Did a fish become a philosopher?

[sfs]

"A child is not an adult?"
That is a distinction w out a difference BECAUSE THE CHILD IS STILL A HUMAN BEING-- JUST LIKE IT'S PARENT!

And a tetrapod is still a vertebrate, just like its fish ancestor. So what? There is no single day when a child becomes an adult. There is no single generation in which a fish becomes a tetrapod. You think there has to be one, but are unable to explain why.

I want to know when an offspring is not the same kind as it's parent. Give me ONE EXAMPLE!!!!

I want to know why a population slowly becoming more tetrapod-like isn't an example of a population changing kinds (whatever exactly you mean by 'kind'). So far, your argument consists of saying that fish can't change into tetrapods because fish can't change into tetrapods, and saying the same thing in all caps with lots of exclamation points. With or without the histrionics, it's not an argument.

ETA: Let's make this more concrete. Take a nearly tetrapod-like fish, one with lungs, limbs that it uses to move around in the mud at the bottom of the water and also on land, where it spends 49% of the time. The next generation looks almost identical, but they spend 51% of their time on land, so we call them tetrapods. That's the scenario. What your objection to this scenario is remains unclear. Are the two generations not similar? Are the fish not fish, or the tetrapods not tetrapods? Why exactly couldn't this have happened?

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

And a tetrapod is still a vertebrate, just like its fish ancestor. So what? There is no single day when a child becomes an adult. There is no single generation in which a fish becomes a tetrapod. You think there has to be one, but are unable to explain why.

I want to know why a population slowly becoming more tetrapod-like isn't an example of a population changing kinds (whatever exactly you mean by 'kind'). So far, your argument consists of saying that fish can't change into tetrapods because fish can't change into tetrapods, and saying the same thing in all caps with lots of exclamation points. With or without the histrionics, it's not an argument.

If a fish became a tetrapod, then it started with a birth. The offspring according to you must have shown a diff body plan. You show me of an example of body plan changing

 

[sfs]

If a fish became a tetrapod, then it started with a birth. The offspring according to you must have shown a diff body plan.

A fish-like tetrapod and a tetrapod-like fish (both of which we have fossils for) have the same body plan (and both have the same basic vertebrate body plan). Your challenge seems to have nothing to do with the actual history of tetrapods. Once again, tell us why the change from a tetrapod-like fish to a fish-like tetrapod has to be abrupt.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

A fish-like tetrapod and a tetrapod-like fish (both of which we have fossils for) have the same body plan (and both have the same basic vertebrate body plan). Your challenge seems to have nothing to do with the actual history of tetrapods. Once again, tell us why the change from a tetrapod-like fish to a fish-like tetrapod has to be abrupt.

You are just kicking the can down the road and aren’t even aware of it.
Fast forward to when the body plan finally changes. Describe the offspring’s new body plan change

 

[sfs]

You are just kicking the can down the road and aren’t even aware of it.
Fast forward to when the body plan finally changes. Describe the offspring’s new body plan change

As you've already been told repeatedly, the body plan changes gradually, from generation to generation. Most of the changes already occurred while the organism's ancestors were still fish.

You have yet to make any concrete objection to the evolutionary picture. Here, list the differences in body plan that you think had to occur in one generation:

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

As you've already been told repeatedly, the body plan changes gradually, from generation to generation. Most of the changes already occurred while the organism's ancestors were still fish.

You have yet to make any concrete objection to the evolutionary picture. Here, list the differences in body plan that you think had to occur in one generation:

Then name some novel body plan changes that occurred in the subsequent generations that were significant

 

[sfs]

Then name some novel body plan changes that occurred in the subsequent generations that were significant

You're the one claiming there had to have been sudden, big changes in body plan. Tell us what they are. I'm not going to try to guess what you're talking about.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

You're the one claiming there had to have been sudden, big changes in body plan. Tell us what they are. I'm not going to try to guess what you're talking about.

Ah you can’t answer? Deflection?
Rule #1: fish only beget fish
Rule #2: see rule #1

 

[sfs]

Ah you can’t answer? Deflection?

So you can't even state what your own argument is. You're right -- I can't answer your argument when you can't even say what the argument is. Tell me what traits you're talking about and I'll tell you when they appeared.

Rule #1: fish only beget fish

The next piece of evidence that rule #1 is true will be the first piece we've seen.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

So you can't even state what your own argument is. You're right -- I can't answer your argument when you can't even say what the argument is. Tell me what traits you're talking about and I'll tell you when they appeared.

The next piece of evidence that rule #1 is true will be the first piece we've seen.

Ive stated my case quite clearly, no use trying to obfuscate!
Maybe start by telling if this is true:
fish only beget fish—T/F?

 

[sfs]

Ive stated my case quite clearly, no use trying to obfuscate!

If you think that was a clear case, I'd hate to see you present an unclear one.

Maybe start by telling if this is true:
fish only beget fish—T/F?

False. I already gave you an example of a fish begetting a non-fish, where 'fish' was defined by how much time they spend in the water.

Since you don't appear to know what traits separate fish and tetrapods, I'll give you a partial list of traits:
Median fins
Radius and ulna
Phalanges
Lungs
Fin rays
Gills
Gill plates
Flat head
Mobile head
Air breathing
Scales

Now, which traits do you think had to change for a fish to give birth to a tetrapod?

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

If you think that was a clear case, I'd hate to see you present an unclear one.

False. I already gave you an example of a fish begetting a non-fish, where 'fish' was defined by how much time they spend in the water.

Since you don't appear to know what traits separate fish and tetrapods, I'll give you a partial list of traits:
Median fins
Radius and ulna
Phalanges
Lungs
Fin rays
Gills
Gill plates
Flat head
Mobile head
Air breathing
Scales

Now, which traits do you think had to change for a fish to give birth to a tetrapod?

So you're saying a fish gave birth to it's offspring and the gills were a little different? or the offspring was able to breathe air? How many lucky mutations did it take for the lungs to want to stay on land forever?
Then later on another offspring had legs and wasn't considered a mutant? How many of these mutants died ? Where are the millions of fish fossils with legs and feet? You are painting an unproven fantasy to fit your story I'm afraid. I still want to know the day when an offspring fish was born and came out of the water right then and survived. Or the day when it refused to return to the water.

 

[sfs]

So you're saying a fish gave birth to it's offspring and the gills were a little different?

No, there's no reason to think the gills were different -- internal gills were still around in early tetrapods, and external gills are still present in some amphibians.

or the offspring was able to breathe air?

Their ancestors could already breathe air. Fish had lungs long before any evolved into tetrapods. I already told you that earlier in the thread. Or you could have read any of the abundant material on the web.

Then later on another offspring had legs and wasn't considered a mutant?

No, they were already well on their way to having legs while they were still fish. (And of course they were mutants -- every generation is a mutated version of the previous generation.)

Where are the millions of fish fossils with legs and feet?

There aren't millions of them, but there are some of them, which is all we need.

This is Tiktaalik, from the Devonian period. It was a fish. It was probably not directly ancestral to tetrapods, but it did have many of the features of its relatives that were, features that you think couldn't have existed.

This is Acanthostega, also from the Devonian. It's an early tetrapod.

You're claiming that these have different body plans and couldn't possibly be related. What's different about their body plans?

I still want to know the day when an offspring fish was born and came out of the water right then and survived.

Why would you want to know that? Are you unaware that some fish even today leave the water and then return to it, or that some fish today have lungs? And are you also unaware that early tetrapods, like some tetrapods today, were almost entirely aquatic?

Your problem is that you've created an fantasy version of evolution and of the fossil record, and you've spent your time arguing against that fantasy.

 

[Diamond7]

Is it still true that we humans started out as fish

We started off as pond scum. This was the first time there was a male and female and genes recombined.

Laws or Principles which govern Reality: the Principle of Mind, the Principle of Cause and Effect, the Principle of Vibration, the Principle of Correspondence, the Principle of Polarity (or Opposites), the Principle of Rhythm (or Cyclicity) and the Principle of Gender.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

We started off as pond scum. This was the first time there was a male and female and genes recombined.

Laws or Principles which govern Reality: the Principle of Mind, the Principle of Cause and Effect, the Principle of Vibration, the Principle of Correspondence, the Principle of Polarity (or Opposites), the Principle of Rhythm (or Cyclicity) and the Principle of Gender.

"We started off as pond scum."
HA, there is ZERO evidence for this preposterity. Show us any semblance of life arising from scum

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

No, there's no reason to think the gills were different -- internal gills were still around in early tetrapods, and external gills are still present in some amphibians.

Their ancestors could already breathe air. Fish had lungs long before any evolved into tetrapods. I already told you that earlier in the thread. Or you could have read any of the abundant material on the web.

No, they were already well on their way to having legs while they were still fish. (And of course they were mutants -- every generation is a mutated version of the previous generation.)

There aren't millions of them, but there are some of them, which is all we need.

This is Tiktaalik, from the Devonian period. It was a fish. It was probably not directly ancestral to tetrapods, but it did have many of the features of its relatives that were, features that you think couldn't have existed.
View attachment 345105

This is Acanthostega, also from the Devonian. It's an early tetrapod.
View attachment 345106
You're claiming that these have different body plans and couldn't possibly be related. What's different about their body plans?

Why would you want to know that? Are you unaware that some fish even today leave the water and then return to it, or that some fish today have lungs? And are you also unaware that early tetrapods, like some tetrapods today, were almost entirely aquatic?

Your problem is that you've created an fantasy version of evolution and of the fossil record, and you've spent your time arguing against that fantasy.

"some fish even today leave the water and then return to it"
They were created that way, no evidence they evolved from fish.
The fantasy of your fossil record are all the missing links that have been discovered. Problem is, there are NONE.

 

[sfs]

"some fish even today leave the water and then return to it"
They were created that way, no evidence they evolved from fish.
The fantasy of your fossil record are all the missing links that have been discovered. Problem is, there are NONE.

Okay, it's clear you have no argument to make here.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Okay, it's clear you have no argument to make here.

Hey we all have our fantasies right, but yours stands out far above the rest

 

[FaithT]

"We started off as pond scum."
HA, there is ZERO evidence for this preposterity. Show us any semblance of life arising from scum

Interesting thread.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Interesting thread.

What was in the pond scum that led to life? I'm curious about that.
Remember, there is no such thing as a simple cell but there is something called irreducible complexity.