For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Subduction Zone]

Tres droll, from someone who classifies people as fish.

I had two objections to your chosen way to see things.

One is the clear nonsense of "people are fish", and
how saying it to someone who already thinks evolution is
garbage is so far from convincing or helpful.


The other was calling a shark a fish in any but
the most informal sense.

See " worms" for other biologically meaningless
terms of convemience

And you continue to demonstrate that you do not have classification system. There are "fish" that exist today that are more closely related to us than we are to trout. Coelacanths and lungfish are extent "fish" that are more closely related to us. Or are these not fish for "reasons"?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Wow., Sorry, I sort of assumed you would resolve the conundrum that the colloquial understanding of a "fish" would be resolved that one of our ancestors would today be identified in simple terms as a fish, this would only be a misnomer as the relevant part was that it had a backbone. computer is not allowing me to type so I will add one support link for Estrid. will post more later.
Fishy Cladistics Sorry Estrid.

 

[Shemjaza]

As I remember from uni., the common ancestor of
sharks and fish was over 400 million years ago with
features, yes, in common with both.
Call it a fish if one like to think all swimmy things
are fish, however little they resemble those of today.

Lancets shall be fish too, why not.


Ostei was once considered the superclass including
Actin and Sarco., now they are all considered superclasses.

And so it goes.

It is obvious and uncontested except of course among
the benighted, that tetrapods descend from the lobe fins.

If it entertains while it fails to enlighten to claim in
contradiction to all definitions of Osteichthys and
include bats, it's clear that some will do so and
say that ifn a fish was common ancestor to tuna
and turtles, then turtles is fish, I guess they will
continue the silly game.
It's not though been said why the gamers stop at
fish instead of backing it up to a cephalochordate.

I really don't understand what you objection is? You accept that all land vertebrates share a common ancestor with fish and that ancestor would be colloquially called a fish so we call come from this "fish" family.

We are also still amniotes... despite not laying eggs.

I also accept that snakes are tetrapodes... even if they don't have four legs.

These descriptions are references to ancestry that I and many other people find useful in conceptualising evolution and evolutionary history.

 

[Estrid]

I really don't understand what you objection is? You accept that all land vertebrates share a common ancestor with fish and that ancestor would be colloquially called a fish so we call come from this "fish" family.

We are also still amniotes... despite not laying eggs.

I also accept that snakes are tetrapodes... even if they don't have four legs.

These descriptions are references to ancestry that I and many other people find useful in conceptualising evolution and evolutionary history.

This is all plain enough and known to
any student of biology.

My objection was to calling people
"fish".

 

[Shemjaza]

This is all plain enough and known to
any student of biology.

My objection was to calling people
"fish".

Out of curiosity where do you stand on the phrases:
"Many of our direct ancestors were fish"
and
"Humans are apes"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow., Sorry, I sort of assumed you would resolve the conundrum that the colloquial understanding of a "fish" would be resolved that one of our ancestors would today be identified in simple terms as a fish, this would only be a misnomer as the relevant part was that it had a backbone. computer is not allowing me to type so I will add one support link for Estrid. will post more later.
Fishy Cladistics Sorry Estrid.

A science denying source supports @Estrid. I think that she will only find cold comfort from that.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

A science denying source supports @Estrid. I think that she will only find cold comfort from that.

Yes Do while was snarky.
But she has a point, cladisticly we may be fish, but as the cultural baggage cannot be ignored. She is correct in stating that using "fish" for this basal organism leads to little but problems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes Do while was snarky.
But she has a point, cladisticly we may be fish, but as the cultural baggage cannot be ignored. She is correct in stating that using "fish" for this basal organism leads to little but problems.

She missed the point of course. Cladistics is a classification system. For those that are uncomfortable with the fact that cladistically we are "fish" there is an alternative term to use. The facts that we are "fish" is only used to show how the "change of kind" claim of creationists is without merit. No one is proposing that ichthyologists are now experts on mammals. A false narrative cannot change reality.

 

[Estrid]

She missed the point of course. Cladistics is a classification system. For those that are uncomfortable with the fact that cladistically we are "fish" there is an alternative term to use. The facts that we are "fish" is only used to show how the "change of kind" claim of creationists is without merit. No one is proposing that ichthyologists are now experts on mammals. A false narrative cannot change reality.

As if I were unaware of cladistics and had not
gone through an memorized every freaking bone
as it traces through the last 400 million years or so
up through amphibians reptiles birds mammals,
origin insertionn action of muscles et and blah
more study time that semester than every other
class put together and then took it again as I was
not satisfied with my grade.

You can quit trying to pretend I don't
know the subject matter.

I didn't miss your "point", you don't have
one unless you find equivocation to be
to some point.

 

[Estrid]

Out of curiosity where do you stand on the phrases:
"Many of our direct ancestors were fish"
and
"Humans are apes"

No prob.
Tho I'd phrase it more like that we are descended from fish.

 

[Estrid]

Yes Do while was snarky.
But she has a point, cladisticly we may be fish, but as the cultural baggage cannot be ignored. She is correct in stating that using "fish" for this basal organism leads to little but problems.

Cultural baggage?
Maybe that saying " we are fish" is in addition to being
factually incorrect is just the kind of thing that makes
evolution look stupid .

There is no realistic argument against
fish ancestry, but it's no quick easy thing to
see and understand, so few are willing to
do so.

If a person wishes to say we incorporate,
are based on structures dating back
hundreds of millions of years, some things
pre notochord, things from fish, amphibians a d
reptiles, that is reasonable.

Does anyone find that there is agreement
among paleontologists and anatomists etc.,
that people are, therefore, " fish"?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Cultural baggage?
Maybe that saying " we are fish" is in addition to being
factually incorrect is just the kind of thing that makes
evolution look stupid .

There is no realistic argument against
fish ancestry, but it's no quick easy thing to
see and understand, so few are willing to
do so.

If a person wishes to say we incorporate,
are based on structures dating back
hundreds of millions of years, some things
pre notochord, things from fish, amphibians a d
reptiles, that is reasonable.

Does anyone find that there is agreement
among paleontologists and anatomists etc.,
that people are, therefore, " fish"?

So what are fish and what are we and what alternative to propose?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As if I were unaware of cladistics and had not
gone through an memorized every freaking bone
as it traces through the last 400 million years or so
up through amphibians reptiles birds mammals,
origin insertionn action of muscles et and blah
more study time that semester than every other
class put together and then took it again as I was
not satisfied with my grade.

You can quit trying to pretend I don't
know the subject matter.

I didn't miss your "point", you don't have
one unless you find equivocation to be
to some point.

Then you really should not act as if you do not understand it.

 

[Estrid]

Then you really should not act as if you do not understand it.

Reading comprehension, Chappie

 

[Estrid]

So what are fish and what are we and what alternative to propose?

May I just suggest any of a few dozen definitions
of the word "fish"?

 

[Ophiolite]

Reading comprehension, Chappie

On this one I think clarity of writing is the problem. Yours. Not anyone else's. Do think about it please.

 

[Estrid]

On this one I think clarity of writing is the problem. Yours. Not anyone else's. Do think about it please.

Coming from you, I will accept it and do just that.
Try to anyway.
I've been told I don't talk or write like other people.
Kind of scramble two languages.

 

[Ophiolite]

Coming from you, I will accept it and do just that.
Try to anyway.
I've been told I don't talk or write like other people.
Kind of scramble two languages.

Thank you, both for your trust and for your intended effort.

As a typical Brit I only have one language to scramble, having failed in my attempts, over several years, to learn thirteen or fourteen different languages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reading comprehension, Chappie

Mine is fine. Yours appears to be questionable.

You relied on a strawman argument to try to refute the fact that we are still "fish" meanwhile ignoring what that phrase was used in the first place.

Let me try to remind you why that argument is used. Creationists also love strawman arguments. They love to say that evolution involves a change of kind, when it does not. When they are told that we share a common ancestor with other fish they try to claim that there is a "change of kind" in evolution. There is no such thing. They will try to ask when we stopped being "fish" and the answer is never. And that is why I also said that the term "vertebrate" is perhaps better for those that do not understand evolution. You put yourself on the anti-evolution side, not me.

 

[Bradskii]

Thank you, both for your trust and for your intended effort.

As a typical Brit I only have one language to scramble, having failed in my attempts, over several years, to learn thirteen or fourteen different languages.

OK, I want a list...