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

[Subduction Zone]

It refutes Estrid's claim.

No, it does not. To support that claim you would need to provide proper context. In fact I double checked. You are wrong as usual. It did not refute Estrid's claim. It appears that you suffered a failure to understand context, again.

 

[Astrid]

The order is there. You refuse to see it. I could give endless examples of what is not a "fish" using cladistics. Shellfish are not "fish" using the standards that I use. You do not appear to have a system of classification.

"By the standards that you use".
Exactly.
For those of more objective bent,
Kingdom phylum class is still meaningful.

Sharkies is in a different class from your
Crossopters. Or Actinopters, ftm.

I know we got lumpers n splitters.
Many tho try to be realistic and not mistake
a cow for a fish.

You and your crazed sycophants
have hypertrophy of the lumpificator.
Most such are pencil neck geeks, morally weak,
or simply insane.
We trust you've merely drifted too far from
the shore and will turn back before it's too late.

 

[Phred]

No, it does not. To support that claim you would need to provide proper context. In fact I double checked. You are wrong as usual. It did not refute Estrid's claim. It appears that you suffered a failure to understand context, again.

Of course. He's right upfront about it. He says so in his tagline. And he doesn't much deviate from it. "The Bible says it, that settles it." Forget context. Forget logic. Forget reason. That's why we had the Dark Ages.

 

[Phred]

"By the standards that you use".
Exactly.
For those of more objective bent,
Kingdom phylum class is still meaningful.

Sharkies is in a different class from your
Crossopters. Or Actinopters, ftm.

I know we got lumpers n splitters.
Many tho try to be realistic and not mistake
a cow for a fish.

You and your crazed sycophants
have hypertrophy of the lumpificator.
Most such are pencil neck geeks, morally weak,
or simply insane.
We trust you've merely drifted too far from
the shore and will turn back before it's too late.

Let's not forget bats ain't birds.

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Astrid]

Let's not forget bats ain't birds.

Of course not. Ask Subduction. He says they are fish.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't have to have been Christian to notice that there are 40K sects of different true Christians ...

And how do we "true Christians" manage to stay monotheistic with so many sects?

 

[Ophiolite]

I've been to 5 outa 6 but I vote Turkey. Through the night, bad roads, monster trucks, freeway speeds, one lane going this way, one going t'other and one in the midddle if you want to roll the dice.

I flew into Ankara for a couple of days, but just to deliver a lengthy presentation, so had practically no exposure to the traffic.

 

[Phred]

And how do we "true Christians" manage to stay monotheistic with so many sects?

It's a valid point. One you constantly make light of but valid nonetheless. If there was a god out there directing all this nonsense it might see fit to tell you HOW to worship it. Instead you have 40,000 different versions all claiming to have the ONE TRUE PATH® to heaven.

 

[Shemjaza]

I guess I won't seek the background of this
exchange, but it does illustrate what I was saying
about how we as land dwellers tend to lump
all the aquatics into one category, " fish".

Like all insects are " bugs", but in a grander scale.

People of education and refinement know
clams and sharks are not fish, but just let it
go when the unilliminatti among us
mangle biology so in their speech.

I just posted that as a joke that allows a deliberately silly literal reading of the Bible to show that people are fish.

As to your issues with what people are calling fish. I've always seen cartilaginous fishes like rays and sharks called fish, even if they aren't as similar.

I think the colloquial English classification "fish" more or less means: water breathing vertebrates not descended from land animals.

But if you created a clade to catch all those creatures, you'd end up lumping in all terrestrial vertebrates as well. Which is where the "Human are fish" thing comes from.

 

[Astrid]

I just posted that as a joke that allows a deliberately silly literal reading of the Bible to show that people are fish.

As to your issues with what people are calling fish. I've always seen cartilaginous fishes like rays and sharks called fish, even if they aren't as similar.

I think the colloquial English classification "fish" more or less means: water breathing vertebrates not descended from land animals.

But if you created a clade to catch all those creatures, you'd end up lumping in all terrestrial vertebrates as well. Which is where the "Human are fish" thing comes from.

Agreed. I know the reason for it and spent long
hours memorizing bones, the gill arch to jaw to ear,
all that.

But I object to calling people fish.
We arent fish, and it makes an entirely
valid and interesting field of study look
ridiculous to the uneducated .

 

[Shemjaza]

Agreed. I know the reason for it and spent long
hours memorizing bones, the gill arch to jaw to ear,
all that.

But I object to calling people fish.
We arent fish, and it makes an entirely
valid and interesting field of study look
ridiculous to the uneducated .

Given the problems with lumping some things into clades then excluding others, how would you suggest defining "fish" and "not fish"?

 

[Astrid]

Given the problems with lumping some things into clades then excluding others, how would you suggest defining "fish" and "not fish"?

Why stop at fish? Why not cephalochordates?
Common ancestors and all.

Prollu coz nobody takes a hook and line and says
they will go cephalochordating.

Bony fish, Osteichthys or however it's spelled,
those are fish.
Chondr- whatever are sharks and rays. Not fish.

Different classes, a pretty high level of distinction.

How about worms? There's what, three phyla
of very different animals but theys little, long,
and skinny so theys all worms.

For those who never studied biology, figure
spiders, grasshoppers, and pillnugs are all bugs while
all long wriggly things are worms, and,
swimmy things are all fish, go for it.

I like some useful meaning in words.
"Bats are fish" is just stupid.

As for the inveterate lumpers and divers other base
and ignoble citizens, why not replace all nouns with "thing",
make namenclature even simpler.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"By the standards that you use".
Exactly.
For those of more objective bent,
Kingdom phylum class is still meaningful.

Sharkies is in a different class from your
Crossopters. Or Actinopters, ftm.

I know we got lumpers n splitters.
Many tho try to be realistic and not mistake
a cow for a fish.

You and your crazed sycophants
have hypertrophy of the lumpificator.
Most such are pencil neck geeks, morally weak,
or simply insane.
We trust you've merely drifted too far from
the shore and will turn back before it's too late.

It is not the fault of others if you misapply a classification system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not. Ask Subduction. He says they are fish.

I see that you still do not understand how to use a classification system. You appear to have forgotten the line i gave you at the start of this discussion. For those that do not understand cladistics we can use the term "vertebrates".

 

[Shemjaza]

Why stop at fish? Why not cephalochordates?
Common ancestors and all.

Prollu coz nobody takes a hook and line and says
they will go cephalochordating.

Bony fish, Osteichthys or however it's spelled,
those are fish.
Chondr- whatever are sharks and rays. Not fish.

Different classes, a pretty high level of distinction.

How about worms? There's what, three phyla
of very different animals but theys little, long,
and skinny so theys all worms.

For those who never studied biology, figure
spiders, grasshoppers, and pillnugs are all bugs while
all long wriggly things are worms, and,
swimmy things are all fish, go for it.

I like some useful meaning in words.
"Bats are fish" is just stupid.

As for the inveterate lumpers and divers other base
and ignoble citizens, why not replace all nouns with "thing",
make namenclature even simpler.

...you know that humans are a part of Osteichthys, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given the problems with lumping some things into clades then excluding others, how would you suggest defining "fish" and "not fish"?

Thank you. I have essentially asked the same. I was never given an answer.

 

[Astrid]

...you know that humans are a part of Osteichthys, right?

View attachment 301345

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.

 

[Astrid]

It is not the fault of others if you misapply a classification system.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow! Paul was right on the money when he referred to [prescience?] evolution and what it does.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Endless genealogies ministering questions, rather than godly edification.