Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[xianghua]

Yeah, that would be stupid.

but this is what we find in this case: the first tetrapod appearing before its suppose more primitive ancestors (or species that are related to them actually because they arent direct ancestors).

 

[xianghua]

No, you really really do not understand the theory at all.

Once again, cladistics will fix this problem of yours. Or in case you need a reminder, you are still an ape, you are still a "monkey" (depending on how one defines monkeys). You are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, you are still a chordate, you are still a eukaryote, and you are still a living orgnaism.

That takes us back to the beginning of life with no change in kind.

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?

 

[xianghua]

You are essentially arguing that Americans cannot be descended from Europeans since there are still Europeans. That is not a problem.

no its not what im saying. please read again.

The theory of evolution says that a dog cannot evolve into a cat

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

 

[xianghua]

Why are you willing to accept this paper while, at the same time, you reject the abundant evidence for evolution?

such as?

If the Middle Devonian Zachelmie tracks really were made by tetrapods, these tetrapods must have been descended from Lower Devonian or Silurian animals that were not tetrapods. Therefore, if somebody found the fossils of the animals that made the Zachelmie tracks, they would presumably be transitional between Silurian/Lower Devonian fish and Upper Devonian/Carboniferous tetrapods; in other words, they would still be transitional fossils.

for now they are in the wrong place as you can see in this image from wiki:

File:Zachelmie tracks vs selected Devonian fossils.svg - Wikimedia Commons

 

[Speedwell]

lets see. first: notice that i didnt said anything about extant species. i also didnt said that it need to happen in a single step. second: can you give me a clculation that shows why a dog cant evolve into cat?

Can a family of Swedish descent ever evolve into a family of German descent? Even if they moved to Germany and became very similar to Germans over many generations, they would still be a family of Swedish descent, would they not?

Likewise with cats and dogs. 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 be dogs.

 

[xianghua]

Can a family of Swedish descent ever evolve into a family of German descent? Even if they moved to Germany and became very similar to Germans over many generations, they would still be a family of Swedish descent, would they not?

Likewise with cats and dogs. 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 be dogs.

so a dolphin is still a fish?

 

[Speedwell]

so a dolphin is still a fish?

In the same sense that humans are, in that they have a distant ancestor which was a "fish." In this case I put "fish" in quotes to remind you that we are aware that you are using popular terms like "fish," "cat" and "dog" in an intentionally ambiguous fashion for sophistical purposes.

 

[pitabread]

lets see. first: notice that i didnt said anything about extant species.

Dogs and cats are extant species. If you mean something else, then you need to be more clear about your terminology.

second: can you give me a clculation that shows why a dog cant evolve into cat?

This is a nonsensical question. Extant species do not evolve into one another.

A dog evolving into a cat would be like claiming you could turn into your cousin. It just makes no sense.

It all comes down to an understanding of how inheritance works which is part of the core of understanding how evolution works. You should really take the time to try to learn this.

 

[pitabread]

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.

You're still viewing evolution as a linear ladder of progression. That's not how it works. In reality, evolutionary patterns are based on diverging populations.

In the latter scenario, it's expected to find "transitional" forms that are contemporaries of their ancestors because there is nothing requiring those ancestral populations to go extinct.

 

[essentialsaltes]

no its not what im saying. please read again.



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

Because animals carry their evolutionary history along with them. Suppose you have two circles on a piece of paper, and one you make into a smiley face, and the other you make into a sun with rays coming out. The face and the sun both came from a circle, but you can't make a face into a sun without erasing some of the history it has acquired.

Just as an example: "a cat has 38 chromosomes (19 pairs) and a dog has 78 chromosomes (39 pairs)"

While we know of events that can fuse chromosomes, it would take quite a series of such events to get from 78 to 38 chromosomes, and in just such a way that the right genes wind up on the right chromosomes. It's more like asking van Gogh to change Starry Night into Sunflowers. The process that turns a blank canvas into one and not the other is not reversible.

 

[xianghua]

In the same sense that humans are, in that they have a distant ancestor which was a "fish." In this case I put "fish" in quotes to remind you that we are aware that you are using popular terms like "fish," "cat" and "dog" in an intentionally ambiguous fashion for sophistical purposes.

so both humans and dolphins are fish.

 

[Speedwell]

so both humans and dolphins are fish.

You need to put "fish" in quotation marks. Even better, you should stop using modern popular terms for extant species as if they were scientific descriptors. We are all wise to that trick and all it does is make your arguments seem ignorant.

 

[xianghua]

Dogs and cats are extant species. If you mean something else, then you need to be more clear about your terminology.



This is a nonsensical question. Extant species do not evolve into one another.

To claim otherwise would be like claiming you could turn into your cousin. It just makes no sense.

You need to learn about how evolution really works.

just for the sake of the argument lets say that we indeed talking about a dog evolving into a cat even in a single step. can you show why its impossible according to evolution?

 

[pitabread]

You need to put "fish" in quotation marks.

I wonder if when talking about fish, he is conceptualizing something like a modern species of fish. And therefore if people are claiming that at a modern fish could eventually evolve into something like a modern cat, it wouldn't make sense that a modern dog couldn't evolve into the same.

Unfortunately, this is where both the human desire to lump things into categories and the use of imprecise language causes problems.

 

[xianghua]

You're still viewing evolution as a linear ladder of progression. That's not how it works. In reality, evolutionary patterns are based on diverging populations.

In the latter scenario, it's expected to find "transitional" forms that are contemporaries of their ancestors because there is nothing requiring those ancestral populations to go extinct.

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

 

[pitabread]

just for the sake of the argument lets say that we indeed talking about a dog evolving into a cat even in a single step. can you show why its impossible according to evolution?

It has to do with the concept of inheritance and genetics. Do you know what inheritance means in the context of DNA/genetics?

It's the same reason you can't inherit DNA from your cousin. Do you know why that is?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so a dolphin is still a fish?

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.

 

[xianghua]

You need to put "fish" in quotation marks. Even better, you should stop using modern popular terms for extant species as if they were scientific descriptors. We are all wise to that trick and all it does is make your arguments seem ignorant.

so a dolphin is a fish or not?

 

[xianghua]

While we know of events that can fuse chromosomes, it would take quite a series of such events to get from 78 to 38 chromosomes, and in just such a way that the right genes wind up on the right chromosomes.

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

 

[xianghua]

It has to do with the concept of inheritance and genetics. Do you know what inheritance means in the context of DNA/genetics?

It's the same reason you can't inherit DNA from your cousin. Do you know why that is?

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