up THAT, on a cladist site, we see it defined THUSLY
"Sarcopterygii
The lobe-finned fishes & terrestrial vertebrates"
har har har
what joke.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 i thought there would be a problem with the gills but web feet and a tail would be cool :D
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef
tail; yes. sometimes children are born with tails. if the child is healthy enough this tail gets cut off days (sometimes just hours) after birth.
but gills; no. thats to complex to just reappear. the dna for this is gone. the part that going to be the gills on fish embryos transformes to the inner ear on humans (and other lung breathers).
So if a child would redevelope gills they would be inside his head. he still had to breath trough his lungs and would be deaf.
Y0ts0 1 year ago
"These are precursors from a human design context, not from the context of descent that is bound by the laws of evolution"
Ah, now they are precursors but you have moved the goalposts by giving a new stipulation on what a precursor must be, for my analogy.
Your false reply is excruciatatingly made plain by the fact that you feel entitlted to use my "non- functional" analogy to say it makes your point !
Have your cake and eat it too ?
hehehe, that's a sad sad state of affairs.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Ah, now they are precursors but you have moved the goalposts by giving a new stipulation on what a precursor must be, for my analogy."
My stipulation always remained the same from the beginning based on the context. Ancestry.
We were talking about phylogeny, about our taxonomic grouping and about our labelling based on common traits.
None of that applies to bowls but does apply to fish and humans and shows how we are phylogenetically fish.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "My stipulation always remained the same from the beginning based on the context. Ancestry."
False. You said you would entertain bowls and cups analogy, knowing full well that there is no biological inheritance or adaptation. However, when you reached the end of your rope, you no longer will entertain it.
Now you claim that you will not entertain it, * for a reason that was ALREADY put aside*.
That's what happened.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "you feel entitlted to use my "non- functional" analogy to say it makes your point !"
The the point the analogy works, it works for me. You can't justify it working for you.
Your argument was that "cups aren't bowls therefore humans aren't fish" I pointed out the two problems with that .
1. That cups and bowls are manufactured while humans and fish are evolved
2. That cups are in fact bowls according to your definition of "precursor"
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Your argument was that "cups aren't bowls therefore humans aren't fish" I pointed out the two problems with that "
I did not argue what you claim I argued. Therefore your 2 supposed responses are not replies.
I said that something cannot be it's own precursor.
1/ You said it was NOT a precursor.
2/ then admitted it WAS a precursor.
2/ just not a biological precursor
However, as a given, having biological processes had already been put aside on cups'n'bowls.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Pointy, the funny thing is that whether or not he entertains your analogy, his argument in no way invalidates your statement that :
"One cannot be one's own precursor"
He said it himself. You can't be your ancestor.
How 'bout that for tying one's self into knots ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
I already explained what I meant by that.
I'm trying my best to be patient with you and explain what different words but now you are taking to yourself on the second person.
I don't know if your simply ignorant or poe or a schizo but phylogenetically you are a fish
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
" I already explained what I meant by that."
Well, all you have to do then, is to use the same explanation on teacups/n/bowls. Same Same
You have moved the goalposts with regard to the analogy.
Something cannot be it's own precursor. However, you can be same type of thing. Same Same
"I don't know if your simply ignorant or poe or a schizo but phylogenetically you are a fish".
Should be : "I don't know if you're simply...."
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 bowls and cups do not have the same rulesof identity as biota.
As I explained you # can# apply the same system to crockery if it will help you understand. You are treating my generosity as admissions of some sort. Its not honest
We are eukarya like our ancestor and fish like our more recent ancestor. W have all the traits indicative of both still. That is what you wanted to know and if you understand how evolution works you don't need me to explain to you why
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "bowls and cups do not have the same rulesof identity as biota." sure they do. This is exemplified by the fact that for both, they cannot be their own precursor. However, they can be same type.
That goes for bowls and bulls.
You got all excited and quit wen I would not say that teacups are bowls. that humans are fish.
That''s where your error lies.
Teacups are not bowls, they are niot their precursors, but theyare same type of thing.
Same idea for biota.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Oh no, I don;t htink he'd be one, that after getting a clear and firm explanation, would take the route of the sleveen or common ganef :)
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
"Scientificially we know we are very different species that cannot breed together."
We aren't the same species of any modern fish but modern fish aren't the same species as other modern fish so your point is moot. DId you believe all fish can interbreed?
"Scientifically we know that Homo Sapiens is not a fish. Either branch."
Homo Sapiens are on the sarcopterygii branch, the branch of lobe-finned fish. We are also on the osteicthyes branch, the branch for bony fish
ProcInc 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 " they cannot be their own precursor."
All I meant by that is you can't literally be your own grandfather. Now that I understand what you meant when you confusingly said "your own precursor" I unbegrudgingly agree that by your definition we are in fact our own precursor.
If you say teacups are not bowls then you need to point out why. I did point out the difference and how when we analyse that the labels are nothing more than arbitrary.
So teacups *are* bowls (with handles)
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Once changed sufficiently that we no linger call an item by the name of it's precursor, it's simply wrong to do so.
This is your error. Listen carefully.
You shift fields during speech and take a scientific finding of branching, and then say all modified items ARE the precursor. They're not. they're teh same type.
Not Type "Bowl", however. Both are Type: Feeding Utensil.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Once changed sufficiently that we no linger call an item by the name of it's precursor, it's simply wrong to do so."
By your logic we should no longer be called mammals because our original mammalian ancestor was a small, furry noctural quadruped.
Crockery isn't heredity, the rules can be changed any time. You can apply the rules together if you want but that is subjective and unscentific and to be accurate we need a more rigid set of rules
ProcInc 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "You shift fields during speech and take a scientific finding of branching, and then say all modified items ARE the precursor. They're not. they're teh same type."
I always said they are the same type.
"fish" is said type. That's why we are fish. If you agree that we are the same type as our ancestor then you would agree that we are fish.
That doesn't change the fact we are humans. Humans are apes, monkeys, mammals, fish and eukaryotes all at the same time.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "I always said they are the same type." Of course, we both said that. ..but you wouldn't accept that I say it too.
However, humans are not fish.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc "If you agree that we are the same type as our ancestor then you would agree that we are fish."
Wrong. the type is not "fish" for either.
Even fish are not "type fish".
pointyhead1 1 year ago
So you need to ask yourself "what "type" are fish ?"
that's the type both fish and human are.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
"So you need to ask yourself "what "type" are fish ?"
that's the type both fish and human are."
I already answered this. The fish type is osteoicthyes, unless you want to inclue sharks in which case it's gnathostomes and if you want to include hagfish its craniate.
Humans belong to all these grousp but there is no phylogenetic group that "fish" belong to at the exclusion of humans.
You have to be paraphyletic i.e. take a liberty
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc why would you include sharks or hagfishes ? It's you doing this, not I, remember.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "why would you include sharks or hagfishes ? It's you doing this, not I, remember."
I'm saying some people might choose to, some might not. It depends on your arbitrary definition of 'fish'. Ultimately it doesn't matter since humans belong to each type I outlined.
"You've categorically given that up, I hope ?"
What do you mean? Your question was "are we fish phylogenetically speaking" and the answer always will be yes as I explained.
What is YOUR definition of fish?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "What do you mean? Your question was "are we fish phylogenetically speaking?"
Can you remind me where I asked that ? I denied that we are fish, and still do, of course.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
"Can you remind me where I asked that ?"
my mistake, it appears another user with a similar name asked it earlier.
Your statement was "having all the traits of the group that makes something an ape or a fish." as I pointed out by this set of rules we are fish.
As are we fish phylogenetically speaking.
If you give your personal definition of fish I can answer it appropriately but under the criteria I understood you to give, we are
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc "What is YOUR definition of fish?"
"What the Science of Ichthyology examines." :)
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pointyhead1 ""What is YOUR definition of fish?"
"What the Science of Ichthyology examines." :)"
That's not a definition, that's a qualifier for a potential definition.
It begs the question of how do ichthyologists define fish. Answer me that and then I can evaluate appropriately
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Same with "intelligence quotient" ...it is what IQ tests test for.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Now at least you are not insisting that we are fish. Baby steps.
You've categorically given that up, I hope ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
Let me explain it once more and you can tell me exactly where you disagree.
Humans and trouts etc share an ancestor, it was a fish and our precursor. We aren't that precursor now, we descended from it. We aren't a trout either. One of the lines of descent from the fish led to tetrapods. Tetrapods are therefore a subset of fish and the term 'fish' applied monophyletically applies to us. We also have every trait all "fish" have in common *collectively*
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "Let me explain it once more and you can tell me exactly where you disagree."
You can choose to call trouts, salmon, eels and sturgeons fish to the exclusion of humans if you want but phylogenetically that is incorrect.
You are merely giving them labels the same way you would give inanimate objects labels. That's fair enough for convience and layman's terms but your question was.
"3. Doesn't that make them "still fish", phylogenetically speaking?"
the answer is yes.
ProcInc 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc
It is you who are chosoosing to place the unusual labels, not I.
You say humans are fish. Wrong
Hono sapiens certainly are not fish. You;re taking liberties with the science.
Please show the text saying humans are fish so I can laugh.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Hono sapiens certainly are not fish. You;re taking liberties with the science."
Taking libeties with the sciences would be to arbitrarily designate a different label despite the circumstances laid out for us.
That's what I'm saying. You have the right to take the liberty of saying humans are not fish in layman's terms but if you want to speak phylogentically and be objective about it then if fish is to mean anything at all it is to include us.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Scientifically we cannot be said to be fish.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Scientifically we cannot be said to be fish."
The only way that this sentence has any truth behindit is by acknowledging that scientifically nothing can be said to be a fish. To be scientific one has to be objective and consistent and the term "fish" is neither.
It changes based on people's preferences so we need a more taxonomic system, that system is phylogeny/cladistics.
Within this system if our ancestors can be labelled as fish then so should we be
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
"Within this system if our ancestors can be labelled as fish then so should we be"
for bowls and teacups, they can both be labeled as crockery or chinaware or feed utenils or decorations on the mantle
However, if you are unaware of your positioning you might offer as foolish a statement as saying your teacup is a bowl. You could say it is a piece of crockery, a utensil, a chinaware piece. Just as a bowl would be.
Same deal.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
"for bowls and teacups, they can both be labeled as crockery or chinaware or feed utenils or decorations on the mantle"
So it makes no sense to label these items the same way we would label animals.
You should never have used this analogy, it was foolish. I should never have tried to humour you with it because as much as it works in terms of form defining label you had it set in your mind already.
It doesn't matter anyway because phylogeny only applies to that which evolved
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Now you're getting closer to the truth. By sliding between fields, you fouled yourself.
You're speakig in terms of classifications and phylogeny together. You talk about species and you even talk about "fish".
Scientifically we are not fish.
Phylogenically you say we are fish, but that is incorrect.
this is all due to your "selling" of your field of interest, your indoctrinated surfeit.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "By sliding between fields, you fouled yourself."
I haven't changed fields except when you forced me to by inappropriately mixing nonliving things into the mix.
You don't understand me, you are scientifically illiterate. As soon as you acknowledge and define the meaning of "paraphyly" we can finish this but you refuse to.
You said that ichthyology determines fishhood but that is polyphyletic.
You acknowledge we descended from fish, right?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
It's not that I am ignorant, but that you are indoctrinated to see our 2-d cladism as correct.
thus you venture into other fields, and mix talk of species into your gibberings..
once you venture to talk about species, you are in error.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc
It's not that I am ignorant, but that you are indoctrinated to see your 2-d cladism as correct.
thus you venture into other fields, and mix talk of species into your gibberings..
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc "You said that ichthyology determines fishhood but that is polyphyletic."
so what ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pointyhead1 "so what ?"
So it means that your definition of fish is subjective and mine is objective.
That's all that had to be established.
Your definition of fish excludes us by definition. But if you define us by either our ancestry or by the traits that incorperate all of today's fish (or by both) we are fish.
In every situations I differentiate the two for clarity but the way you originally defined it demanded that we be referred to as fish.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "You don't understand me, you are scientifically illiterate. "
No, you confused issues for yourself by insisting that something cannot be it's precursor.
when I turned that on you , and you quite once you realized the analogy was not going your way.
I'm still free to go the reverse on you, and you still wil be stunned because you are trying to cover everything with 2 D cladism.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pointyhead1
"you are trying to cover everything with 2 D cladism."
In oppose to...3D cladism?
Cladism can only deal with real and objective terms. It renders terms like "reptiles" and "fish" useless because they depends on exceptions instead of rules.
So I'm not trying to cover everything, only everything that is real.
After all, you do acknowledge we descended from what you would call a fish, right? Please answer this question
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc you insist that cladismnm is free from subjectivity, means you KNOW NOTHING.
there is no pylogenic study you can show, not one, that has only form or pattern, not process, as it's interest. You are totally ignorant where you think you know something.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
"Cladistics originated in the work of the German entomologist Willi Hennig.... The technique and sometimes the name have been successfully applied in other disciplines: for example, to determine the relationships between the surviving manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales.[4]"
you see, you were obstinately focused on your own interests, while crossing boundaries.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "you see, you were obstinately focused on your own interests, while crossing boundaries."
I see what? you quoted an entirely irrelevent piece of text to anything that was covered.
Please answer the question. Do you acknowledge that we descended from something that you would refer to as a fish?
Once I see where your mind is at in regards to scientific facts I can establish where to go from to explain to you a taxonomic technicality
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc " you quoted an entirely irrelevent piece of text to anything that was covered."
False. The quote was talking about the fact that the notions and methods used in biological studies can be very similarly used with non biological items...such as teacups or manuscripts.
You seem to be grossly ignorant of this facet.
I doubt there is anything of import that you understand about this topic that I do not.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
it said "some". Manuscripts work but cups don't because manuscripts are replicated imperfectly while cups are made from scratch.
A,gain I doubt you don't understand this. You must be a creationist being wilfully obtuse.
You accept we descended from fish, right? Answer the question
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc 'ah, first it was one excuse, then another. First it was that innamimate objects do not follow naming rules same as biota.
When I show manuscripts, they're OK because of imperfect copying.
though you've ALSO SAID
that cups and bowls work for you, but not for me.
You're a lying sac of shit..
pointyhead1 1 year ago
it it really too hard to understand that the replication of manuscripts its done in such a way that classics works but bowlsand teacups do not?
Manuscripts are an exception due to them not being written from scratch each time.
Why would you conflate the two?
Why do you refuse toanswer my question? Am I right about you bring a creationist after all? it would certainly vindicate a lot
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc 'I haven't changed fields except when you forced me to by inappropriately mixing nonliving things into the mix.'
but now you admit manuscripts are OK subjects, , because I show an AUTHORITY TELLS YOU that you're a loser on that argument ...you're wrong aain. so you flip once more on the subject, but still insist that you're still right :).
How many different scams will you try ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 out doesn't need to be "admitted" manuscripts work because they can be arranged in a way cups can't. Even dawkins explains this in in his 2004 book.
You claim you aren't a creationist. Confirm your acceptance that fish are or ancestor and I'll explain patiently the simple facts from there and cut through the deadweight you are obstructing progress with
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc You are so indocrinated that you believe that only if one believes fish are an ancestor is one free from the taint of being a creationist.
how odd.
No mistake is possible in teh figerrins !
Noted that he has claimed that it's all about form, not fuinction.
yet he denies teh analogy credibility because of function, not form considerations. Since dups are not biological in reproduction, therefore they do not count as having form.
Inane blatherings.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc Your mind is too wretchedly indoctinated, to understand that the analogy was never intended to show how cups are produced, it was strictly to show thinking and conventions on naming items. Names and form - not how items are sometimes used.
Idiotically, one early response from P{rocinc was that people drink from bowls too...a function/usage argument. iDIOTIC RESPONSES.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
I thought so. You wanted to obfuscate this this as a much as possible and complicate the issue beyond comprehension.
All just to hide the fact you are a creationist.probably of the deistic brand that denotes the creationist status.
You should have come clean, itwould have saved me a lot of time.
Oh well, I'm done. Carry on cretard
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Just to reflect on the inanity Procinq displays: imagine the burden of indoctrination he is labouring under....he demands again and again that I must declare whether or not I believe that one of our ancestors is "fish " .....
....( a name for creatures that has NO SCIENTIFIC MEANING - according to himself, the one doing the demanding )
sublime.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
Pointy, isn't he behaving like a Scientologist ? The crazy accusations and demands, in place of cogent replies, are quite similar.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Kinda !
Let's look back to see what caused him to get excited. I was showing him that populations often show more variance within groups than between groups.
The kind of examples used make zero difference to the concept of "variance within group, and between".
Biological:
Look at height in "Black" vs "White" people. There are huge height differences amongst Whites and huge height differences amongst Blacks. So White and Black are SIMILAR in that respect.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc You repeatedly said that "fish" has no scientific meaning, no meaning in phylogeny. You fouled every statement that contained the word.
Yet when one goes to any site dealing with phylogeny or cladism, you see THIS as a description:
"Sarcopterygii
The lobe-finned fishes & terrestrial vertebrates"
double talking bastahds
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "this is all due to your "selling" of your field of interest, your indoctrinated surfeit."
Exactly what field is it you are referring to?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "this is all due to your "selling" of your field of interest, your indoctrinated surfeit."
Exactly what field is it you are referring to?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "You could say it is a piece of crockery, a utensil, a chinaware piece. Just as a bowl would be."
but bowls are not always chinaware etc.
The only way to define all bowls is by saying "a concave object". meaning concave objects with handles fit the criteria
That is to the extent the analogy works. You ignore this by insisting that by definition something can not be a teacup and a bowl at the same time
That's fine but it renders comparison to phylogeny entirely useless
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Teacups are not bowls, but could modify teacups to make bowls, alright :)
pointyhead1 1 year ago
^^^He looks like fricking Samson from the book of Judges.
supersmash43 1 year ago
is it too simple to just say "YOU ROCK!"
timrice666 1 year ago
SPACKlick is the English AronRa, in training.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
AronRa is God in human form.
VCMates 1 year ago
@VCMates the god of badassness.
viking977 1 year ago
"God is not a book."
Best sentence on Youtube.
dildace 1 year ago 13
@dildace
And Evolution is not an aspect of Population Mechanics...i.e a school subject or a TEXTBOOK, as Aaron says. Same error. Same answer; "No, it is not."
Population Mechanics does examine Evolution, but Evolution is not one of Aaron's texts.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 What?
dildace 1 year ago
@dildace Aron said that a population must have certain numbers that provide "sufficient" genetic diversity.
How THAT is determined is anyone's guess.
But Aron siad it'snot made up by him it;'s NATURE that says it.
bullshit. it's a condition imposed by study method.
Evolution is not a textbook and population is not a the study of population mechanics.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 What?
dildace 1 year ago
@dildace Huh ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@dildace
'god' might not be a book, but it is very much like a book that someone has thought about writing, but never did.
flashoftruth 1 year ago
@flashoftruth What?
dildace 1 year ago
@dildace
so far, based on the evidence (or rather the lack of), all 'gods' seem to be on the same level of existence as any thought, which only resides in the mind of those who think that thought & are only as 'real' as the thought itself.
flashoftruth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Aron is correct, that a group must meet a genetic diversity threshold before it can be called a population, THEN
If
1/ Evolution is change in allele frequency in a population over generations or over time
and
2/ A group does not meet Aron's requirements for "population status"
Then
NO EVOLUTION CAN OCCUR IN THAT GROUP
and so, quite easily, Aron's Evolutionary Theory teaching is FALSIFIED
pointyhead1 1 year ago
"that a group must meet a genetic diversity threshold before it can be called a population"
Could you point out where he said that?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor yes, he spoke about it from page 30 to page 19.
like this
"Evolution is an aspect of population mechanics. So when studying that aspect of biology, you find that those qualifiers were already applied in the lessons, and you quickly discover the reasons why they are applied, and why seven individual animals cannot constitute a biological population even if it does equate to a geological population."
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Aron is correct, that a group must meet a genetic diversity threshold before it can be called a population, THEN
If
1/ Evolution is change in allele frequency in a population over generations or over time
and
2/ A group does not meet Aron's requirements for "population status"
Then
NO EVOLUTION CAN OCCUR IN THAT GROUP
and so Aron's Evolutionary Theory teaching is FALSIFIED
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@Nerusai I realize that humans are not aquatic. You are missing the point of my question.
Aron explained that humans are apes because they descend from a creature that modern apes descend from and that creature was an ape too. My point is: Humans share a common ancestor with modern fish, and THAT ANCESTOR WAS A FISH ... wasn't it?
And if we are part of a clade that is fully descended from something that was definitely a fish, doesn't that mean we are just extremely mutated fish?
Superphilipp 1 year ago
@Superphilipp there is a bit of a difference though...we still have all the spedific ape characteristics but fish do not and never did.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@Superphilipp
Humans share a common ancestor with anything alive in the way you depict. I don't understand where you're trying to go with this?
Humans share a common ancestor with chimpansees. Lets call this common ancestor X. This X shared a common ancestor with monkeys. Lets call this ancestor Y. Y shared a common ancestor with ... and so on.
And yes, in a way we are very changed fish. We go through a fish embryonal stage for that matter.
Please note that fish is not a taxonomical class.
Nerusai 1 year ago
@Nerusai
The traits of organisms include their metabolic processes... so evolution would predict that higher lifeforms would share metabolic pathways with extremely primitive life... Your cells burn sugar for fuel, but more importantly, your cells burn sugar using the exact same metabolic process and enzymes that allow yeast to do the same thing.
So... we aren't just extremely mutated fish, those fish are extremely mutated yeast.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
@Nerusai
Just to make misinterpretation unlikely...
As primitive forms diverged into gradually more complex forms, each form that diverged shared the essential legacy traits that allowed a common basic set of cellular processes. It is a road map, back through each divergence. It is exactly what we would expect to see in evolution from simple to complex.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
@Nerusai
If you substitute the word "evolved" for the word "mutated" then. You only need to admit tiny changes in the genome in any particular speciation. Micro changes over very long periods of time. So, yeast did not turn into fish directly, nor did fish turn into homo sap directly, but by tiny incremental steps.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
@Nerusai It's not only ancestry, but having all the traits of the group that makes something an ape or a fish.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "but having all the traits of the group that makes something an ape or a fish."
We have all the traits indicitive of fish. Namely a notocord and pharyngeal arches. We usually attribute aquatic breathing gills and scales etc to indicative of the fish group however that is not necessarily the case.
Remember that "fish" is paraphyletic as members of the chordata clade that aren't tetrapods. That's why even today there are fish closer allied with us than other fish
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc we have blood, brains, and many other things...from my post a part was removed.
"It's not only ancestry, but having all the traits of the group that makes something an ape or a fish"
In another way of thinking, though, what is often being related, is gene history, not phylogeny.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc do you have fins ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 ironically, not only do I have fins (limbs are a variant of fins) but find are not an indicative trait of fish because not all fish have them.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc You're offering a slightly untruthful statement...you say we have gills , but we do not. First you make gills and arches the same thing, which they are not.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
no, I said we have pharyngeal arches, like fish have to support their gills. Some tetrapods do. There is no definitive fin and there is too fine a grade to disqualify limbs. Remember that the find of some fish are more like that of tetrapods than teleosts.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc is what you are saying is that what makes a fish a fish, is notochord and arches...?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
a notocord and arches are the only thing all fish have in common and tetrapods have both.
Not all fish have fins especially if limbs dont count and not just fish have gills.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
where are your pharyngeal arches located ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc Here you speak about fins that are more like tetrapod fins. However, quite small differences can delineate onw speicies from another. Certainly differences smaller than what you are doing...classing human arm with fish fin. "Our fins".
Nope. Not as long as you would insist that clades and species and genera are differentiated by much less.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc linbs are not fins and arches are not gills, so I find your atatement slightly untruthful.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 tetrapods can have gills and fish can have lungs.fin has no definitive definition and even if it did not all fish have fins anyway
In short, silly creationist oversimplification of informal taxa fails. To group all fish together we must include tetrapods since we are a subset of sarcopterygii.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc which is true enough, but your statement presents a slightly untruthful aspect, don't you think ? Arches are not gills.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc I'm interested in your opinion on what the ontogenic relationships are,amongst "lungs, gills, and pharyngeal arches" in fishes, and in humans.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
humans and fish both both have pharyngeal arches. In fish they scaffold the gills and in humans they form a number of structures you can look up. Lungs are something completely diifferent that both fish and a tetrapods can have (some tetrapods still have gills too) fish and humans have the same pharyngeal structure in early embronic stages. they are not gills for either the humans NOR fish at this stage
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc thank you. All fish have cells too. I don't quite understand your views.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc What is really odd is that you have distanced yourself from reality so much through indoctrination, that you forget that everyone knows what is not a fish.
We aren't fish.
You can't see that.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
no, you simply don't understand simple rules of taxonomy. Fish is paraphyletic so definition we are excluded but from an objective point of view we and fish must be grouped together if all fish are to be grouped together because tetrapods are are a subset of fish.
This isn'ta matter of indoctrination. It is merely your inability and unwillimg to comprehend phyletics. Im not giving my opinion, im telling you the facts that can be demonstrated
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc It surely is a mtter of indoctirination.
Simply put, we are not fish. Any relatively sane person knows that.
The LOGIC behind my statement is this: why stop at fish ?
bonk. why did you stop at fish ? why not say we are the original life form ?
Your stuff is actually meaningless.
You're talking about us "grouping together", but I'm saying we are not fish. That there is a slippery difference you're introducing.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
"why not say we are the original life form ?"
Because we can't be our own ancestor. We belong to the same group as the original life form. "Fish" is an arbitrary term constructed in hindsight. We can demonstrate we descended from fish and that you can't group together fish without including us so saying we are or are not fish is entirely irrelevent to anythign I have been saying.
How would you define fish anyway?
ProcInc 1 year ago
If we can't be our own ancestor then we can't be fish or anything else...
pointyhead1 1 year ago
No you fool, we can be the same type of thing as our ancestor. I' saying we cant be our own ancestor the same way we cant be our own grandpa.
Nobody can be as genuinely obtuse as you.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc You're the fool if you do not realize that wehen you change fields that you cannot maintain your previous associtions with terms.
You'd surely be the Compleat Idiot to go to court on muder charges and claim that it's actually a hunting fishing game licensing issue. "It was only a fish, Your Honour".
If they don;t like that answer, then claim that no scientific paper ever has shown that any fish ever was capable of planning murders and firing a shotgun.
So don't talk nonsense.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Is this a serious argument?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Is this Tiktaalik Jr.? paste this on youtube search
"Neck-bending fish Lepidogalaxias salamandroides"
just to give you some value for your spittle. :)
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Is this Tiktaalik Jr.? "
Lepidogalaxias is an actinopterygiian and Tiktaalik is a sarcopterygiian. They could not be more different while still both being Osteichthyes.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "They could not be more different "
...whilst being so similar
pointyhead1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pointyhead1
""They could not be more different "
...whilst being so similar"
I already said that if you bothered to quote me entirely. They are as dissimilar as two osteichhyes can be but their similarities still exceed the the differences.
Just as the similarities between sarcopterygiian fish and tetrapods exceed the similarities between actinopteryigiian fish and sarcopterygiian fish.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Your ability to dwell on the most superficial of understandings is acknowledged.
YOU say we are fish, I say "why stop there and not go back further"?
You reply " We can't be our own ancestor"...which means we can't be fish.
Now you seem not to relish your previous statements all that much.
.
Now to seek refuge you are using the highly spevifdic term "type".
You might as well be a religious fanatic, so indoctrinated that your terms are reality to you. Not fish.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
I never said we should stop at fish. We belong to ever clade our ancstors did. That why we are still opiskotonts etc.
We cant be our own ancestor "literally". I explained that already.
So you are saying that being specific is bad and that "type" is specific?
Really?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc If we do not stop at "fish", then why not go much further...it makes absolutely no difference to your argument's viability, whether or not you say "we cannot be our ancestor". You can call it whatever you desire to call it.
My argument remains. If we are fish then we can take it back further to the first organism and say we are it.
Once everything is seen as "THE SAME TYPE", it's MEANINGLESS.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
I have stated several times that we can and do go much further.
I even gave examples
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc "I have stated several times that we can and do go much further.
I even gave examples"
You certainly have and did.
Unfortunately, you keep forgetting that we were talking about fish..and you claimed we are fish and have fins.
too late to start quibblling over definitions as you now need to.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc I would say that the problem you face is that your approach is a negative approach compared to and in some kind of contradiction to, your tools and your basis for discussion.
You see, investigation here depends on differences, not similarities.
You're poiting to similarity in difference whereas to make more sense a round, you need to point to differences, as that's the real goal in "differentiation" of anything.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@ProcInc I think that in view of the fact that I'm currently investigating the relative merits of morphometric mapping, Procrustes Analyses, and so on, that I can understand you and am willing to investigate.
We are not fish.
You need to show that we are fish, not that we're grouped together.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "You need to show that we are fish, not that we're grouped together."
What's the difference?
The only way to incorperate all fish together so the term has any meaning but also exclude tetrapods is to specifically define it as "any chordate that isn't a tetrapod".
In that sense we aren't fish because we arbitrarily made it such. My point is that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that we descended from what we would identify as a fish and the group 'fish' must include us
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Here's where you're making your error. The word "fish" is far older than tetrapod, teleost, or any of your words, so it's not tacked on after.
I have no idea how you can claim it was tacked on in hindsight.
We descended from an organism , of course. But that you would insist that we have fins is incredible - just as to claim that we are fish is incredible.
The recent book is entitled "Your Inner fish "... It's like "Your Inner Guitar", "Your Inner Child" etc etc.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Inner fish ?
Oh, you mean this kind of stuff from Neil ?
"In 1933 Adolf Hitler commissioned Dr. Ferdinand Porsche to develop a cheap car that could get 40 miles per gallon of gas and provide a reliable form of transportation for the average German family. The result was the VW Beetle. This history, Hitler's plan, places constraints on the ways we can modify the Beetle today; the engineering can be tweaked only so far... before.. problems arise... reaches its limit."
pointyhead1 1 year ago
the term fish is tacked on after. I deny you are such a cretin that you did not really know what I meant.
Limbs are modified fins so objectively are fins. Can you define fins another way?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc No, you blithering idiot. "Fish" is an older word. We are not fish, and our arms are not fins.
You;re the one with unusual cliaims, Dude.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Why can't you define fish? Or fins? I have asked several times and given the reason why you can't objectively separate the two. Why can't you make the case otherwise? Fish is in only a term in hindsight of the lineages splitting. It is now a ndefinition of no objective meaning
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Definitions are fuzzy, and there are exceptions. You can't even define "Life", so shut the fuck up. We all do know that dogs are not fish.
Now, to get back on topic.
YOU fail to realize that in switching fields, you fuck yourself.
Your indoctrinated kind deals with the term "species" in the same paragraphs as "clades".
However, if we are different species, we are NOT the same type ( that you are thinking of with your "clades" ruminations).
pointyhead1 1 year ago
you admit definitions are fuzzy and they're are exceptions. So just like I said it is folly to say humans are not fish because fish has no definition.
And cups are not modified bowls...
You are trying very hard to play dumb, you seem to be succeeding.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Cups certainly are modified bowls.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
entertaining the statement that cups are modified bowls. cups and bowls have no phylogeny so your analogy is moot. Some cultures in fact do drink tea from bowls.
Ignoring that, things are defined phylogenetically by form and not function.
ProcInc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProcInc "entertaining the statement that cups are modified bowls. cups and bowls have no phylogeny so your analogy is moot. [/quote] No, your argument is nullified, as it doesn;t need to be phylogeny to be analogy. In fact, with analogy, there must be a difference...you're missing "difference" again, and looking only for similarity.
"Some cultures in fact do drink tea from bowls" See ?.
Ignoring that, things are defined phylogenetically by form and not function.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 differences doesn't work because there are far more differenes within "fish" as your designated group as there are between tetrapods and their closest extant "fish“ relatives.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "differences doesn't work because there are far more differenes within "fish" as your designated group as there are between tetrapods and their closest extant "fish“ relatives."
Here you clearly do not understand the logic of the science.
i.e there can be much more variance WITHIN populations than BETWEEN populations.
A species could display remarkable homogeneity overall, and yet have VERY wide variances within each group. All the groups could have the same big variance. See ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "i.e there can be much more variance WITHIN populations than BETWEEN populations"
I'm not talking about populations, I'm talking about entire groups.
I understand the logic of the science perfectly well whereas you are stuck with not knowing what paraphyly is and comparing living things with cups and bowls.
You're just a silly creationist trying to play with jargon. Homogenuity is not relevent to what I have been discussing.
ProcInc 1 year ago