Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)14:36:05 | 91 comments | 11 images
Are "fish" and "reptile" actual phyla?
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)14:41:04 No.4936850
>>4936846
No. The taxonomic classification system is pure arbitrary chaos. Absolute anarchy. Only Satan could have propositioned it. I will die on this hill
No. The taxonomic classification system is pure arbitrary chaos. Absolute anarchy. Only Satan could have propositioned it. I will die on this hill
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)14:41:41 No.4936851
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)14:46:15 No.4936855
>>4936846
For pendantry and correctness, no they aren't. If you're of the opinion that sciences should be exact (and for many applications they should be), then only monophyletic clades are valid
But realistically for talking to normies they're fair game to use and part of science is education and outreach. if you alienate people by being pedantic you might turn them off of being interested in animals and that would be a shame
For pendantry and correctness, no they aren't. If you're of the opinion that sciences should be exact (and for many applications they should be), then only monophyletic clades are valid
But realistically for talking to normies they're fair game to use and part of science is education and outreach. if you alienate people by being pedantic you might turn them off of being interested in animals and that would be a shame
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)14:47:43 No.4936856
>>4936846
"Phyla" aren't a thing anymore
"Phyla" aren't a thing anymore
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)14:54:03 No.4936859
>this thing is clearly a lizard
>according to "science" it is not a lizard
>according to "science" it is not a lizard
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)15:00:07 No.4936863
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)15:03:49 No.4936867
>>4936846
What's more interesting is that all those things were formally abandoned before your parents were born.
At no point during your life were fish, reptiles, amphibians, or phyla actual classifications
What's more interesting is that all those things were formally abandoned before your parents were born.
At no point during your life were fish, reptiles, amphibians, or phyla actual classifications
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)15:07:26 No.4936868
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)15:08:59 No.4936869
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)15:20:14 No.4936872
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)18:11:47 No.4936914
>>4936867
My parents are in their 60's.
My parents are in their 60's.
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)19:25:37 No.4936941
No, birds and reptiles fall under sauria. There are warm blooded fish and reptiles too.
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)22:59:34 No.4936991
>>4936846
>Sharks and jawless fish are lumped with bony fish
>Every land vertebrate is more closely related to bony fish than bony fish are to sharks
>hagfishes aren’t even vertebrates anymore
>Sharks and jawless fish are lumped with bony fish
>Every land vertebrate is more closely related to bony fish than bony fish are to sharks
>hagfishes aren’t even vertebrates anymore
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)23:23:56 No.4937000
>>4936991
I've heard the claim that hagfish are just chordates and not vertebrates due to only having a skull and a notochord, but I didn't think it was proven.
I've heard the claim that hagfish are just chordates and not vertebrates due to only having a skull and a notochord, but I didn't think it was proven.
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)23:50:04 No.4937012
>>4936991
>Every land vertebrate is more closely related to bony fish than bony fish are to sharks
no, every land vertebrate shares a more recent common ancestor with bony fishes than bony fishes do with sharks.
This is not the same as being more closely related.
>Every land vertebrate is more closely related to bony fish than bony fish are to sharks
no, every land vertebrate shares a more recent common ancestor with bony fishes than bony fishes do with sharks.
This is not the same as being more closely related.
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)23:53:31 No.4937016
>>4937012
Having a more recent common ancestor means that you're more closely related
Having a more recent common ancestor means that you're more closely related
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)23:56:24 No.4937019
>>4937016
>Having a more recent common ancestor means that you're more closely related
yep, if we ignore morphometrics, phylogenetics, and genetics in their entirety you'd be right.
back in the real world you're wrong.
>Having a more recent common ancestor means that you're more closely related
yep, if we ignore morphometrics, phylogenetics, and genetics in their entirety you'd be right.
back in the real world you're wrong.
Anonymous 01/20/25(Mon)23:58:27 No.4937020
>>4937016
even temporally you're wrong since sharks and bony fish diverged much closer in time than bony fish and cows did.
even temporally you're wrong since sharks and bony fish diverged much closer in time than bony fish and cows did.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:11:27 No.4937026
>>4937025
>Retard
that's not what you said.
you said bony fish are more closely related to humans THAN BONY FISH ARE TO SHARKS
you're too stupid to understand this difference.
>Retard
that's not what you said.
you said bony fish are more closely related to humans THAN BONY FISH ARE TO SHARKS
you're too stupid to understand this difference.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:17:59 No.4937029
>>4937026
they're both more closely related to each other than either of them are to sharks you retard
they're both more closely related to each other than either of them are to sharks you retard
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:23:09 No.4937033
>>4937029
doesn't work that way
I'm more closely related to my grandfather than my great grandfather
my grandfather is NOT more closely related to me than to his father.
doesn't work that way
I'm more closely related to my grandfather than my great grandfather
my grandfather is NOT more closely related to me than to his father.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:26:44 No.4937034
>>4937033
if you understood phylogeny then you'd know that people (you) are more closely related to their first cousins (bony fish) and vice versa than either of them are to their second cousins (sharks)
if you understood phylogeny then you'd know that people (you) are more closely related to their first cousins (bony fish) and vice versa than either of them are to their second cousins (sharks)
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:29:47 No.4937037
>>4937034
again, that's not what you said
you said bony fish are more closely related to people than to sharks.
that's wrong.
Don't try to change what you said, it's right there a couple posts up
again, that's not what you said
you said bony fish are more closely related to people than to sharks.
that's wrong.
Don't try to change what you said, it's right there a couple posts up
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:31:18 No.4937038
>>4937037
they are since humans are taxonomicslly bony fish retard
they are since humans are taxonomicslly bony fish retard
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:33:48 No.4937040
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:38:32 No.4937044
>>4937040
but they're still more closely related
but they're still more closely related
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:46:31 No.4937054
>>4937044
nah
for real look up genetic distance, morphometrics, or just how we do cladistics in the first place.
nah
for real look up genetic distance, morphometrics, or just how we do cladistics in the first place.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:50:06 No.4937055
>>4937054
you're so full of shit just admit you're wrong and stop replying already christ almighty
you're so full of shit just admit you're wrong and stop replying already christ almighty
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:51:50 No.4937056
>>4937055
>Genetic distance is a measure of the genetic divergence between species or between populations within a species, whether the distance measures time from common ancestor or degree of differentiation. Populations with many similar alleles have small genetic distances.
>or degree of differentiation
sharks are more similar genetically, morphologically, and temporally to bony fish than bony fish are to cows.
>Genetic distance is a measure of the genetic divergence between species or between populations within a species, whether the distance measures time from common ancestor or degree of differentiation. Populations with many similar alleles have small genetic distances.
>or degree of differentiation
sharks are more similar genetically, morphologically, and temporally to bony fish than bony fish are to cows.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:54:10 No.4937057
>>4937056
oh so whales must be more closely related to fish than to birds since they're more morpheologically right?
oh so whales must be more closely related to fish than to birds since they're more morpheologically right?
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:55:21 No.4937058
>>4937057
>since they're more morpheologically right?
nope.
that's why I tell you to google this stuff.
whales are morphologically much more similar to birds than to fish
>since they're more morpheologically right?
nope.
that's why I tell you to google this stuff.
whales are morphologically much more similar to birds than to fish
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:55:22 No.4937059
>>4937056
you're really stupid man
you're really stupid man
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:56:34 No.4937060
>>4937058
just like bony fish are more morpheologically similar to people than they are to sharks
just like bony fish are more morpheologically similar to people than they are to sharks
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:57:37 No.4937061
>>4937059
what do you think that proves?
a chart that reads left to right can't be read right to left?
what do you think that proves?
a chart that reads left to right can't be read right to left?
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)00:59:04 No.4937064
>>4937060
>just like bony fish are more morpheologically similar to people than they are to sharks
they're not, but if you don't know about whales and birds you're not going to understand sharks and fish
>just like bony fish are more morpheologically similar to people than they are to sharks
they're not, but if you don't know about whales and birds you're not going to understand sharks and fish
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:02:44 No.4937067
>>4937061
that they're more temporally and genetically related since they both had a common ancestor before either had a common ancestor with sharks
>>4937064
they are since sharks have no proper bones and don't use swim bladders or lungs and don't have the same fins/limbs as us and have placoid scales instead of the type of scales fish have which evolved into the scales/fur/feathers that we have
that they're more temporally and genetically related since they both had a common ancestor before either had a common ancestor with sharks
>>4937064
they are since sharks have no proper bones and don't use swim bladders or lungs and don't have the same fins/limbs as us and have placoid scales instead of the type of scales fish have which evolved into the scales/fur/feathers that we have
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:08:35 No.4937072
>>4937067
>they both had a common ancestor before either had a common ancestor with sharks
true
>they're more temporally and genetically related
false
the distance reads both forward and backward in time.
not just forward.
>they both had a common ancestor before either had a common ancestor with sharks
true
>they're more temporally and genetically related
false
the distance reads both forward and backward in time.
not just forward.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:12:24 No.4937075
>>4937072
you're wrong, they split from each other later than sharks split from both of them, ergo they're closer temporally, and I already explained genetically
you're wrong, they split from each other later than sharks split from both of them, ergo they're closer temporally, and I already explained genetically
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:14:09 No.4937076
>>4937075
>they split from each other later than sharks split from both of them
and then one of them evolved huge changes while the other 2 changed almost not at all
>they split from each other later than sharks split from both of them
and then one of them evolved huge changes while the other 2 changed almost not at all
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:16:28 No.4937078
>>4937076
not true, all the changes tetrapods have are derived from features found in bony fish so they all have the same base features like fins/limbs/swim bladders/lungs/jaws/etcetera
not true, all the changes tetrapods have are derived from features found in bony fish so they all have the same base features like fins/limbs/swim bladders/lungs/jaws/etcetera
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:18:04 No.4937081
>>4937078
>all the changes tetrapods have are derived from features found in bony fish
again, look into morphometrics and genetic distance
it's the study of how closely animals are related by how much they've changed.
>all the changes tetrapods have are derived from features found in bony fish
again, look into morphometrics and genetic distance
it's the study of how closely animals are related by how much they've changed.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:22:15 No.4937084
>>4937081
look into phylogeny, it's the study od how closely related animals are by when their last common ancestors diverged and it's how we know that euglena is more closely related to multicellular eukaryotes like us than single celled prokaryotes despite themselves being single celled and "more unchanged"
look into phylogeny, it's the study od how closely related animals are by when their last common ancestors diverged and it's how we know that euglena is more closely related to multicellular eukaryotes like us than single celled prokaryotes despite themselves being single celled and "more unchanged"
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:23:55 No.4937087
>>4937084
>look into phylogeny, it's the study od how closely related animals are by when their last common ancestors diverged
It's actually not
we don't know when they diverged
we decide that based on how similar they are morphologically.
phylogeny is the study of how closely animals are related by morphometrics and genetic distance in an attempt to guess when their last common ancestors diverged.
you have it exactly backwards.
>look into phylogeny, it's the study od how closely related animals are by when their last common ancestors diverged
It's actually not
we don't know when they diverged
we decide that based on how similar they are morphologically.
phylogeny is the study of how closely animals are related by morphometrics and genetic distance in an attempt to guess when their last common ancestors diverged.
you have it exactly backwards.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:26:07 No.4937092
>>4937087
what the fuck are you even talking about you retard holy shit lmfao
what the fuck are you even talking about you retard holy shit lmfao
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:27:52 No.4937097
>>4937092
How do we know when their ancestors diverged?
How do we even know which animals are their ancestors?
It's weird you don't understand this.
How do we know when their ancestors diverged?
How do we even know which animals are their ancestors?
It's weird you don't understand this.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:30:56 No.4937100
>>4937097
by looking at shared genetics and fossils and morphology and classifying them based on those things you idiot, and the animals that are more closely related to each other are closer on the phylogenetic tree
by looking at shared genetics and fossils and morphology and classifying them based on those things you idiot, and the animals that are more closely related to each other are closer on the phylogenetic tree
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:31:36 No.4937101
>>4937092
do you think god gave us phylogenetic trees and we work backwards from there?
do you think space aliens gave them to us or maybe ancient egyptians left them on pyramid walls?
what's wrong with your head, man?
do you think god gave us phylogenetic trees and we work backwards from there?
do you think space aliens gave them to us or maybe ancient egyptians left them on pyramid walls?
what's wrong with your head, man?
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:33:22 No.4937105
>>4937100
>by looking at shared genetics and fossils and morphology and classifying them based on those things
yay, you're not completely stupid
we determine relatedness via morphology and genetic distance.
>animals that are more closely related to each other are closer on the phylogenetic tree
jesus christ
the tree reads both forward and backwards.
>by looking at shared genetics and fossils and morphology and classifying them based on those things
yay, you're not completely stupid
we determine relatedness via morphology and genetic distance.
>animals that are more closely related to each other are closer on the phylogenetic tree
jesus christ
the tree reads both forward and backwards.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:37:26 No.4937109
>>4937101
stop babbling on about bullshit you fucking moron my God, phylogenetic trees are figured out through a combination I laid out here >>4937100 which are then used as general outlines for relatedness, it's a very simple concept to grasp
>>4937105
why are you so impossibly stupid genuinely? it is such a simple idea and you're too fucking dull to understand it, are euglena more closely related to prokaryotes or humans?
stop babbling on about bullshit you fucking moron my God, phylogenetic trees are figured out through a combination I laid out here >>4937100 which are then used as general outlines for relatedness, it's a very simple concept to grasp
>>4937105
why are you so impossibly stupid genuinely? it is such a simple idea and you're too fucking dull to understand it, are euglena more closely related to prokaryotes or humans?
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:39:11 No.4937111
>>4937109
>why are you so impossibly stupid genuinely?
says the guy that thinks animals are only related to their descendants and never to their ancestors
even though they are themselves descendants of their ancestors
>why are you so impossibly stupid genuinely?
says the guy that thinks animals are only related to their descendants and never to their ancestors
even though they are themselves descendants of their ancestors
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:41:19 No.4937113
>>4937111
when did less closely related somehow turn into not at all related? how on the spectrum are you retard? I'm gonna cut your head off with a hacksaw so I can study your childlike peabrain more closely
when did less closely related somehow turn into not at all related? how on the spectrum are you retard? I'm gonna cut your head off with a hacksaw so I can study your childlike peabrain more closely
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:42:55 No.4937114
>>4937113
>when did less closely related somehow turn into not at all related?
when you failed to understand genetic and morphological distance goes both backward and forward in time and in phylogenetic trees.
>when did less closely related somehow turn into not at all related?
when you failed to understand genetic and morphological distance goes both backward and forward in time and in phylogenetic trees.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:45:57 No.4937118
>>4937113
the tree starts from an arbitrary point in time we choose.
I can simply slide the time scale backwards and suddenly the "less related ancestors" become the descendants. Or slide it forward and the ancestors disappear from the tree entirely.
you can't seem to wrap your linear mind around this. And that's fine. Not everyone is smart enough to understand cladistics.
the tree starts from an arbitrary point in time we choose.
I can simply slide the time scale backwards and suddenly the "less related ancestors" become the descendants. Or slide it forward and the ancestors disappear from the tree entirely.
you can't seem to wrap your linear mind around this. And that's fine. Not everyone is smart enough to understand cladistics.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:45:57 No.4937119
>>4937114
if you go back in time for ANY ray finned fish, they'll have a closer common ancestor (time where they were the same species) with tetrapods than they would if you go back to when the aforementioned fish had a common ancestor with sharks, they were the same species for longer ergo they're more closely related now stop being such a hacky fucking retard already and fuck off you pseud brainlet
if you go back in time for ANY ray finned fish, they'll have a closer common ancestor (time where they were the same species) with tetrapods than they would if you go back to when the aforementioned fish had a common ancestor with sharks, they were the same species for longer ergo they're more closely related now stop being such a hacky fucking retard already and fuck off you pseud brainlet
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:47:25 No.4937121
>>4937118
it doesn't fucking matter when exactly the split occured, we know it occured sooner between the bony fish than it did with the cartilaginous fish
it doesn't fucking matter when exactly the split occured, we know it occured sooner between the bony fish than it did with the cartilaginous fish
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:49:11 No.4937123
>>4937119
>they were the same species for longer ergo they're more closely related
again you're assuming genetics and morphology (the tools we use to measure relatedness)
changed at a constant rate in all lineages
which is wrong. Scientists have never thought that. You think that because you worship the tree, you worship the product without understanding how we made it.
>they were the same species for longer ergo they're more closely related
again you're assuming genetics and morphology (the tools we use to measure relatedness)
changed at a constant rate in all lineages
which is wrong. Scientists have never thought that. You think that because you worship the tree, you worship the product without understanding how we made it.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:50:12 No.4937125
>>4937121
It matters if you're measuring the distance between fish and sharks
It matters if you're measuring the distance between fish and sharks
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:52:54 No.4937129
>>4937123
"worship the tree" oh my fucking God you're such a pseud. are euglena more closely related to bacteria than they are to humans yes or no? there's more change from euglena to humans than there is from bacteria to euglena, yet the euglena is more closely related to the humans because THEY'RE BOTH FUCKING EUKARYOTES. it's the same exact goddamn thing for fish yet you're too clinically brain damaged and stubborn to admit this as fucking common knowledge
>>4937125
no it doesn't, split occurs earlier means they're less related, full stop
"worship the tree" oh my fucking God you're such a pseud. are euglena more closely related to bacteria than they are to humans yes or no? there's more change from euglena to humans than there is from bacteria to euglena, yet the euglena is more closely related to the humans because THEY'RE BOTH FUCKING EUKARYOTES. it's the same exact goddamn thing for fish yet you're too clinically brain damaged and stubborn to admit this as fucking common knowledge
>>4937125
no it doesn't, split occurs earlier means they're less related, full stop
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:55:48 No.4937132
>>4937129
>because THEY'RE BOTH FUCKING EUKARYOTES
that's worshipping the product without understanding how it's made.
The tree and the taxon are both human inventions to explain one type of relatedness.
Just one direction.
>split occurs earlier means they're less related, full stop
false
closer morphologically and genetically means more closely related. The timing of the split is a guess based on this, it does not define it.
>because THEY'RE BOTH FUCKING EUKARYOTES
that's worshipping the product without understanding how it's made.
The tree and the taxon are both human inventions to explain one type of relatedness.
Just one direction.
>split occurs earlier means they're less related, full stop
false
closer morphologically and genetically means more closely related. The timing of the split is a guess based on this, it does not define it.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:58:27 No.4937135
>double space schizo trying hard not to double space
>single spaces instead
lel
>single spaces instead
lel
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)01:59:33 No.4937136
>>4937135
I double space when I think someone is saying something REALLY DUMB
The anon I'm talking to is wrong, but I can easily understand why he thinks the way he does.
I double space when I think someone is saying something REALLY DUMB
The anon I'm talking to is wrong, but I can easily understand why he thinks the way he does.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:02:07 No.4937137
>>4937132
that's a whole lot of words to basically amount to saying "i'm wrong and a retard and I should kill myself because i'm such a fucking miserably hopeless moron" now shut the fuck up already while I go to bed
that's a whole lot of words to basically amount to saying "i'm wrong and a retard and I should kill myself because i'm such a fucking miserably hopeless moron" now shut the fuck up already while I go to bed
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:06:47 No.4937142
>>4937137
your wording is unclear
you don't seem to understand what I'm saying so you keep searching the wrong words.
>are euglena more closely related to humans THAN EUGLENA ARE TO BACTERIA
I don't dispute that the descendant is more related to its closer ancestors than its more distant ones.
I dispute that the ancestor is more related to its descendants than it is to its ancestors.
also AI slop. Google isn't going to answer the question for you because it's trained off idiots just like you. You need to actually understand cladistics to get this.
your wording is unclear
you don't seem to understand what I'm saying so you keep searching the wrong words.
>are euglena more closely related to humans THAN EUGLENA ARE TO BACTERIA
I don't dispute that the descendant is more related to its closer ancestors than its more distant ones.
I dispute that the ancestor is more related to its descendants than it is to its ancestors.
also AI slop. Google isn't going to answer the question for you because it's trained off idiots just like you. You need to actually understand cladistics to get this.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:09:38 No.4937143
>>4937000
it literally has no spine, to be a vertebrate you must have a spinal column
it literally has no spine, to be a vertebrate you must have a spinal column
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:22:21 No.4937150
>>4937142
Go to literally any google result, you will not find a single form of life which has a closer common ancestor with another lifeform yet is less related to the aforementioned lifeform than to some lifeform with a further common ancestor. go ahead and prove me wrong, find me one source that agrees with you
>>4937143
It's still a fucking vertebrate holy shit you goddamn idiot, why are you always so confidently wrong about everything?
Go to literally any google result, you will not find a single form of life which has a closer common ancestor with another lifeform yet is less related to the aforementioned lifeform than to some lifeform with a further common ancestor. go ahead and prove me wrong, find me one source that agrees with you
>>4937143
It's still a fucking vertebrate holy shit you goddamn idiot, why are you always so confidently wrong about everything?
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:38:02 No.4937158
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:39:03 No.4937159
>>4937150
>why are you always so confidently wrong about everything?
that wasn't me btw
I agree that anon is wrong.
>why are you always so confidently wrong about everything?
that wasn't me btw
I agree that anon is wrong.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:44:22 No.4937160
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:44:37 No.4937161
>>4937150
>source: alaska department of fish and game
i dont know man, that doesnt check out, considering that a vertebrate is defined by presence of a spinal column
>source: alaska department of fish and game
i dont know man, that doesnt check out, considering that a vertebrate is defined by presence of a spinal column
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:47:21 No.4937163
>>4937161
>a vertebrate is defined by presence of a spinal column
or the FORMER presence. Or the vestiges of a presence. Or the precursors.
>>4937160
>Nothing he said contradicts what I said
you think there's one rule for determining relatedness
that is far from the truth.
genetic distance goes both forward and backwards. Time can be measured both forwards and backwards. Number of intervening splits can be measured to infinite resolution.
morphology and genetics don't generally lie.
>a vertebrate is defined by presence of a spinal column
or the FORMER presence. Or the vestiges of a presence. Or the precursors.
>>4937160
>Nothing he said contradicts what I said
you think there's one rule for determining relatedness
that is far from the truth.
genetic distance goes both forward and backwards. Time can be measured both forwards and backwards. Number of intervening splits can be measured to infinite resolution.
morphology and genetics don't generally lie.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:53:40 No.4937169
>>4937163
I said that genetics, morpheology, and fossil records go into making phylogenetic trees and determining dates for common ancestors so I clearly didn't think it was "one thing" you're just being retarded and presumptuous.
I said that genetics, morpheology, and fossil records go into making phylogenetic trees and determining dates for common ancestors so I clearly didn't think it was "one thing" you're just being retarded and presumptuous.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:57:05 No.4937170
>>4937169
If you think ancestors are ALWAYS more related to their descendants than to their own ancestors,
that would be one rule.
It's not true.
The other point the professor makes is that both ancestors and descendants are sister taxa. Something I don't think you're understanding
If you think ancestors are ALWAYS more related to their descendants than to their own ancestors,
that would be one rule.
It's not true.
The other point the professor makes is that both ancestors and descendants are sister taxa. Something I don't think you're understanding
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)02:59:52 No.4937172
>>4937169
the other problem you have is you're comparing taxa that have existed for 420 million years and split directly from each other to ones that arrived in the last couple million years and didn't split directly from either one.
there are a number of errors in your thinking. Though they all boil down to believing the literal truth of the tree while ignoring how and why it was made.
the other problem you have is you're comparing taxa that have existed for 420 million years and split directly from each other to ones that arrived in the last couple million years and didn't split directly from either one.
there are a number of errors in your thinking. Though they all boil down to believing the literal truth of the tree while ignoring how and why it was made.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:02:15 No.4937174
Most retarded and schizophrenic thread award (both posters)
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:03:00 No.4937175
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:04:12 No.4937176
>>4937163
>or the FORMER presence. Or the vestiges of a presence. Or the precursors.
theres literally no evidence of that, all that can be said its that its somewhere between a tunicate and a jawed fish
>or the FORMER presence. Or the vestiges of a presence. Or the precursors.
theres literally no evidence of that, all that can be said its that its somewhere between a tunicate and a jawed fish
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:05:44 No.4937177
>>4937175
>humans are not the descendents of any living bony fish.
there's another error
trees don't only deal with living animals.
so measuring time from the present means nothing. You have to be able to measure distance between animals that don't exist anymore.
>I know you're wrong and I'm tired of trying to convince you
I think you're an idiot and find it amusing when you can't understand what I'm saying but somehow think I'm the dumb one
even though I can understand you perfectly.
have a good night anon. see you tomorrow.
>humans are not the descendents of any living bony fish.
there's another error
trees don't only deal with living animals.
so measuring time from the present means nothing. You have to be able to measure distance between animals that don't exist anymore.
>I know you're wrong and I'm tired of trying to convince you
I think you're an idiot and find it amusing when you can't understand what I'm saying but somehow think I'm the dumb one
even though I can understand you perfectly.
have a good night anon. see you tomorrow.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:15:35 No.4937178
>>4937176
Yet they're still classified as vertebrates.
It's weird how your opinion doesn't overrule thousands of scientists even though you clearly know better.
Yet they're still classified as vertebrates.
It's weird how your opinion doesn't overrule thousands of scientists even though you clearly know better.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:17:37 No.4937179
>>4937177
>trees don't only deal with living animals.
and that's the ultimate source of the misunderstanding.
"Bony Fish" and "Sharks" include all their extinct ancestors, including their common ancestors. Meaning they're inevitably more closely related to each other than to their extremely distant descendants.
>trees don't only deal with living animals.
and that's the ultimate source of the misunderstanding.
"Bony Fish" and "Sharks" include all their extinct ancestors, including their common ancestors. Meaning they're inevitably more closely related to each other than to their extremely distant descendants.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:20:00 No.4937180
>>4937178
i do know better, because the scientists clearly said, to be a vertebrate you must have a spinal column, its a binary state, no spinal column, not a vertebrate, simple as. unless youre mixing up chordates and vertebrates and spinal cords and spinal columns
i do know better, because the scientists clearly said, to be a vertebrate you must have a spinal column, its a binary state, no spinal column, not a vertebrate, simple as. unless youre mixing up chordates and vertebrates and spinal cords and spinal columns
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:21:55 No.4937181
>>4937180
>because the scientists clearly said, to be a vertebrate you must have a spinal column, its a binary state, no spinal column, not a vertebrate, simple as
yes, they said that from about 1801 to 1945
after that they said something different. You're 80 years out of date.
>because the scientists clearly said, to be a vertebrate you must have a spinal column, its a binary state, no spinal column, not a vertebrate, simple as
yes, they said that from about 1801 to 1945
after that they said something different. You're 80 years out of date.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:28:07 No.4937182
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)03:47:14 No.4937191
>>4937182
>Cyclostomi, often referred to as Cyclostomata /sJkloʊˈstɒmətə/, is a group of vertebrates that comprises the living jawless fishes: the lampreys and hagfishes.
a group of vertebrates that includes... hagfishes
>Cyclostomi, often referred to as Cyclostomata /sJkloʊˈstɒmətə/, is a group of vertebrates that comprises the living jawless fishes: the lampreys and hagfishes.
a group of vertebrates that includes... hagfishes
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)04:00:08 No.4937193
>>4937191
okay, that doesnt change the fact they dont have a spine, ergo not a vertebrate
okay, that doesnt change the fact they dont have a spine, ergo not a vertebrate
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)04:06:04 No.4937198
>>4937193
>hagfishes do, in fact, have rudimentary vertebrae, which places hagfishes in Cyclostomata.[3]
>hagfishes do, in fact, have rudimentary vertebrae, which places hagfishes in Cyclostomata.[3]
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)04:17:45 No.4937201
>>4937198
thats not a spinal column
thats not a spinal column
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)04:18:47 No.4937203
>>4937201
true, but I don't make the rules when it comes to hagfish classification.
true, but I don't make the rules when it comes to hagfish classification.
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)04:26:31 No.4937207
>>4937203
yeah, and i dont make the rules of whether or not something is a vertebrate, the word is, and thats if theres a spinal column present
yeah, and i dont make the rules of whether or not something is a vertebrate, the word is, and thats if theres a spinal column present
Anonymous 01/21/25(Tue)04:34:26 No.4937208
>>4937207
>Cyclostomi, often referred to as Cyclostomata /sJkloʊˈstɒmətə/, is a group of vertebrates that comprises the living jawless fishes: the lampreys and hagfishes.
>Cyclostomi, often referred to as Cyclostomata /sJkloʊˈstɒmətə/, is a group of vertebrates that comprises the living jawless fishes: the lampreys and hagfishes.