By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
o_O.Q on 03 March 2018
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:
o_O.Q said:

"OK, so if bats have evolved legs instead of wings, then birds have evolved legs instead of wings, too, correct?  After all, they evolved their so-called wings from legs as well.  "

yeah if you want, knock yourself out

 

"What exactly are your "strict groups" defining?  What is being separated and delineated?  "

well when i use the word "elephant" you understand that i'm not referring to a fish right?

why would that be?

 

"Although there are certainly populations that have been separated morphologically, genetically, reproduction-wise, etc., it is important to remember that they are all part of a continuum connected in the past via common ancestry."

which is irrelevant to my argument, so... i don't see why you keep bringing this up

 

"  So the elephant doesn't swim with the fish, but perhaps the hippopotamus's great-to-the-millionth grandfather and the whale's were the same creature."

so what?

 

"Where do you draw the line on the continuum?  "

again... when i use the word elephant you understand quite clearly that i'm not referring to a fish

why is that?

 

"Or do you just mean that because of the built-up differences over time, you are fine with the human-oriented groupings?"

how did we now start talking about human groupings from his claim about there being no clear divisions between animals?

 

"Where is the line between red and yellow?  "

lol i never figured that you'd just double down and actually try to back up his nonsensical argument, i must say you've surprised me

clarify this for me how is the colour spectrum between red and yellow relevant to a discussion about animal divisions?

1.  So what is the point of calling penguin flippers "evolved wings" when they are really just "evolved legs"?  Sure, penguin flippers used to be wings.  They used to be a lot of things.  They're not actually wings anymore. 

3.  I thought the analogy was pretty fucking clear but let me try to spell it out further. 

Presume that the elephant and the fish have a common ancestor.  Since the process of evolution depends on the gradual accumulation of small changes over a large number of generations, if we go back and back in time the elephant's ancestors eventually start to look a little bit more like the fish's ancestors.  Eventually you get to the common ancestor and they are the same population of creature. 

The question for you is, if there are strict natural groupings dividing all creatures including creatures that lived in the past, where do you draw the line between elephants and fish and elephant-ancestors and fish-ancestors when there is a continuum of infinitesimally different, almost identical, creatures connecting them? 

P.S.  "there is a continuum of infinitesimally different, almost identical, creatures" color spectrum analogy "there is a continuum of infinitesimally different, almost identical, colors"

"Sure, penguin flippers used to be wings.  They used to be a lot of things.  They're not actually wings anymore.  "

didn't you just agree with me that they are adapted wings?

 

" Since the process of evolution depends on the gradual accumulation of small changes over a large number of generations, if we go back and back in time the elephant's ancestors eventually start to look a little bit more like the fish's ancestors."

which is not relevant to discussions about the animals in the present day... so what's your point?

 

" I thought the analogy was pretty fucking clear"

the fact that they have a common ancestor millions of years ago is completely irrelevant to the fact that here in the present day we can tell that there is a clear division between the two groups of animals

 

"where do you draw the line between elephants and fish and elephant-ancestors and fish-ancestors when there is a continuum of infinitesimally different, almost identical, creatures connecting them?"

 

i expected better to be honest