Did a fish become a philosopher?

[Thurston-howell-III]

Is it still true that we humans started out as fish and transformed into humans(over time).
How did this scenario play out, a fish swam onto the shore, got food stayed there and died, or retreated back into the water? Did it wait for the correct mutations that allowed for it to stay on land longer and walk around and find a home there?

 

[BobRyan]

Is it still true that we humans started out as fish and transformed into humans(over time).
How did this scenario play out, a fish swam onto the shore, got food stayed there and died, or retreated back into the water? Did it wait for the correct mutations that allowed for it to stay on land longer and walk around and find a home there?

for some it is "gas dust and rocks" that became a philosopher given enough "time, chance, sunlight, water ... and mass".

for others "bacteria did it"

For others "a eukaryote did it"...

For others... its the Bible all the way

 

[eleos1954]

Is it still true that we humans started out as fish and transformed into humans(over time).
How did this scenario play out, a fish swam onto the shore, got food stayed there and died, or retreated back into the water? Did it wait for the correct mutations that allowed for it to stay on land longer and walk around and find a home there?

seems rather "fishy". LOL

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

I would like to read someone defending this proposition and give a timeline of how the generations of fish started living on land and grew arms,legs, respiratory system, and a modified brain to interact w all the novel changes in body plans.

 

[eleos1954]

Is it still true that we humans started out as fish and transformed into humans(over time).
How did this scenario play out, a fish swam onto the shore, got food stayed there and died, or retreated back into the water? Did it wait for the correct mutations that allowed for it to stay on land longer and walk around and find a home there?

The basic premise of evolution is evolving from smaller to bigger over significant time. The fossil record shows the opposite ... "kindred species" were larger in days past not smaller. Also soft tissue being found in fossilized remains don't support the millions/billions of years theory. There's a lot that casts doubt on the various theories of evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

The basic premise of evolution is evolving from smaller to bigger over significant time.

Or is it "change over time"? Evolution is "change over time" and it does not matter if the thing gets smaller or bigger.

The fossil record shows the opposite ... "kindred species" were larger in days past not smaller.

Indeed. the fossil record shows a more suitable habitat for life existed long ago - with larger-than-life plant and animal species as a result of such ideal conditions in the past.

By contrast more recent evidence is of "extinction" of species.

Also soft tissue being found in fossilized remains don't support the millions/billions of years theory.

Amen to that. They flat out rejected it until forced to accept that it was so.

There's a lot that casts doubt on the various theories of evolution.

yep

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it still true that we humans started out as fish and transformed into humans(over time).
How did this scenario play out, a fish swam onto the shore, got food stayed there and died, or retreated back into the water? Did it wait for the correct mutations that allowed for it to stay on land longer and walk around and find a home there?

Y'know, there are websites and books out there written by professional biologists and paleontologists who can explain to you how the theory of evolution works. It'd probably be good for you to find some and get your answers from those sources rather than asking on a public forum website.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Y'know, there are websites and books out there written by professional biologists and paleontologists who can explain to you how the theory of evolution works. It'd probably be good for you to find some and get your answers from those sources rather than asking on a public forum website.

oh, believe me, I understand how "evolution" works, and is evidenced by how I asked the Orig question. But can you give an empirical scenario of it happening in action? I mean, it had to happen smehow, "right" ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

oh, believe me, I understand how "evolution" works, and is evidenced by how I asked the Orig question. But can you give an empirical scenario of it happening in action? I mean, it had to happen smehow, "right" ?

What do you mean by "empirical"?

Here's the problem with wanting a clearly empirical example that either you or I can readily experience together. You know how about 40 years ago Hollywood started using 'morphing' CGI to produce special effects in movies and videos and how that, when those special effects were applied to those movies or videos, we'd see people become other people or a person change into an animal before our eyes?

Well, evolution isn't a form of morphing that we're going to see and go, "Aha! Wow, that's cool! Look!" ... yeah, that's not how it works.

Besides the presence of micro-mutations that may take place in any one (or several) organism among an entire species, the other part of it is how those organisms fare in survival and then reproduction when pressed by their environments. So, if you wanted to "see" today an example of evolution at work, we'd probably want to pass on "seeing it," or at least I would, especially if it looked like this:

Chicxulub asteroid impact created 2-year cloud of dust that may have killed the dinosaurs

Researchers have so far overlooked the impact of dust particles on the mass extinction of species following the Chicxulub asteroid impact.

www.space.com

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

What do you mean by "empirical"?

Here's the problem with wanting a clearly empirical example that either you or I can readily experience together. You know how about 40 years ago Hollywood started using 'morphing' CGI to produce special effects in movies and videos and how that, when those special effects were applied to those movies or videos, we'd see people become other people or a person change into an animal before our eyes?

Well, evolution isn't a form of morphing that we're going to see and go, "Aha! Wow, that's cool! Look!" ... yeah, that's not how it works.

Besides the presence of micro-mutations that may take place in any one (or several) organism among an entire species, the other part of it is how those organisms fare in survival and then reproduction when pressed by their environments. So, if you wanted to "see" today an example of evolution at work, we'd probably want to pass on "seeing it," or at least I would, especially if it looked like this:

Chicxulub asteroid impact created 2-year cloud of dust that may have killed the dinosaurs

Researchers have so far overlooked the impact of dust particles on the mass extinction of species following the Chicxulub asteroid impact.

www.space.com

Not sure why you are telling me about morphing. I'm sure you read my typed chars "(over time) in the OP, did you not?
My point is that for fish to start living on land, something significant must have happened. Multiple mutations occurred to complete the task?
new body plans, respiratory system, leg muscles, bone augmentation, circulatory system, drastic new brain function.
What luck for random DNA copying errors!!!!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure why you are telling me about morphing. I'm sure you read my typed chars "(over time) in the OP, did you not?
My point is that for fish to start living on land, something significant must have happened. Multiple mutations occurred to complete the task?
new body plans, respiratory system, leg muscles, bone augmentation, circulatory system, drastic new brain function.
What luck for random DNA copying errors!!!!!

The reason I brought up morphing is that it seems a number of people have the erroneous idea that evolution happens very quickly and above the micro level. I mean, where evolution is concerned, we're talking about selection pressures upon various species over not just months or decades of time, but rather through thousands of years, processes of change in genes that emerge through deep time, even through millions of years.

It's not about fish jumping on shore and experiencing a change as they do so, magically. It's about organisms that have some 'difference' from others in their own species, allowing them to survive and reproduce while the others do not or not to the same degree.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

The reason I brought up morphing is that it seems a number of people have the erroneous idea that evolution happens very quickly and above the micro level. I mean, where evolution is concerned, we're talking about selection pressures upon various species over not just months or decades of time, but rather through thousands of years, processes of change in genes that emerge through deep time, even through millions of years.

It's not about fish jumping on shore and experiencing a change as they do so, magically. It's about organisms that have some 'difference' from others in their own species, allowing them to survive and reproduce while the others do not or not to the same degree.

OK,
So if you could fast forward the millions-yr long video of the fish species journeying from fish to human, into a 10 min video, could you describe what we would see?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK,
So if you could fast forward the millions-yr long video of the fish species journeying from fish to human, into a 10 min video, could you describe what we would see?

Nope. I gave up cartoon animation a long time ago.

 

[Lost4words]

Is it still true that we humans started out as fish and transformed into humans(over time).
How did this scenario play out, a fish swam onto the shore, got food stayed there and died, or retreated back into the water? Did it wait for the correct mutations that allowed for it to stay on land longer and walk around and find a home there?

We are made in the image if God...

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Nope. I gave up cartoon animation a long time ago.

So basically what you're saying is that you are giving up on your fish to man fantasy?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So basically what you're saying is that you are giving up on your fish to man fantasy?

No, I'm implying that I don't think a description of how evolution works can be fully, or really all too easily, visualized in an utterly accurate manner, especially one that animates a continuous set of frames to produce a descriptive morphing of "fish to men."

At best, we have the evidences we have from various fields of Science, and scientists and data analysts can take that evidence and attempt to construct a provisional animated morphology, but we don't know exactly how every step of every change took place since those billions of finer details are either lost to the past or simply destroyed. This is, after all, why we call the Theory of Evolution a scientific Theory.

Of course, I'm sure I'll be made to eat crow when geneticists and A.I. developers decide to assert that they can indeed present an "utterly accurate morphing visualization" beyond the current animated attempts. I'm just not sure how they would handle the steps in evolution that are posited by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge's time sensitive theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium."

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

No, I'm implying that I don't think a description of how evolution works can be fully, or really all too easily be visualized in an utterly accurate manner, especially one that animates a continuous set of frames to produce a descriptive morphing of "fish to men."

At best, we have the evidences we have from various fields of Science, and scientists and data analysts can take that evidence and attempt to construct a provisional animated morphology, but we don't know exactly how every step of every change took place since those billions of finer details are either lost to the past or simply destroyed. This is, after all, why we call the Theory of Evolution a scientific Theory.

Of course, I'm sure I'll be made to eat crow when geneticists and A.I. developers decide to assert that they can indeed present an "utterly accurate morphing visualization" beyond the current animated attempts. I'm just not sure how they would handle the steps in evolution that are posited by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge's time sensitive theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium."

I didn't say it had to be "utterly accurate", I just want your brief description of how it happened becasue you hold that "it happened". If it's a fact, own up to it and provide a few examples along the route of how it happened. I don't want to hear "we just don't know"
I wouldn't put any stock into Punctuated Equilibrium, which is at best, contradictory to your TOE which entails great leaps of change. (NOT GRADUAL)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't say it had to be "utterly accurate", I just want your brief description of how it happened becasue you hold that "it happened". If it's a fact, own up to it and provide a few examples along the route of how it happened. I don't want to hear "we just don't know"
I wouldn't put any stock into Punctuated Equilibrium, which is at best, contradictory to your TOE which entails great leaps of change. (NOT GRADUAL)

Yes, you're correct. I think the evidences of evolution in natural history make the idea of evolution a fact.

However, my conclusion is drawn by inference from what little I know about the whole of Natural History, coming from what I've read, studied or critically thought about the topic of evolution.

So, what I have in my mind as an explanation is not a step by step, blow by blow transcription of "A Story" about whichever species of fish supposedly began the long haul in slowly providing the starting point of lineages leading to later species' development. and conveniently eventuating to you and me today, sitting as we are, typing with our evolved digits and sending our musings into the E-World.

As for Punctuated Equilibrium, I'm going to go by what both Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge have said about their own perspective on the theory. I can't say that it's contradictory to the Theory of Evolution since......well....they have both been secular Evolutionists and simply offer a modified explanation of the pacing of evolution. And if there are punctuated points in the pacing and direction of the natural history of evolution, as opposed to there be a clearly defined gradualism in the overall evolutionary record, then yeah.........I'm going to decline from offering a contrived, morphological 'tale' as a descriptive explanation. Evolution isn't a fact due to there be a clear account of the connection of details "proving" the evolutionary connections. No, it's a fact because, historically speaking, the fragments and diverse forms of scientific evidence are so numerous that we are firmly nudged to make inferences to this conclusion in a rational, justified way.

Of course, God could have directed it all all along, but even if He did, that doesn't mean we'd necessarily see clearly identifiable evidence of design in the geological, paleontological, archaeological, biological and genetic records, among others that are available through the sciences.

I mean, here's the upshot in this: if you personally would rather believe in a more Lamarckian and/or Theologically Progressive and directed form of evolution over the long-haul of millions upon millions of years, then be my guest. I won't knock you for it.

 

[Palmfever]

for some it is "gas dust and rocks" that became a philosopher given enough "time, chance, sunlight, water ... and mass".

for others "bacteria did it"

For others "a eukaryote did it"...

For others... its the Bible all the way

But, but, but... How did life exist in superheated flatulence? And who, what or where did this indigestion come from? You really can get something from nothing, Right? So it always existed, then someone lit a match? Where did it exist prior to the gastroenteritis? The universe really did explode from a giants small intestines. a wormhole, a naked singularity?
Ok
So solid matter. Introduction of living stones.
Two rocks, male and female, (Don't ask me why or how.) found themselves ensconced at the edge of a very high, yet lovely cliff. The male glanced over at the female winked and uttered in a stony cool voice, 'I think we would make beautiful babies.' After countless eons of attempts she softened up enough to turn and question, Bu, bu, bu, bu, but, huh, huh, huh, how?
'We roll off the cliff together, he eager to begin smiled.' we will have small pieces of us for children.'
With the level of cognition endowed in a stone, and countless more eons of erosion the cliff gave way and down they went laughing in amazement and screaming in terror.
Are they alive, eons later she inquired? they're not moving and I don't want to go through that again. Birthing really hurts.

I think I'll quit there. I believe I have it figured out. There really must be a God. And however He did it, He did it.
In Christ

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Yes, you're correct. I think the evidences of evolution in natural history make the idea of evolution a fact.

However, my conclusion is drawn by inference from what little I know about the whole of Natural History, coming from what I've read, studied or critically thought about the topic of evolution.

So, what I have in my mind as an explanation is not a step by step, blow by blow transcription of "A Story" about whichever species of fish supposedly began the long haul in slowly providing the starting point of lineages leading to later species' development. and conveniently eventuating to you and me today, sitting as we are, typing with our evolved digits and sending our musings into the E-World.

As for Punctuated Equilibrium, I'm going to go by what both Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge have said about their own perspective on the theory. I can't say that it's contradictory to the Theory of Evolution since......well....they have both been secular Evolutionists and simply offer a modified explanation of the pacing of evolution. And if there are punctuated points in the pacing and direction of the natural history of evolution, as opposed to there be a clearly defined gradualism in the overall evolutionary record, then yeah.........I'm going to decline from offering a contrived, morphological 'tale' as a descriptive explanation. Evolution isn't a fact due to there be a clear account of the connection of details "proving" the evolutionary connections. No, it's a fact because, historically speaking, the fragments and diverse forms of scientific evidence are so numerous that we are firmly nudged to make inferences to this conclusion in a rational, justified way.

Of course, God could have directed it all all along, but even if He did, that doesn't mean we'd necessarily see clearly identifiable evidence of design in the geological, paleontological, archaeological, biological and genetic records, among others that are available through the sciences.

I mean, here's the upshot in this: if you personally would rather believe in a more Lamarckian and/or Theologically Progressive and directed form of evolution over the long-haul of millions upon millions of years, then be my guest. I won't knock you for it.

"

Yes, you're correct. I think the evidences of evolution in natural history make the idea of evolution a fact."
I NEVER said that nor insinuated it.
Here's something that might help. "Never in history did a fish give birth to anything other than a fish"
Can you dispute that?