[Potemkin]

We're a subset of the clade of lobe-finned fish, @anasawad.

[anasawad]

@mikema63
From your own link, we can deduct why you're wrong.
The reason its commonly referred to as bony fish is because there weren't anything other than fish back then, and the reason its not an official name is because the consideration of it as a class is due to evolving bones.
Move further in history and its divided into further classes, based on specific organs or structures evolved.
These essentials are the basis of categorizing classes.

So, even if we evolved from a class that was all fish, it does not mean we're fish ourselves, since as stated before, there are specific characteristics of the description that we don't have.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
Its called sarcopterygians and they're categorized as a different class due to having different respiratory and circulatory systems.
Again, fish is not a class.

[Godstud]

Discuss:

[Potemkin]

Its called sarcopterygians and they're categorized as a different class due to having different respiratory and circulatory systems.
Again, fish is not a class.

@anasawad

You don't seem to have taken on board the cladistic revolution in palaeontology from the 1990s onwards. The traditional classifications of the animal kingdom were fundamentally arbitrary, being based mainly on the physical appearance of organisms. DNA analysis and new discoveries in the evolutionary lineages of these species has led to a revolution in the way we look at these things. A species, for example, is now seen as a lineage, and not merely all the living organisms which happen to look the same. Fish, for example, are now defined as the vertebrates which appeared in the early Cambrian and all of their descendants, which includes ourselves. We are therefore fish. Highly derived fish, but fish nonetheless. Hindsite is right about one thing: a fish can only give birth to another fish, a mammal can only give birth to another mammal, and a human can only give birth to another human. This means that we are fish, in exactly the same way that we are mammals and in exactly the same way that we are humans.

[mikema63]

You seem very hung up on the fish thing anasawad.

[Godstud]

I just showed evidence that we descended from fish. Why is everyone ignoring Aquaman?

Anasawad likes fish.

I do, too.



This is really off-topic, however, and we should get back to stupid people and things they do.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
You even contradict yourself in your own post.

Under current advancements in evolutionary biology, we stopped saying things like Fish and animals and started basing classes of species on specific evolutionary structures to categorize species.

And No, Hindsite is wrong. No living creature to ever exist now or in history of earth or in the farthest point in the future will ever give birth to a new creature exactly like it. There will always be more and more variations. And , at some point, those small variations will accumulate to produce a new structure or notable changes, thats where a new species is born; Add that up to a new system and a new class is born. This is how evolution works.
So saying a fish only gives birth to a fish is wrong. The correct statement would be a vertebrate only gives birth to a vertebrate and so on.

And before the 1990s scientists did NOT categorize species into classes based on appearances.

[Potemkin]

Under current advancements in evolutionary biology, we stopped saying things like Fish and animals and started basing classes of species on specific evolutionary structures to categorize species.

No, biologists still talk about 'fish' and 'vertebrates' and 'mammals' and so on. It's just that the set of all vertebrates is now the same as the set of all fish, since the first vertebrate was a fish. All vertebrates are therefore merely highly evolved fish.

And No, Hindsite is wrong. No living creature to ever exist now or in history of earth or in the farthest point in the future will ever give birth to a new creature exactly like it. There will always be more and more variations. And , at some point, those small variations will accumulate to produce a new structure or notable changes, thats where a new species is born; Add that up to a new system and a new class is born. This is how evolution works.

A fish can never give birth to anything which is not a fish. A mammal can never give birth to anything which is not a mammal. A primate can never give birth to anything which is not a primate. This is not the same thing as saying that all the descendants of a given organism will be identical to that organism. They will acquire new characteristics and lose old characteristics as the generations progress. This gives rise to the evolutionary process. But, as Mike pointed out, there is no single generation to which one can point and say: this is when the first bird was born, or this is when the first mammal was born. That's not how it works.

So saying a fish only gives birth to a fish is wrong. The correct statement would be a vertebrate only gives birth to a vertebrate and so on.

But you have the same logical problem, since all vertebrates are in fact fish, being descended as they are from the earliest fish.

[anasawad]

Not all vertebrates are fish.

[mikema63]

It should be pointed out that taxonomy is all arbitrary distinctions that we applied to life believing they were all separate and distinct.

Life isn't, there are no real lines between things that we haven't arbitrarily applied. It's all connected with no hard lines between one thing and another. Every living thing on earth is connected by a common ancestor. What arbitrary lines we draw is up to us, or more specifically biologists.

Since biologists decided to include our entire evolutionary history in our classification, because it's entirely reasonable to do so, we are fish because we evolved from things we use the word fish to describe.

[anasawad]

Well then lets take it to the very beginning and say we're all bacteria.

Utter absurdity.

[Beren]

You seem very hung up on the fish thing anasawad.

He's just a principled human who doesn't like the idea of being a fish, maybe because he doesn't have gills and doesn't just spurt out his seed on his partner's eggs.

[Hindsite]

Both humans and chimpanzees are descended from a primate known as Proconsul.

Wikipedia states that Proconsul is an extinct genus of primates that existed from 23 to 25 million years ago during the Miocene epoch. However, this is pure speculation for many reasons. No one was there to know what existed 23 to 25 million years ago and Genesis reveals that the earth with life was created only a little over 6,000 years ago. And no one can prove some bones of some dead and supposedly extinct ape is the ancestor of anything. That is obviously a made up story to anyone with common sense. So don't be so gullible to believe it.

The fact that evolution occurs can be deduced (and was deduced) even without knowing the precise mechanism underlying it, which happens to be random mutations in DNA during reproduction.

I will grant you that there are changes that occur because of the sharing of female and male genes during reproduction. However, mutations in the DNA is generally harmful and has never resulted in changing one kind of creature into a different and more advanced creature.

Actually, it is.

I said real science. That exculdes things like "making estimates" and "speculations" that some use to support global warming and the theory of evolution.

Actually, humans (and in fact all vertebrates) are descended from fish. Cladistically speaking, humans are merely highly evolved fish.

Actually, Genesis says that God made the sea creatures and birds on the fifth creation day. That would include fish. Land animals and man were not made until the sixth day. It says nothing that supports the idea that fish evolved into land animals over millions of years. So that is what I go by.

That is correct.

Good. That is why the theory of evolution is stupid. Praise the Lord. HalleluYah

[Potemkin]

Not all vertebrates are fish.

Since biologists decided to include our entire evolutionary history in our classification, because it's entirely reasonable to do so, we are fish because we evolved from things we use the word fish to describe.

Mike said it better than I could.

He's just a principled human who doesn't like the idea of being a fish, maybe because he doesn't have gills and doesn't just spurt out his seed on her partner's eggs.

His jaws are derived from the gill arches of his remote fishy ancestors, and he does indeed spurt out his seed on his partner's eggs. It's just that his partner's eggs are retained and fertilised inside her body, that's all.

[mikema63]

You are only catching on that life is absurd now?

We are highly evolved self replicating molecules who only imagine we are special verses our distant cousins e coli.

He's just a principled human who doesn't like the idea of being a fish, maybe because he doesn't have gills and doesn't just spurt out his seed on her partner's eggs.

That our eggs are internal and develop in a specialized sack and our gills develop in development into sections of our faces and jaws is hardly relevant to being principled or not being fish.

Edit: pote beat me lol

[Beren]

That our eggs are internal and develop in a specialized sack and our gills develop in development into sections of our faces and jaws is hardly relevant to being principled or not being fish.

But we can talk, while fish can't. We also watch movies.

[Potemkin]

Well then lets take it to the very beginning and say we're all bacteria.

Utter absurdity.

We are all eukaryotes, so yes, we are indeed just colonies of single-celled organisms. Dinoflagellates, to be precise. This is why human sperm has a tail and behaves exactly like a single-celled dinoflagellate. Because that's what it is.

[mikema63]

And yet we still have bones, which we got from fish.

You can point out how we are unlike what we commonly define as fish till kingdom come. From the point of view of evolutionary biology we are fish because how else would we define evolutionary catagorIzes but by their evolutionary history?

I honestly never thought I'd get into this sort of debate on PoFo lol.

Who wants to get into the nitty gritty of what species concept we should use?

[Hindsite]

No, biologists still talk about 'fish' and 'vertebrates' and 'mammals' and so on. It's just that the set of all vertebrates is now the same as the set of all fish, since the first vertebrate was a fish. All vertebrates are therefore merely highly evolved fish.

A fish can never give birth to anything which is not a fish. A mammal can never give birth to anything which is not a mammal. A primate can never give birth to anything which is not a primate. This is not the same thing as saying that all the descendants of a given organism will be identical to that organism. They will acquire new characteristics and lose old characteristics as the generations progress. This gives rise to the evolutionary process. But, as Mike pointed out, there is no single generation to which one can point and say: this is when the first bird was born, or this is when the first mammal was born. That's not how it works.

But you have the same logical problem, since all vertebrates are in fact fish, being descended as they are from the earliest fish.

It is clear some of you need to take a biology course.

Vertebrate

adjective:

1. having vertebrae; having a backbone or spinal column.

2. belonging or pertaining to the Vertebrata (or Craniata), a subphylum of chordate animals, comprising those having a brain enclosed in a skull or cranium and a segmented spinal column; a major taxonomic group that includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes.

noun:

3. a vertebrate animal.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vertebrate