Evolution from monkeys

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Another article on the topic.
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2012/03/are ... -hominims/

This bloke reckons we are fish as well as monkeys. That is what happens when you mix semantics with taxonomy, children.

Yes. Problem?

Problem is I can't swim too well and am unable to breathe water, so much for being a fish, even though we're both vertebrates.

And when was the exact moment in our evolutionary history we stopped being fish?

456.837

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually, fish are a polyphyletic group consisting of multiple clades defined not by their evolutionary position in the tree-of-life but by their physical characteristics. So we are NOT fish, despite the fact that many of our ancestors were, because we do not share those characteristics. Similarly, we are not reptiles or amphibians. But we are mammals and apes.

[Animavore]

Actually, fish are a polyphyletic group consisting of multiple clades defined not by their evolutionary position in the tree-of-life but by their physical characteristics. So we are NOT fish, despite the fact that many of our ancestors were, because we do not share those characteristics. Similarly, we are not reptiles or amphibians. But we are mammals and apes.

We are subsets of lobe-finned fish, aphibians and reptiles. We never stop being these things. It makes no sense biologically. To say we have stopped being them is saying there is some weird break in our ancestry where we're reptiles on one side and mammals on the other. The separation of differently related species is an illusion.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually, fish are a polyphyletic group consisting of multiple clades defined not by their evolutionary position in the tree-of-life but by their physical characteristics. So we are NOT fish, despite the fact that many of our ancestors were, because we do not share those characteristics. Similarly, we are not reptiles or amphibians. But we are mammals and apes.

We are subsets of lobe-finned fish, aphibians and reptiles. We never stop being these things. It makes no sense biologically. To say we have stopped being them is saying there is some weird break in our ancestry where we're reptiles on one side and mammals on the other. The separation of differently related species is an illusion.

Why does it make no sense biologically? We had ancestors that were single-celled. Does that mean we can be called single-celled organisms? Of course not. And for the same reason we are not fish.

[Animavore]

Actually, fish are a polyphyletic group consisting of multiple clades defined not by their evolutionary position in the tree-of-life but by their physical characteristics. So we are NOT fish, despite the fact that many of our ancestors were, because we do not share those characteristics. Similarly, we are not reptiles or amphibians. But we are mammals and apes.

We are subsets of lobe-finned fish, aphibians and reptiles. We never stop being these things. It makes no sense biologically. To say we have stopped being them is saying there is some weird break in our ancestry where we're reptiles on one side and mammals on the other. The separation of differently related species is an illusion.

Why does it make no sense biologically? We had ancestors that were single-celled. Does that mean we can be called single-celled organisms? Of course not. And for the same reason we are not fish.

Our single-celled ancestors were eukaryotes. And yes, we are still eukaryotes. We are also highly adapted fish. How could we be otherwise?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually, fish are a polyphyletic group consisting of multiple clades defined not by their evolutionary position in the tree-of-life but by their physical characteristics. So we are NOT fish, despite the fact that many of our ancestors were, because we do not share those characteristics. Similarly, we are not reptiles or amphibians. But we are mammals and apes.

We are subsets of lobe-finned fish, aphibians and reptiles. We never stop being these things. It makes no sense biologically. To say we have stopped being them is saying there is some weird break in our ancestry where we're reptiles on one side and mammals on the other. The separation of differently related species is an illusion.

Why does it make no sense biologically? We had ancestors that were single-celled. Does that mean we can be called single-celled organisms? Of course not. And for the same reason we are not fish.

Our single-celled ancestors were eukaryotes. And yes, we are still eukaryotes. We are also highly adapted fish. How could we be otherwise?

We are Eukaryotes because we have the characteristics of eukaryotes (cells with membranes and nuclei) but we are not fish because we do not have the characteristics of fish - "A fish is any member of a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits." - we lack gills and have digits - hence, not fish.

This entire thread has been a bollocks-up of phylogeny v semantics. Phylogenetically speaking, we are members of the clades that contain ourselves and/or our ancestors but not members of clades that contain our ancestors alone. Semantically speaking, we are members of the groups whose descriptions fit us and not members of any other groups. In an ideal world, these two classification systems would exactly coincide. But, even though they don't in practice, by neither definition are we fish.

[Animavore]

Actually, fish are a polyphyletic group consisting of multiple clades defined not by their evolutionary position in the tree-of-life but by their physical characteristics. So we are NOT fish, despite the fact that many of our ancestors were, because we do not share those characteristics. Similarly, we are not reptiles or amphibians. But we are mammals and apes.

We are subsets of lobe-finned fish, aphibians and reptiles. We never stop being these things. It makes no sense biologically. To say we have stopped being them is saying there is some weird break in our ancestry where we're reptiles on one side and mammals on the other. The separation of differently related species is an illusion.

Why does it make no sense biologically? We had ancestors that were single-celled. Does that mean we can be called single-celled organisms? Of course not. And for the same reason we are not fish.

Our single-celled ancestors were eukaryotes. And yes, we are still eukaryotes. We are also highly adapted fish. How could we be otherwise?

We are Eukaryotes because we have the characteristics of eukaryotes (cells with membranes and nuclei) but we are not fish because we do not have the characteristics of fish - "A fish is any member of a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits." - we lack gills and have digits - hence, not fish.

This entire thread has been a bollocks-up of phylogeny v semantics. Phylogenetically speaking, we are members of the clades that contain ourselves and/or our ancestors but not members of clades that contain our ancestors alone. Semantically speaking, we are members of the groups whose descriptions fit us and not members of any other groups. In an ideal world, these two classification systems would exactly coincide. But, even though they don't in practice, by neither definition are we fish.

We're highly adapted and specialised fish. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

We're highly adapted and specialised fish. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We're highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

[Animavore]

We're highly adapted and specialised fish. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We're highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We are highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. I've no problem with that.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

We're highly adapted and specialised fish. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We're highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We are highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. I've no problem with that.

By the same logic: Most of our ancestors are extinct species. Therefore we are an extinct species. Scumple will be pleased.

[Animavore]

We're highly adapted and specialised fish. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We're highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We are highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. I've no problem with that.

By the same logic: Most of our ancestors are extinct species. Therefore we are an extinct species. Scumple will be pleased.

No. That makes no sense what-so-ever and the logic is not the same. What is any creature but the accumlation of every adaptation that came before it stretching back to single-celled organisms?
Saying that our ancestors are extinct therefore we are exitinct is like saying my granddad is dead therefore I'm dead.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

We're highly adapted and specialised fish. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We're highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. Again, I ask, how can we be otherwise? You completely side-stepped the question and the semantic quibble is completely yours and not mine.

We are highly adapted and specialised single-celled organisms. I've no problem with that.

By the same logic: Most of our ancestors are extinct species. Therefore we are an extinct species. Scumple will be pleased.

No. That makes no sense what-so-ever and the logic is not the same. What is any creature but the accumlation of every adaptation that came before it stretching back to single-celled organisms?
Saying that our ancestors are extinct therefore we are exitinct is like saying my granddad is dead therefore I'm dead.

Ok then.

We have ancestors that were gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lacked limbs with digits. Does that mean that we have gills and lack digits? If not, how can we be fish, seeing as that is the definition of a fish?

[Animavore]

By the same logic: Most of our ancestors are extinct species. Therefore we are an extinct species. Scumple will be pleased.

No. That makes no sense what-so-ever and the logic is not the same. What is any creature but the accumlation of every adaptation that came before it stretching back to single-celled organisms?
Saying that our ancestors are extinct therefore we are exitinct is like saying my granddad is dead therefore I'm dead.

Ok then.

We have ancestors that were gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lacked limbs with digits. Does that mean that we have gills and lack digits? If not, how can we be fish, seeing as that is the definition of a fish?

Why are you using a self-serving defintion of fish which looks at the differences and ignores everything that's the same? We're fish that lost its gills. Big deal. There are cave-dwelling lizards who have lost their eyes. Have they stopped being lizards? Birds have wings where dinosaurs did not and lost teeth to boot. Have they stopped being dinosaurs?

You're trying to create a divding line between our fish ancestors and ourselves which simply doesn't exist.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

By the same logic: Most of our ancestors are extinct species. Therefore we are an extinct species. Scumple will be pleased.

No. That makes no sense what-so-ever and the logic is not the same. What is any creature but the accumlation of every adaptation that came before it stretching back to single-celled organisms?
Saying that our ancestors are extinct therefore we are exitinct is like saying my granddad is dead therefore I'm dead.

Ok then.

We have ancestors that were gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lacked limbs with digits. Does that mean that we have gills and lack digits? If not, how can we be fish, seeing as that is the definition of a fish?

Why are you using a self-serving defintion of fish which looks at the differences and ignores everything that's the same? We're fish that lost its gills. Big deal. There are cave-dwelling lizards who have lost their eyes. Have they stopped being lizards? Birds have wings where dinosaurs did not and lost teeth to boot. Have they stopped being dinosaurs?

You're trying to create a divding line between our fish ancestors and ourselves which simply doesn't exist.

No. The line exists. It is only ever hard to define in the borderline cases. We are not a borderline case. We are not fish by ANY definition of fish. We have not merely lost the gills, we have lost everything that makes something a fish.

[JimC]

We are definitely tetrapods...