Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[pitabread]

so you ok with the 15234 scenario? by this logic any fossil cant be consider as "out of place". even human with a dino.

Again, you're still incorrectly conceptualizing evolution as a linear ladder. The "15234" is not a correct understanding of the progression of biological forms.

 

[xianghua]

All vertebrates are descendants of a distant fish ancestor, but when the descendant species no longer have the distinguishing characteristics of fish, it is no longer useful or helpful to describe them as fish.

Dolphins are cetaceans of the class mammals, of the subphylum vertebrates, which includes all fish, and in particular, the ancestral fish from which they evolved.

so a dolphin isnt a fish. thanks.

 

[pitabread]

please answer my question; can you prove that such event is impossible?

I did answer it. A dog will not evolve into a cat for the same reason you cannot turn into your cousin.

Do you understand the concept of inheritance? If you don't understand the concept of inheritance then you need to start by learning about that, because that is a key to understanding of how populations evolve and why dogs don't evolve into cats.

 

[xianghua]

Again, you're still incorrectly conceptualizing evolution as a linear ladder. The "15234" is not a correct understanding of the progression of biological forms.

so even if we will find a human fossil with a dino its ok according to this.

 

[Speedwell]

so a dolphin is a fish or not?

Dolphins, like all other tetrapods (including humans), evolved from a finned organism which lived in the water, not from what in modern popular speech is called a fish.

 

[pitabread]

so even if we will find a human fossil with a dino its ok according to this.

No, that would be weird because humans evolved long after dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth.

Look, you appear to be making zero effort to try to understand any of this. Why don't you focus your efforts on trying to learn and develop a proper understanding of this?

Then we won't have to keep having the same discussions over and over.

 

[xianghua]

I did answer it. A dog will not evolve into a cat for the same reason you cannot turn into your cousin.

why not? if we get the number of mutations that are needed for such a transition its possible.

 

[pitabread]

why not? if we get the number of mutations that are needed for such a transition its possible.

Mutations have nothing to do with it. It has to do with inheritance.

Why don't you explain how you think inheritance works.

 

[Speedwell]

Xianghua has absolutely no interest in learning about the theory of evolution. He's just looking for a "gotcha" because he sees evolution as an existential threat to his religion, whatever that may be.

 

[essentialsaltes]

but do you agree that if such a event will happen we can say that the fact that it happened prove that its possible?

Can you make your question clearer? Dogs evolved from fish, and cats evolved from fish. This is a fact. So yes, this is possible.
This does not mean that cats can evolve from dogs. Fish followed different historical paths to get to cats and dogs. The tape cannot run backwards to undo these histories.

 

[Speedwell]

why not? if we get the number of mutations that are needed for such a transition its possible.

A population of dogs might, under the right conditions and over many generations, evolve to become cat-like in their habits and appearance, but they still would not be cats.

 

[Jimmy D]

no its not. lets represent fossils by numbers. so in this case instead of finding the order 12345 we find 15234. this doesnt fit with the evolutionery order.

How many times do you need this explaining to you? Would you like me to link to all the responses you’ve had?

 

[pitabread]

Xianghua has absolutely no interest in learning about the theory of evolution. He's just looking for a "gotcha" because he sees evolution as an existential threat to his religion, whatever that may be.

True, although it's still fascinating to me to pinpoint where the disconnect lies. The lack of even the most basic understanding of population genetics (which should be high school level biology) is a huge red flag for anyone trying to discussion biological evolution let alone argue against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you are still a fish and a mammal is still a reptile and a dolphin is still a fish since its ancestor was a fish?

Depending upon how one defines those terms the answer could be yes. The problem is that our old terminology was made before we understood that life is the product of evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so a dolphin isnt a fish. thanks.

Not as such; but it evolved from a fishy ancestor, as did we all.

When we describe evolutionary lineages, as we go further back in time, we generally describe ancestral levels by the feature or features common to their descendants. So at the level of the common ancestor of contemporary fish and dolphins, the common feature is a backbone, hence vertebrates. This is just a useful way of describing the hierarchy - it can be problematic, as with hagfish, which are of the vertebrate clade but have lost their backbone (though they do have a cranium, which counts).

 

[Subduction Zone]

so even if we will find a human fossil with a dino its ok according to this.

Some species are definitely extinct. Species take populations and it would be all but impossible to hide populations of large dinosaurs for millions of years. So a human with a T-Rex would be a rather large problem. But as to humans and dinosaurs, I am eating dinosaur eggs as I post this. Yummy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no its not what im saying. please read again.

Actually it was.

if a fish can evolve into a cat (something that already happened according to evolution) why a dog cant evolve into a cat?

Evolution is a one way street. The split between the populations that led to cats and dogs occurred a long time ago. There is no going back. Your question assumes that there is a goal to evolution in the way of specific species. That is not the case.

 

[xianghua]

No, that would be weird because humans evolved long after dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth.

but you said that you have no problem with 15234 scenario, right? if so we have no problem if we will find human with a dino. we can just push back the origin of human and dinos.

 

[xianghua]

Mutations have nothing to do with it. It has to do with inheritance.

Why don't you explain how you think inheritance works.

mutations have nothing to do with inheritance? realy?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

why not? if we get the number of mutations that are needed for such a transition its possible.

For a population of canines to evolve to have a genetic makeup indistinguishable from felines would be a genetic convergence of astronomically unlikely odds, even given the necessary timescale and environmental conditions. Note that no only would it require all the functional genome to match indistinguishably, but all the non-coding DNA, including incidental mutations and all viral insertions back to their shared ancestor... That really would be a miracle!

Many things are theoretically possible but so unlikely in practice as to be effectively impossible; a dropped egg could un-smash, you could walk through a wall, one person could enter 100 lotteries a week for his whole life and win every one...

Don't hold your breath waiting.