[mikema63]

How normal everyday man on the street types would refer to a fish or consider the implications of evolutionary lineage are almost entirely unimportant to biologists.

Your lobe finned fish 10^9 great grandfather would be sad that you deny your heritage.

[Potemkin]

Nobody is arguing evolution Pote or that a human ancestor was a fish. But I do not refer to a human as a fish. And Cladistically speaking there are other links before and after fish anyway.

Indeed there are, which is why we can also be classified as primates, as mammals and as eukaryotes too. But we are still fish. A eukaryote cannot give birth to something which is not a eukaryote, a fish cannot give birth to something which is not a fish, a mammal cannot give birth to something which is not a mammal, a primate cannot give birth to something which is not a primate, and a human cannot give birth to something which is not a human. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.

[B0ycey]

Your lobe finned fish 10^9 great grandfather would be sad that you deny your heritage.

I don't deny him my heritage. But I also don't call him a prokatyoke because his 10^9 grandfather happened to be one.

[Potemkin]

I don't deny him my heritage. But I also don't call him a prokatyoke because his 10^9 grandfather happened to be one.

Never mind, B0ycey. Just go back to ploughing your feudal lord's fields, and forget I was ever here. *climbs back into Tardis, which disappears with a 'whooping' noise*

[B0ycey]

Indeed there are, which is why we can also be classified as primates, as mammals and as eukaryotes too. But we are still fish. A eukaryote cannot give birth to something which is not a eukaryote, a fish cannot give birth to something which is not a fish, a mammal cannot give birth to something which is not a mammal, a primate cannot give birth to something which is not a primate, and a human cannot give birth to something which is not a human. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.

Then perhaps you don't understand clandistics or evolution. We do not have gills. Why? Because they do not have a function and so have evolved into something else. Because you have not witnessed something that has turned from one thing into another does not mean it has not happened. In fact, evolution depends on it.

[B0ycey]

Never mind, B0ycey. Just go back to ploughing your feudal lord's fields, and forget I was ever here. *climbs back into Tardis, which disappears with a 'whooping' noise*

At least you have a sense of humour.

[anasawad]

And thats why trust in scientists are falling and many around the world and specifically in the US and western Europe are starting to ignore what scientists say.
When science becomes more and more a synonym for absurdity, it becomes harder and harder to take those who practice it seriously.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Please don't quote Dawkins at me. The man is quote mined to death. Fossils are helpful for figuring out some specifics of the history of life but are actually the least important lines of evidence overall despite people's endless obsession with them.

He used this example as an answer to creationists: "No, we have missing links. We have a lot of missing links. Though if for example there were fossil remains of every creature ever living it would be bad for systematics, because... etc". Fossils by itself don't play any role in the fact that every descendant differs a little from its predecessor, if there was the total line from species A to species B you couldn't say about organisms in the middle if they are A or B. So the species exist because we don't have this total line: there is one tree of life that unites all living organisms: but as its trunk and branches are gone, leaves aren't connected between each other and are isolated: and those isolated populations of living creatures are what we call species.

And that's why Potemkin's arguments about people being fish or amoebas don't have sense. We have the word "fish" only because they are different and have no connections to us. If they were, we would either call them people like us, just "smallgreenswimmingpeople" or we would simply call our common ancestor not fish. Because the organism that produced both fish and humans is obviously not fish and not human.

[mikema63]

And thats why trust in scientists are falling and many around the world and specifically in the US and western Europe are starting to ignore what scientists say.
When science becomes more and more a synonym for absurdity, it becomes harder and harder to take those who practice it seriously.

I shudder to think of scientists lying en masse as a PR campaign to make people feel more comfortable with their place in the world.

I don't even understand why this seems so absurd to you, to me it's an acknowledgement of the interconnections and ultimate wholeness of life. To contemplate the vast majesty of life and our place in it to me seems sublime. Why wouldn't you want to be a fish? We owe a great deal to fish, indeed our very existence is owed to what came before and what we are is shaped by what we came from. We can stand in awe of all of life because we can finally understand enough to see ourselves in every other living thing and see every other living thing in ourselves.

It seems to me a cause for celebration that we can know these things, not despair. Absurdity is part of life, reality is fundamentally absurd, we are made of little chemical reactions with delusions of grandeur and we should rejoice in it.

He used this example as an answer to creationists: "No, we have missing links. We have a lot of missing links. Though if for example there were fossil remains of every creature ever living it would be bad for systematics, because... etc". Fossils by itself don't play any role in the fact that every descendant differs a little from its predecessor, if there was the total line from species A to species B you couldn't say about organisms in the middle if they are A or B. So the species exist because we don't have this total line: there is one tree of life that unites all living organisms: but as its trunk and branches are gone, leaves aren't connected between each other and are isolated: and those isolated populations of living creatures are what we call species.

And that's why Potemkin's arguments about people being fish or amoebas don't have sense. We have the word "fish" only because they are different and have no connections to us. If they were, we would either call them people like us, just "smallgreenswimmingpeople" or we would simply call our common ancestor not fish. Because the organism that produced both fish and humans is obviously not fish and not human.

We have conclusive evidence that we evolved from a fish from multiple separate lines of evidence. Our common ancestor with all other mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians was 100% definitely a fish.

[B0ycey]

He used this example as an answer to creationists: "No, we have missing links. We have a lot of missing links. Though if for example there were fossil remains of every creature ever living it would be bad for systematics, because... etc". Fossils by itself don't play any role in the fact that every descendant differs a little from its predecessor, if there was the total line from species A to species B you couldn't say about organisms in the middle if they are A or B. So the species exist because we don't have this total line: there is one tree of life that unites all living organisms: but as its trunk and branches are gone, leaves aren't connected between each other and are isolated: and those isolated populations of living creatures are what we call species.

And that's why Potemkin's arguments about people being fish or amoebas don't have sense. We have the word "fish" only because they are different and have no connections to us. If they were, we would either call them people like us, just "smallgreenswimmingpeople" or we would simply call our common ancestor not fish. Because the organism that produced both fish and humans is obviously not fish and not human.

Actually @Ganeshas Rat, everything you wrote is correct except the conclusion. We have different species because organisms have evolved in different environments. However the evidences suggests that living land creatures evolved from a species that was a fish. But, and I cannot stress this enough, the first point is valid in explaining why we are not fish and so still explains why Pote is wrong.

[LehmanB]

I agree with all that, but evolutionist go further than that by claiming all life forms evolved from simple to complex without the help of a creator and designer. The idea that a fish evolved into a human is what is stupid about the theory of evolution.

You can agree or disagree as you wish but remember we are talking about theories based on observations, and these theories are not facts. You can't really prove there was an evolution. The fact is we can't know for sure what was in the past and if there was a big bang or not.

The only thing that disturbs me is that some theories and philosophies are been presented as science and superior to other philosophies. As if conventional medicine is the only method to determine the right process for healing and diagnosis.

Now observation, statistics and researches are respected and gave tramandous development to humanity, but they can't be presented as accurate science that blocks any competition. Again, evolution, economics, medicine- these are not accurate science, and although they are respected and have place, they should be questioned and there is a place for competetive ideas in these fields- including the process of evolution. @Godstud

[Godstud]

You can agree or disagree as you wish but remember we are talking about theories based on observations, and these theories are not facts. You can't really prove there was an evolution. The fact is we can't know for sure what was in the past and if there was a big bang or not.

Sorry, but you're incorrect. The Big Bang is a theory because they have observations that lead them to believe it, not because they are "not sure".

How do we know the Big Bang actually happened?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgr7fg8

There is evidence for these theories, or they would not BE scientific theories. When are you people going to understand that? Some of you have no clue as to how science actually operates.

The only thing that disturbs me is that some theories and philosophies are been presented as science and superior to other philosophies. As if conventional medicine is the only method to determine the right process for healing and diagnosis.

It's because you don't understand scientific method, or scientific theories.

Steps of the Scientific Method
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science- ... fic-method

Scientific Theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Again, evolution, economics, medicine- these are not accurate science, and although they are respected and have place, they should be questioned and there is a place for competetive ideas in these fields- including the process of evolution.

According to you... The evidence is there. If you don't want to accept it, then it's YOU who is being unscientific.

Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces- ... evolution/

How much evidence have scientists found for human evolution?
There are so many fossils that nobody knows the full number. And that’s just the beginning.

On a related note:
Scientists theorize alternate universe where people listen to them
UNITED KINGDOM — Noted astrophysicist Stephen Hawking shocked the scientific community on Monday when he announced evidence of an alternate universe in which people actually listen to scientists.

In a paper to be published in the journal Nature, Hawking and his Cambridge University team posit the existence of a dimension completely separate from our own in which evidence and opinion are recognized as two entirely separate processes.

The discovery was made by accident when a graduate student left a television on in the lab during a cross-dimensional experiment. Just as astronomers can find exoplanets by watching for redshift in a light’s wavelength, Hawking’s team discovered a “truth-shift” when White House spokesperson and flat-earth enthusiast Sarah Huckabee Sanders appeared on the television and her voice bounced off the dimensional curtain.

“One would think an alternate dimension would accept alternate facts,” said Hawking. “But it turns out the wavelength of bullshit is a universal constant, and this new dimension prioritizes verifiable evidence over folksy word salad.”

If confirmed, the finding could bring about a new model of research in which science is funded based on its inherent truth value rather than the likelihood of getting Jeff Goldblum to play a stuttering professor in the origin story.

“This is a whole new way of looking at the world,” reads Hawking’s media release. “Although physically identical to our reality, this parallel universe recognizes the validity of testable hypotheses as a basis for human knowledge. It’s almost as if their universe isn’t being run by children.”

The announcement stunned academics worldwide, many of whom have gone decades without a single idea taken seriously.

“The implications are enormous,” tweeted noted astrophysicist and shit-disturber Neil deGrasse Tyson. “This means that just beyond a dimensional veil separating an alternate reality from this one, there is someone exactly like you, but vaccinated.”

Scientists have already begun seeking a way to travel to this newly found universe in search of grant money and positive affirmation. So far, none of them have looked for a way to return home.
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/11/sc ... le-listen/

[Beren]

If I'm going to be a fish I want to be a sturgeon. They look pretty neat.

Even the mere idea of being a fish is totally gay.

And now I'm debunking the Theory of Evolution!


There is a chimpanzee and a man, and there is no resemblance between them at all!

There is only resemblance between man and God. HalleluYah!

[LehmanB]

Don't try to convince me. I am just not agreeing to supervise somebody who questions the common conclusions. Conclusions from the evidence, is a theory. And again, I respect it, but it shouldn't re take the position of the Church, and hunts anybody who disagree with this.

In fact even Christianity originaly evolved at a time of plural philosophic groups, before it became oppressive and blocked development. Anything, including science, social science, philosophy and medicine, could embrace critical thinking or either block competitors and create stagnation.

I nuderstand well the skulls between apes and humans, but you never know for sure the connection of the data. you just know for sure these are skulls. If everyone agrees and never questions it, its bad too.

[Godstud]

Another person who doesn't know science from their left nut...

[LehmanB]

You believe that those who believe the truth and don't question it, are smart.

I rather prefer to allow questions, even to things I believe to be obvious. - this is a smart society.

I am not arguing against evolution BTW, I am arguing against dismissing questioning it. And I rather do see a difference between something I could measure- like temprature of boiling, and a theory of the past that I can't really meassure as accurately, but needs to believe in common sence- and this stops to be pure science here.

[Godstud]

You believe that those who believe the truth and don't question it, are smart.

This is not about truth. it's about facts. It's about evidence. Both are found in abundance when discussing scientific theories.

Facts are objective. Truth... not necessarily.

I rather prefer to allow questions, even to things I believe to be obvious- this is a smart society.

It's fine to question things, but you should be able to back if up with facts, or you're simply talking out of your ass. When given facts, you should not dismiss them because of "belief".

[LehmanB]

Again, conclusion =/= facts.
I can say the skulls were primates that died and dismiss the possibility that they were a step between the ape and the monkey. Its just another conclusion from the same fact.

[foxdemon]

We are amoebas!!! The last time I checked I had more than one cell.

Listen, I understand your point, we follow a link on the tree of life. But when you start categorizing something that clearly isn't in that catagory you both sound stupid (at least it's on topic) and make the actually meaning of those words redundant. So please, let's agree humans are not fish and bring sanity to this thread.

Your white blood cells are amoebas.

Your ancestor. You are part of a Clade which this sort of fish forms the crown group. Therefore you are a fish and not a mushroom. It only seems stupid if one is ignorant of Cladistics.

[B0ycey]

It only seems stupid if one is ignorant of Cladistics.

This statement is actually ignorant of cladistics. I am getting bored of this. So for someone who perhaps doesn't believe he is ignorant of cladistics I ask two simple questions.

Firstly, under cladistics what category (clad) are humans under?

And second, if an amoeba splits into two and one of the forms has two cells, is that organism an ameoba?

And with those questions, I like pote wave fairwell and woosh out of this thread of stupidity in my imaginary tardis and see what other delights PoFo has to offer.