Did You Get Vaccinated? - Page 43 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Did You Get The Jab?

Yes.
47
81%
No, but I will.
2
3%
No, but I will if required.
1
2%
No, and I never will. Fuck off.
5
9%
Other.
3
5%
#15200566
XogGyux wrote:You don't understand evolution then. A modern fish is a highly evolved fish, we are not "more evolved fish" we are in fact not fish.

Modern fish do indeed belong to a different clade than our own. But they too are descended from fish and are therefore fish themselves, as we are. Just because our own fish ancestors left the oceans and evolved into tetrapods and theirs didn’t doesn’t mean that our ancestors stopped being fish. At which generation would they have stopped being fish? :eh:

Didn't your middle school biology teacher tease you by assuring you that jellyfish are not fish? that starfish are not fish? did you ever wonder why?

As I have repeatedly pointed out, jellyfish and starfish belong to different animal clades. They are not vertebrates, and are therefore not fish. We are vertebrates, therefore we are fish.
#15200567
Potemkin wrote:

As I have repeatedly pointed out, jellyfish and starfish belong to different animal clades. They are not vertebrates, and are therefore not fish. We are vertebrates, therefore we are fish.


That is not how it works. We are also eukaryotes, therefore we are yeast? Are you fucking mental?

That stupid logic that because you share a set of qualities that are similar, it does not mean you are the same. For instance, presumably, you are a mammal, fish are not mammals, therefore you cannot be fish. Now stop talking nonsense and go to sleep.
#15200568
XogGyux wrote:That is not how it works. We are also eukaryotes, therefore we are yeast? Are you fucking mental?

This is not the logic I am using, @XogGyux, as you well know. Yeast and humans belong to two different clades which parted company more than a billion years ago. We are therefore not yeast, since we are not descended from yeast.

That stupid logic that because you share a set of qualities that are similar, it does not mean you are the same. For instance, presumably, you are a mammal, fish are not mammals, therefore you cannot be fish.

Like any evolutionary argument, it only works one way - forward in time. Mammals are fish, but fish are not mammals, just as humans are primates, but primates are not humans. Time flows in only one direction, @XogGyux.

Now stop talking nonsense and go to sleep.

I cannot sleep. Someone on the internet is wrong! :excited:
#15200569
Potemkin wrote:This is not the logic I am using, @XogGyux, as you well know. Yeast and humans belong to two different clades which parted company more than a billion years ago. We are therefore not yeast, since we are not descended from yeast.

Humans and yeast are in the same eukaryote clade. I do agree we are different, and that is my whole point. You are the one saying otherwise. I am glad you are starting to get it.

Like any evolutionary argument, it only works one way - forward in time. Mammals are fish, but fish are not mammals, just as humans are primates, but primates are not humans. Time flows in only one direction, @XogGyux.

You seem to be making the crap as you go along. Maybe you'll get a Nobel for all your hard work on this. :lol:
I cannot sleep. Someone on the internet is wrong! :excited:

And as soon as you fall asleep that someone in the internet that is wrong will be asleep and no longer in the internet.
#15200570
XogGyux wrote:Humans and yeast are in the same eukaryote clade. I do agree we are different, and that is my whole point. You are the one saying otherwise. I am glad you are starting to get it.

Yeast and humans both belong to the clade of eukaryotes. But the eukaryotes split into three main clades - plants, fungi and animals. Humans belong to the clade of animals, while yeast belongs to the clade of fungi. We are therefore not yeast, since we are not descended from yeast. What is there about this that you find difficult to understand? :eh:

You seem to be making the crap as you go along. Maybe you'll get a Nobel for all your hard work on this. :lol:

And as soon as you fall asleep that someone in the internet that is wrong will be asleep and no longer in the internet.

I’ll put your name forward for the Nobel Prize for Obtuseness. ;)
#15200571
Potemkin wrote:Yeast and humans both belong to the clade of eukaryotes. But the eukaryotes split into three main clades - plants, fungi and animals. Humans belong to the clade of animals, while yeast belongs to the clade of fungi. We are therefore not yeast, since we are not descended from yeast. What is there about this that you find difficult to understand? :eh:

We are all descendants from a single organism many millions of years ago, we are not a single celled organism. Descendants do not mean you are the same thing that you are a descendent from.
What is there about this that you find difficult to understand?

I’ll put your name forward for the Nobel Prize for Obtuseness. ;)

No need, you'll get accepted as soon as you show your face.
#15200572
XogGyux wrote:We are all descendants from a single organism many millions of years ago, we are not a single celled organism. Descendants do not mean you are the same thing that you are a descendent from.

Actually, it does, cladistically speaking. You’re just a highly evolved (or ‘derived’) version of it.

And yes, that means we are just colonies of single-celled choanoflagellate eukaryotes. :)

What is there about this that you find difficult to understand?

Nothing at all. :)

No need, you'll get accepted as soon as you show your face.

At last! My Nobel Prize! :excited:
#15200574
wow, maxi quasi reductio ad absurdum
by that "logic", you are not even alive, since you are just a bunch of electrons protons and neutrons.
And to think that this is your version of devil's advocate to defend bragging about having a bird's brain.
Rofl.
#15200576
XogGyux wrote:wow, maxi quasi reductio ad absurdum
by that "logic", you are not even alive, since you are just a bunch of electrons protons and neutrons.

From one perspective, yes, that’s also what we are. Or do you believe in the elan vital? :eh:

And to think that this is your version of devil's advocate to defend bragging about having a bird's brain.
Rofl.

You are trapped inside your big human brain, @XogGyux. :)
#15200577
Potemkin wrote:A fish can never give birth to anything which is not itself a fish.

Fish lay eggs.
Checkmate, birdbrain.
#15200579
@XogGyux and @Potemkin You are both wrong!!

We are highly evolved Amoeba! :D
#15200591
Potemkin wrote:

You are trapped inside your big human brain, @XogGyux. :)

I am happy here. You seem trapped inside your small fish brain. :lol: You fell right into that one! :lol:

Seriously though, your dedicated argument for over 48H, is past being a funny joke. I am convinced you don't believe you are fish, that is extremely odd, but hey, there are extremely odd people out there.
Quick searches:
From Wikipedia:
Fish are aquatic, craniate, gill-bearing animals that lack limbs with digits. Included in this definition are the living hagfish, lampreys, and cartilaginous and bony fish as well as various extinct related groups. Around 99% of living fish species are ray-finned fish, belonging to the class Actinopterygii, with over 95% belonging to the teleost subgrouping.

Does this look like a description of you?

I am done talking about this, there is no point and I am not having fun anymore.
#15200597
XogGyux wrote:From Wikipedia:

:lol:

Does this look like a description of you?

Image
Does this look like a picture of you? No? Then I guess this means you're not a primate then. :roll:

I am done talking about this, there is no point and I am not having fun anymore.

Same here. I'm going to give up on this. You're simply refusing to understand, in the same way that Victorian parsons refused to understand that they were descended from primates, despite what Darwin had to say on the matter.
#15200668
Potemkin wrote::lol:


Image
Does this look like a picture of you? No? Then I guess this means you're not a primate then. :roll:


Same here. I'm going to give up on this. You're simply refusing to understand, in the same way that Victorian parsons refused to understand that they were descended from primates, despite what Darwin had to say on the matter.


LOL. There is not much to understand. This is quite basic logic.
Which one does not belong:
Image
3 days of back and forth arguing useless information, in which you are trying to flex a skill that you clearly lack.
The 1st mistake, you seem to be using fish as a clade, fish is not a clade.
#15200673
XogGyux wrote:LOL. There is not much to understand. This is quite basic logic.
Which one does not belong:
Image

As I said, your understanding of the natural world seems to be Linnaean rather than Darwinian. Evolution is a thing, @XogGyux. :roll:

3 days of back and forth arguing useless information, in which you are trying to flex a skill that you clearly lack.
The 1st mistake, you seem to be using fish as a clade, fish is not a clade.

Okay then, the subset of fish which constitute the clade of all vertebrates. That is still a clade of fish. Lol.
#15200675
Potemkin wrote:As I said, your understanding of the natural world seems to be Linnaean rather than Darwinian. Evolution is a thing, @XogGyux. :roll:


Okay then, the subset of fish which constitute the clade of all vertebrates. That is still a clade of fish. Lol.


"Fish" is not a phylogenic classification at all :lol: .
#15200678
XogGyux wrote:"Fish" is not a phylogenic classification at all :lol: .

We belong to the clade of vertebrates, the most recent common ancestor of which was a fish. Or are you saying that fish don’t exist and have never existed?
#15200681
Potemkin wrote:We belong to the clade of vertebrates, the most recent common ancestor of which was a fish. Or are you saying that fish don’t exist and have never existed?

So you are comfortable ignoring clades altogether when it suits you only. Earlier, we are not fungi because we are a different clades, but now you don't care that fish are not even a clade. It is not a phylogenic classification at all, it is in fact paraphylogenic, an outdated term that has percolated through time. :knife:
#15200683
https://theconversation.com/the-absurdity-of-natural-history-or-why-humans-are-fish-69384
But the way we organise information about the natural world – the separate exhibition rooms, the glass cases, the taxonomic categories – are arguably at odds with the blurred edges and continuous variation of real nature. These human ways of encountering, standardising and talking about nature are the subject of a new exhibition at London’s Wellcome Collection. Rather than being an exhibition of natural history, Making Nature: How we see animals is an exhibition about natural history. It explores how we engage with and try to make sense of the natural world.

The world is an endless purveyor of wonders too numerable to memorise – to make sense of the 1.2m species so far described (and there may be 100m undescribed species), natural historians have to come up with a system for arranging them and information about them.

This proved tricky until 1735, when Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus proposed a system for putting species into hierarchical groups, and it stuck. In today’s terms, a rat can be a rat, a rodent, a mammal, a vertebrate and an animal all at once. Such taxonomic thinking is really important for how we understand the world and our place in it, as each of these terms come with implicit information about how they relate to other groups. It neatly puts the world into boxes.

Although it certainly wasn’t Linnaeus’ intention (he believed that studying nature would reveal the divine order of God’s creation), hierarchical taxonomies tell us a lot about an animal’s evolutionary history as by their nature they show what came from what. This information is real and truthful, but as is often said, a bee doesn’t care that it is a bee. Taxonomy is a rigid human construct that is forced on top of the cacophonous uncertainty of the real wild world.

One of the central tenets of modern taxonomy is that every group has to include, by definition, all of the groups that evolve from it. So rats did not stop being mammals when the rodent group branched off the evolutionary tree. Every branch on the tree of life is considered to be a member of all its parent branches.

This means, for example, there can be no definition of fish that does not include everything that evolved from fish. Following this logic you could argue that as amphibians evolved from fish, amphibians are fish. Mammals evolved from animals that evolved from amphibians, so mammals are fish. We are fish. While every biologist knows this conundrum, and that there is no biological definition for what most people consider “fish”, they decide not to worry about it because it’s helpful to think about living swimming “fish” as a group. Taxonomy is useful and makes a lot of sense, until it doesn’t.

I manage the Grant Museum of Zoology at University College London. As a collection founded to teach evolutionary principles in 1828 (31 years before Darwin published on the topic), the skeletons in the Grant Museum have always been arranged taxonomically. It’s an unnatural way of presenting them because although they belong to the same mammalian order, lions would never be seen with walruses outside of a museum.

In placing them together we focus on one aspect of the way we see them: through an evolutionary lens. But in so doing we strip these species of a lot of their essence of being. Yes, lions and walruses are both meat-eaters (one eats other mammals and one eats clams), and yes they have some shared anatomy resulting from their shared ancestry, but what does that really tell us about them? In the museum they stop being wild animals and become static artefacts arranged in our chosen human system. It is an exercise in both comprehension and control.


https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Hegel_and_the_Ancients.pdf
The Enlightenment, spurred on by Luther’s Theses and the astronomical observations of Copernicus, represented the triumph of the bureaucracy over ancient ways of thinking which had coexisted with the bureaucracy for millennia. The bureaucratic way of thinking began to take over, and Carl Linnaeus was the archetype of this way of looking at the world. Linnaeus categorised the entire organic world into categories within categories within categories within categories within … This is the essence of the bureaucratic method of thinking.
...
Charles Darwin is the archetype of the co-existence of the bureaucratic method with its opposite. Darwin accepted that Linnaeus’s taxonomy passably represented the world as it presents itself to us, but rather than taking the various contingent attributes for the reality itself, Darwin held that behind this appearance was a simple concrete concept which could arrange the creatures as figures in a narrative. The narrative was the evolution of species, and the principle, the simple concrete concept, was natural selection. By grasping the real meaning lying behind Linnaeus’s taxonomy, Darwin made minor corrections to the taxonomy, while investing it with entirely new concrete meaning. Like the alchemists, Darwin believed that truth lay behind appearances.

Indigenous people know very well characteristics of the various plants and animals in their country. They know this intimately. But they don’t erect a taxonomy on this knowledge and do not see the various features of creatures as their essential reality. Taxonomy is foreign to the indigenous way of thinking. Like scientific biology, they understand the creatures populating their world in terms of the origins stories which lie behind their phenomenal forms. Every people have their own stories, and Science is no different. Science has its own stories. But what Science has in common with Indigenous knowledge is that they see the truth of the world lying behind appearances. The bureaucracy, with their Artificial Intelligence and their technology for managing human beings, do not see it this way. The truth is what appears, what is entered into the giant data stores which are used to control every aspect of human activity
#15200698
XogGyux wrote:So you are comfortable ignoring clades altogether when it suits you only. Earlier, we are not fungi because we are a different clades, but now you don't care that fish are not even a clade. It is not a phylogenic classification at all, it is in fact paraphylogenic, an outdated term that has percolated through time. :knife:

It is paraphyletic because it usually is defined to exclude most of the descendants of the last common ancestor of all fish, which is to say the tetrapods, which include us. In other words, it is the very fact that tetrapods are (highly derived) fish which means that ‘fish’, as we normally think of them, are a paraphyletic clade.
  • 1
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
News Apps

What apps do people use and recommend? I use BBC b[…]

Doesn't a cop need evidence that you've rolled a […]

Why should we go to Mars?

I'm with @Godstud . Better they spend their money[…]

Putin's long-term goal is to have a general secur[…]