Did You Get Vaccinated? - Page 44 - 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%
#15200729
Potemkin wrote: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.

So in other words, it is defined as to exclude tetrapods... interesting.., I wonder if someone has been saying that for 4 days now...
This oversimplification of "highly evolved" that you trying to sneak pass wouldn't fly anywhere. We are not "highly evolved bacteria" because sometime in our past we had an ancestor that was more or less a bacterium.
#15200730
XogGyux wrote:So in other words, it is defined as to exclude tetrapods...

Indeed it is, but doing so means that it is not a monophyletic clade, and is therefore just a relic of our previous classification schemes, a human construct with no basis in nature. The fish only become a meaningful clade, like the mammals or the birds, if we include all of the descendants of that clade, including the tetrapods such as ourselves. This is essentially what I have been saying all along.

interesting.., I wonder if someone has been saying that for 4 days now...

What you have been saying is that the word 'fish', as you use it, has no phylogenetic meaning, since you are defining it to exclude the tetrapods.

This oversimplification of "highly evolved" that you trying to sneak pass wouldn't fly anywhere. We are not "highly evolved bacteria" because sometime in our past we had an ancestor that was more or less a bacterium.

Actually, we are. If it makes you feel better, I'll call it "highly derived" instead. Lol.
#15200733
Potemkin wrote:What you have been saying is that the word 'fish', as you use it, has no phylogenetic meaning, since you are defining it to exclude the tetrapods.

I assure you, I did not come up with the word fish and/or its definition.

Actually, we are. If it makes you feel better, I'll call it "highly derived" instead. Lol.

And like I have said before, a chair being made from a tree does not mean a chair IS a tree.
This is not how we work, communicate. With high degree of certainty, a graduate student choosing "fish" to classify human would result on the student losing credit for that question.
No defendant will get out of jail by claiming he did not commit murder because the victim, after all, is just fish and we dont condemn of people to go to jail for killing fish.
Chemistry, physics are the study of matter and change. Likewise, change has a very important role in biology, we study the change of a morula into a fetus, the change of nymph into an adult form, and the evolutionary change that creates new species. Oversimplifying biology by saying X = everything that came before it is ignoring change.
It is coincibable that we might be able at some point in the future to synthesize a fully form adult human being from matter... this being would not have any sort of evolutionary biological tree connection, yet he/she would still be human in any measurable sense.
#15200736
XogGyux wrote:I assure you, I did not come up with the word fish and/or its definition.

I sense that we're finally getting somewhere. You have admitted that defining the word 'fish' to exclude the tetrapods results in a polyphyletic clade which has no natural meaning. Only if the tetrapods are included in the clade of 'fish' (as they should be, on evolutionary grounds) does the clade of fish become monophyletic, and therefore have a natural meaning.

And like I have said before, a chair being made from a tree does not mean a chair IS a tree.

Strawman argument. This is not the logic I am using, and you know it. If I chopped up some fish and used the bits to construct a model of a fish, that model would not itself be a fish. But every descendant of a fish is a fish, no matter how many generations have passed. At what generation do they stop being fish? I keep asking this question, but you never answer it.

This is not how we work, communicate. With high degree of certainty, a graduate student choosing "fish" to classify human would result on the student losing credit for that question.

Nevertheless, the student would be correct. Back in the 18th century, if a student had answered "primate" to classify a human, he would have lost credit for that question. And probably been burned at the stake for heresy to boot. Lol.

No defendant will get out of jail by claiming he did not commit murder because the victim, after all, is just fish and we dont condemn of people to go to jail for killing fish.

Strawman argument. If you kill a chimpanzee, you don't go on trial for murder, yet humans are primates. Just not that particular species of primate.

Chemistry, physics are the study of matter and change. Likewise, change has a very important role in biology, we study the change of a morula into a fetus, the change of nymph into an adult form, and the evolutionary change that creates new species. Oversimplifying biology by saying X = everything that came before it is ignoring change.

One of the great breakthroughs of Linnaeus was to understand that, say, a rat can be a rodent, a mammal and a vertebrate all at the same time. Likewise, we can be humans, primates, mammals, and fish all at the same time.

It is coincibable that we might be able at some point in the future to synthesize a fully form adult human being from matter... this being would not have any sort of evolutionary biological tree connection, yet he/she would still be human in any measurable sense.

Now you're just making shit up as you go along.... :eh:
#15200737
@XogGyux

Pote is just chatting shit like he did a few years back. A fish is merely a term we use for classification and in reality they give birth to a living entity which then gets reclassified once it becomes a new species just like every other living organisms. We are not clones. So we are not fish but descends from them. But because of some form or classification that nobody but taxonomic uses hasn't been updated to become logical, then you have these types of conversations happening in forums like this. Nobody would call you a fish and anyone who does, then has to explain the same BS thinking you are having to respond to now. But that argument only works on one level, and not a scientific level in any case who has defined the term fish being creatures who have fins and gills and as such not humans. You can of course find similar genetic makeup given we descended from the sea but that is not the same as a human construct that has a definition which would contradict itself if you were to argue mammals are fish. So rather than debate this, just do what everyone else has had to do on Potes annual BS chat and say, "Yes I can see your point, but I don't see it that way" and move on.

Anyway, boosters? Who has had them?
#15200740
B0ycey wrote:@XogGyux

Pote is just chatting shit like he did a few years back. A fish is merely a term we use for classification and in reality they give birth to a living entity which then gets reclassified once it becomes a new species just like every other living organisms. We are not clones. So we are not fish but descends from them. But because of some form or classification that nobody but taxonomic uses hasn't been updated to become logical, then you have these types of conversations happening in forums like this. Nobody would call you a fish and anyone who does, then has to explain the same BS thinking you are having to respond to now. But that argument only works on one level, and not a scientific level in any case who has defined the term fish being creatures who have fins and gills and as such not humans. You can of course find similar genetic makeup given we descended from the sea but that is not the same as a human construct that has a definition which would contradict itself if you were to argue mammals are fish. So rather than debate this, just do what everyone else has had to do on Potes annual BS chat and say, "Yes I can see your point, but I don't see it that way" and move on.

A scientific understanding of the world is not the same as a "common sense" understanding of the world. This is why science is even a thing. From a strict, scientific understanding of evolution, humans are highly derived fish. You can of course assert that this is not how you personally use the word "fish", and that's fine. But don't then claim that your use of the word "fish" has any scientific validity.
By B0ycey
#15200741
The term Fish has validity because it is has a definition Pote. It is a human construct. There isn't a scientist on this planet who would call humans fish even amongst themselves. They would say we descendants from them given for the term "Fish" to have meaning, there has to be a meaning for the term to begin with.

But sure, I don't consider humans fish and if I did, I would just call every living thing Prokaryokes and be done with calling for any form of classification given they would in essence be pointless.
#15200742
This is a very edifying discussion. I especially liked the naughty bits about nymphs.
By Rich
#15200745
Potemkin wrote: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:


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.

Your logic looks a bit fishy at the end. ;) We are fish therefore we are vertebrates, would look like a more secure postulate to my mind.
#15200746
Rich wrote:Your logic looks a bit fishy at the end. ;) We are fish therefore we are vertebrates, would look like a more secure postulate to my mind.

You have a good point. As I told @XogGyux one time, evolution only works forwards in time, not backwards. ;)
#15200756
B0ycey wrote:The term Fish has validity because it is has a definition Pote. It is a human construct. There isn't a scientist on this planet who would call humans fish even amongst themselves.

Actually, they do. Scientists have even written books about it, including one called Your Inner Fish. The author, Neil Shubin, was the co-discoverer of Tiktaalik, one of the so-called "fishapods", the link between the aquatic fish and the tetrapods.

They would say we descendants from them given for the term "Fish" to have meaning, there has to be a meaning for the term to begin with.

There is a meaning for the term "Fish" to begin with - the clade consisting of the last common ancestor of all the vertebrates and all its descendants. Which includes us, of course.

But sure, I don't consider humans fish and if I did, I would just call every living thing Prokaryokes and be done with calling for any form of classification given they would in essence be pointless.

Scientific classification is never pointless.
By B0ycey
#15200760
I have never known a scientist ever refer to a mammal as a fish @Potemkin. Regardless whether one scientist has wrote about a bone in the skull in regards to our ancestry. Because to call humans fish, in any regard except this notion of ancestry of descendants, makes no sense whatsoever and even worse than that confuses the term for everyone. The term is a human construct by the way and has a definition. A definition we do not fit under as humans are mammals. And a term which if used as you seem to do, makes the term pointless whether you write that classifications aren't pointless or not. You are making them pointless by merging Fish into Mammals.

But rather than go round and round on this given we are arguing from two different podiums and frankly it no doubt will be discussed in great detail the next time you fancy feeling like you are a proud Fish, I will just say we don't agree and leave it as that.
#15200776
You are making them pointless by merging Fish into Mammals.

Actually, I'm merging mammals into fish. Because mammals and fish are both vertebrates, and the last common ancestor of the clade of vertebrates was... you guessed it, a fish. :)
#15200789
Potemkin wrote:I sense that we're finally getting somewhere. You have admitted that defining the word 'fish' to exclude the tetrapods results in a polyphyletic clade which has no natural meaning. Only if the tetrapods are included in the clade of 'fish' (as they should be, on evolutionary grounds) does the clade of fish become monophyletic, and therefore have a natural meaning.

There is already a word for that in phylogeny, and it is not fish, it is vertebrate. If you gonna come here lecture your nonsense then use the proper term, rather than coming with all these twisted ideas.
Strawman argument. This is not the logic I am using, and you know it. If I chopped up some fish and used the bits to construct a model of a fish, that model would not itself be a fish.

Really? How much you want to bet that if I go to my nearest restaurant and ask for fish, they would bring me a chopped fish and there woulnd't be much confusion. They would not bring me a chopped human, and they wouldn't look at me horrorized for trying to eat my fellow homosapiens.
Can you walk into the furniture store and ask for a tree and get a chair? :lol:

At what generation do they stop being fish?

Just because it is hard to understand, it does not mean it is not true.
The distance between your two eyes can be divided in centimeters, millimeters, nanometers, picometers, etc... infinetly. Yet we know that your eyes are not infinitely apart. It might be hard to identified the specific single individual that left one species to be the first member of another, but that is a limitation of the vast complexity and the vast timelines at play rather than its veracity.

Nevertheless, the student would be correct. Back in the 18th century, if a student had answered "primate" to classify a human, he would have lost credit for that question. And probably been burned at the stake for heresy to boot. Lol.

Don't worry, I will not advocate for your death or burning for being wrong :lol: .

One of the great breakthroughs of Linnaeus was to understand that, say, a rat can be a rodent, a mammal and a vertebrate all at the same time. Likewise, we can be humans, primates, mammals, and fish all at the same time.

No, we cannot. The definition of fish explicitly excludes mammals and other tetrapods, including reptiles, birds, amphibians, mammals.

Now you're just making shit up as you go along.... :eh:

It is a thought experiment. Very common use in science/philosophy. But a I guess they don't teach you those in fishschool.

@B0ycey
Potes annual BS chat and say, "Yes I can see your point, but I don't see it that way" and move on.

Maybe I should follow your advise, will see :lol: .

Potemkin wrote:A scientific understanding of the world is not the same as a "common sense" understanding of the world. This is why science is even a thing. From a strict, scientific understanding of evolution, humans are highly derived fish. You can of course assert that this is not how you personally use the word "fish", and that's fine. But don't then claim that your use of the word "fish" has any scientific validity.

This is nonsensical.

Potemkin wrote:There is a meaning for the term "Fish" to begin with - the clade consisting of the last common ancestor of all the vertebrates and all its descendants. Which includes us, of course.

This is of course nonsense. Since fish is a paraphylogenic grouping. The term is vertebrate, and not fish. If you are going to be an obnoxious pedantic child about phylogeny and evolution, then use the fucking proper term, which is vertebrate.
#15200819
Can we circle back to the nymphs? I want to hear more about nymphs.
#15200823
Drlee wrote:Can we circle back to the nymphs? I want to hear more about nymphs.

For one, they are fish. Since fish eat nymphs, and you are what you eat, and fish are fish, and they eat nymphs, it follows that nymphs are also fish :lol: . :lol:
User avatar
By Drlee
#15200825
XogGyux wrote:For one, they are fish. Since fish eat nymphs, and you are what you eat, and fish are fish, and they eat nymphs, it follows that nymphs are also fish :lol: . :lol:


And Potemkin said people too. Nymphs are people too. I have seen some of them. I mean just in scholarly books for the purpose of research if you know what I mean....
#15200863
Bottom line: 400 million years ago, all of our ancestors were fish. Therefore we are fish. QED. 8)
#15203356
If you are what you eat, then at this moment I am a cheese and pickle sandwich.

Later this afternoon, I might become a Bakewell tart, though I’ll try hard not to do that.

Yes, I’ve had my booster.
  • 1
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44

They do and also they don't. They do in a sense[…]

Is the US economy overheating

Yeah I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with thi[…]

January 27, Wednesday President Davis asks Gen[…]

Why should we go to Mars?

Look at it this way, you can never not be in Spac[…]