Got in some stupid argument with a coworker who's studying

>It ended up with her saying that fish were "basic" animals from an evolutionary standpoint.
they're the most diverse group of vertebrates, she's a dumb bitch
>just because gills were around before lungs doesn't make them any more primitive.
it literally means that exact thing, you're a dumb bitch too

>>2303440
She's 100% wrong. We are no more "evolved" than modern bacteria and novel traits are not necessarily better than older traits and complicated is often worse than simple.

>>2303443
>it literally means that exact thing, you're a dumb bitch too

I knew a faggot like you would come up.

>>2303440
>vertebrates
>basic
lel, look at shit like jellyfish, that's basic.

also, there's many different kinds of gills, not like they haven't evolved further. labyrinth fish are able to breathe some air as well, and lung fish have, well, lungs. they can literally drown

>>2303446
He's right though.

>>2303457
I never said he was wrong but he clearly knew what I meant. He's just being that annoying geek kid in 6th grade.

>>2303440

If lungs are superior to gills then why were whales like "fuck this" and went back to the ocean? If they had just stayed in the ocean maybe they wouldn't have those stupid lungs that make them resurface and get killed by gooks.

>>2303440

Despite being a palaeontologist I'd side with you because notions such as "primitive" are unhelpful in undestanding life-forms' adapatations to their environments. Her thinking is conventional and derives from an anthropocentric understanding of natural science, and leads to misunderstandings by the wider public who "rank" animal types as being of greater worth the more like us they are.

This thinking also hugely blurs understandng of matters like evolution, which tends to get viewed as a kind of "race" where all life-forms are striving to be as much like humans as they can be (or at least always towards greater complexity), instead of a complex web of interacting forms, evolving at different rates through different mechanisms towards a variety of goals which may be wildly different, or may even multiply-overlap.

She's learning by rote - you're thinking for yourself: you could both learn from one-another.

You're right in that evolution doesn't work like that, but when it comes to learning about the central nervous system we do refer to things like fish, frogs etc as 'lower'. It's just an easy way of quickly classifying large groups, where the lower vertebrates ones are able to regenerate their central nervous system while 'higher' mammals cannot. Things like fish also have a lot more electrical synapses, which developed far earlier than the more complex chemical synapses common to mammals

So while you're right and evolution isn't a ladder, that distinction is made between lower and higher vertebrates as a way of differentiating

She's retarded. Why are you even having these discussion with women, they are a meme

>>2303556
>Despite being a palaeontologist
makes me laugh every time

>>2303440
I'll tell you what OP. I love animals. And by love animals I don't mean I only like the cute ones or I only know about the names of designer dog breeds. I actually know a decent amount about animals both behavior wise and biologically. I'm majoring in Biology hoping to specialize in virology Because I figured the competition in vet school is so fucking rough I'd never make it. But I meet a ton of vet majors, and it's making me think that maybe I should go for it. These vet majors are dumb as fuck, and more often than not they are going in to be vets because they love their dog so much or they like cat memes, and they don't understand basic things, sometimes they don't even know. I have yet to meet a vet major that could tell me what distemper was. Don't even get me started on unrelated animal information. One vet major in my class believes you have to spit in a dog's mouth at least daily to show you're the alpha. Fucking 100% retarded.

And this is close to Cornell university, so it's not like they're in bumfuck and saying they will go to vet school someday with no intentions. People move here from across the country. All the schools here have undergraduate vet programs so students switch to Cornell to after to save money, that's pretty much the meta here. So these people are our future vets

>>2303440
what you're dealing with is backlash against anthropocentrism. It seems so selfish to say humans are better than other animals, so from there it becomes wrong to talk about animals being more advanced or complex or derived or evolved.

However in evolutionary theory humans ARE more important than other animals, and will continue to be until those other animals start writing their own books about evolutionary theory.

no apologies are necessary from scientists. Humans are the most advanced, complex, derived, and evolved organisms on the planet by orders of magnitude. We tower over all other animals in ways most people can't comprehend. We are special. We are unique, we are above the other animals.

>>2303440
>evolution isn't linear
and that's where you went wrong.

File: 3point5.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>2303661
>in evolutionary theory humans ARE more important than other animals

Oh yeah, and if we were to die off all life on the planet would just cease to exist too, yeah we're that important.

>>2303675
>the planet would just cease to exist too,
it would.

in fact when you personally die the entire universe will cease to exist. Your universe anyways.

File: Install Gentoo.jpg (286KB, 966x750px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 966x750px

>>2303678
That's deep, yo.

>>2303661
>more evolved
Oh boy...
Evolution is change, there is no degree to it. And having changed more with time doesn't mean anything in a good or bad way.
Hansen's desease has probably evolved more times than we did. But don't quote me on that because i don't remember the comparison right now.

>>2303683
>Evolution is change, there is no degree to it.
there is always some metric to measure change. The science of morphology deals with degrees of evolution.

All organisms are equally evolved from a temporal standpoint, but it's retardation to pretend all organisms are equally evolved morphologically.

the simple fact is a human is more evolved than a fish by orders of magnitude when we measure physical change from a common ancestor. And really that's what studying evolution is about- understanding how environments change organisms to fit them. Or don't.

>>2303446
He's 100% right though. Pull your panties out of your ass

>>2303693
A whale is more evolved than a human, by that length.
Fuck off.

>>2303693
"More/less evolved" is entirely arbitrary because as people have mentioned before evolution is not linear with an end goal (aside from 'to reproduce'). A sea sponge can live in environments that would kill a human immediately, does that make them more evolved? The proper way to put words to it would be 'more successful'. Humans are the most successful species on the planet not because we are more evolved than the rest of the species, but because our evolution granted us abstract thought.

>the simple fact is a human is more evolved than a fish by orders of magnitude when we measure physical change from a common ancestor.

Also how do you measure differences from a single celled organism? Multicellular creatures are so different that again, any measurement would be meaningless.

>>2303702
>Humans are the most successful species on the planet
well that's just wrong.

>>2303702
>"More/less evolved" is entirely arbitrary
all metrics are arbitrary, that doesn't make them useless.
>evolution is not linear
it most certainly is.
>'more successful'
in biology this refers to population size and geographical range. Humans aren't particularly successful by one of those metrics.
>how do you measure differences from a single celled organism?
if both of us start off in San Francisco, and both travel to Denver, then you stay in Denver while I go on to Chicago,
who went further?

>>2303693
You measure change but you don't attribute qualitties such as "better" or "worse" to them.
>evolved morphologically
What does this have to do with anything?
>physical change
This is meaningle-
>And really that's what studying evolution is about
Oh boy...
You mixed up some archaic 'science' with things you were taught in school.

I still don't understand why so many people here get their knowledge from the time Descartes was alive.

File: 1479904791040.gif (997KB, 425x236px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 425x236px

>>2303708
>I don't understand what I'm saying, but let me say it in an incredibly arrogant tone anyway
Possibly the most moronic edgy post I've read so far this year, bravo.

>>2303710
>You measure change but you don't attribute qualitties such as "better" or "worse" to them.
projecting.

can you point to my post where I said any condition is better or worse?

no?
then stop making shit up. That's a straw man.

>This is meaningle-
it is literally the entire basis for our understanding of evolution. I agree that's probably meaningless to you, but then you don't care about the subject in the slightest. If you did you'd look beyond your 5th grade understanding of it and stop repeating memes you heard in church or the playground.

>>2303712
>not an argument

>>2303706
Certainly not by metrics like combined weight of the species members or number of species members, but humans certainly thrive in the most diverse blend of environments. Even other animal types more prolific than us like ants end up becoming separate species. I may be using the word species incorrectly, forgive me.

>>2303708
I have to agree with >>2303712, if you think evolution is linear and evolution can simply stop (I don't know what else to take out of than mangling of a metaphor) you really cannot know what you're talking about.

>>2303716
>I have to agree with >>2303712,
luckily science doesn't operate on a vote.

evolution is linear in that there is a clear morphological progression from primitive to derived.

it can stop and often does when an environment is ridiculously stable. Most the animals that haven't evolved in tens or hundreds of millions of years live in the oceans. Their environment doesn't change so they don't either. This concept, a living fossil, is not anathema to evolution, it's not some secret or some heresy. Evolution often stops.

>>2303716
I have to start getting ready for work so I'll just post links that refute your claims:

>evolution is linear
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/04/not-as-evolved-as-we-think/
>The biggest misconception, she said, is that the process is linear, with a beginning and an end, and that human evolution is progressing somehow from worse to better.

>evolution can stop (?)
https://ncse.com/blog/2015/02/misconception-monday-can-evolution-stop-0016202
>the idea that populations can “stop” evolving reflects the fundamental misconception that evolution only occurs by natural selection, driven by the rarer misconception that natural selection is only triggered by a dramatic change to the external environment.

>>2303717
These links will explain what I'm trying to say better than I can say it, I have to leave unfortunately.

>>2303717
>from primitive to derived
What is primitive? What is derived? There is only adapted.

File: apple QC.gif (866KB, 352x224px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 352x224px

>>2303652

>Hurr durr I treat science disciplines like sports teams.

Great contribution to the discussion, Little Billy.

>>2303716
>humans certainly thrive in the most diverse blend of environments.
I don't know how you want to define that, but between animals that migrate, animals with complex life cycles and everything with a cosmopolitan distribution you're certainly wrong

>>2303718
no worries, I understand exactly what you're trying to say.

I'm just telling you it's not true.

you're saying things don't go from worse to better but you've confused that with saying things don't change measurably. One of these concepts is correct (humans aren't better than fish) but the other is false (humans are more evolved than fish).

regarding the second citation, morphology disagrees. Some species have in fact changed less than others. This is a fact. People can and do measure these differences. All the time.

>>2303719
>What is primitive?
the ancestral condition
>What is derived?
anything else
>There is only adapted.
there is also maladapted

>>2303719
>What is primitive? What is derived?
both words have definitions in biology.
>>2303721
I know he's not a paleontologist so it's funny to me.

>>2303725
What is the "ancestral condition"? Also are you claiming animals that it into that description are any less adapted?

>>2303724
>humans are more evolved than fish
but less evolved than turtles.

>>2303713
>>projecting.
>reading comprehension
When i said you i didn't mean you as a person.
Peace.
>>2303712
And somebody will take his place, unfortunately.

>>2303728
>What is the "ancestral condition"?
the thing the an ancestor had
>Also are you claiming animals that it into that description are any less adapted?
they are absolutely less adapted, though their traits may be less equally or more adaptive.

>>2303731
>When i said you i didn't mean you as a person.
sure you did. You said it twice.

you don't understand the difference between more and less evolved and better or worse.

to you they mean the same things. To biologists one is a useful metric and the other is a symptom of your disease.

>>2303733
>less adapted, though their traits may be less equally or more adaptive
What does this even mean?
If something has equally adaptive traits, why isn't it as adapted?

The phrase "more evolved" is almost meaningless.
However, fish have less complex heart and brain than mammals.

>>2303735
>If something has equally adaptive traits, why isn't it as adapted?
because it didn't change as much

>>2303742
What is change to you? What is adaptation to you?
To me, they are not the same.

>>2303745
you should learn what words mean before you try and use the,

>>2303748
I have already learned it. I'm asking you the meaning.

>>2303737
It is totally meaningless.
How do you define complexity?
Because crocodiles can have more complex hearts than we do and whales can have more complex brains than we do. And if they do... so what?

>>2303755
>How do you define complexity?
complexity is not necessarily the outcome of evolution so we measure change instead.

an animal that has changed more is more evolved and vice versa.

>>2303759
Who's we?

File: Foster-s-Home-For-Imaginary-Friends-fosters-home-for-imaginary-friends-21056959-1024-768.jpg (142KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x768px

>>2303768

>>2303678
>You're wrong, except not at all
Why are you like this?

>>2303768
morphologists.
those of us that practice evolutionary morphometrics as opposed to ontogeny.

>>2303774
I'm asking you a question to see how you answer.

you just don't know I'm asking it.
if a tree falls in the forest....

>>2303777
So you're wrong and intentionally misleading people due to your specific area of study? An organisms morphology is not an acceptable measure of change in an organism from a evolutionary perspective and it is not a useful concept for understanding the principles of evolution.

>>2303777
A real morphologist would better than to confuse "change" with "adaptation". "Change" comes in many ways and isn't necessarily in correlation with adaptation to an environment.
You're a meme. I can't take you seriously anymore. Not that I did much before.

>>2303786
>An organisms morphology is not an acceptable measure of change in an organism from a evolutionary perspective and it is not a useful concept for understanding the principles of evolution.
lol
what do you propose instead?

dna? did you know morphologists also study genetic changes? that's still changes to the morphology of the organism.

there is literally no other basis for understanding evolution aside from morphology. and it's not my specific area of study, it's a required area of study for all fields of biology.

>>2303791
>A real morphologist would better than to confuse "change" with "adaptation".
I'm not either of the dudes discussing adaptation.

you have no basis for taking anyone here seriously, you can't tell one person from another. Judge the content, not the source.

>>2303792
>dna? did you know morphologists also study genetic changes? that's still changes to the morphology of the organism.
>there is literally no other basis for understanding evolution aside from morphology. and it's not my specific area of study, it's a required area of study for all fields of biology.
Is this what a real meme looks like?

>>2303795
go ahead, try to think of any metric for understanding evolution that isn't morphological.

>>2303797
DNA change that doesn't translate to morphological change, obviously. It's most widely used metric right now, and virtually completely changed the way we see mammalian and avian evolution.

>>2303799
>DNA change that doesn't translate to morphological change
dna change is morphological change.

you're making the mistake of thinking that morphology refers only to change you can see with the naked eye.

>>2303800
Again, you're not a morphologist, then. You're something else, and just call yourself that with no real notion of what morphology is.

>>2303800
>morphology includes DNA
No it doesn't. Genetics is it's own branch of Biology/Biochemistry

>>2303803
Morphology is just the study of shape.

you can pretend the shape of the genome is somehow excluded if you like. That won't make you right, but you can pretend.

when we contrast dna analysis with morphology we're talking about gross morphology, which of course isn't the only type there is.

>>2303807
Nigger get the fuck out of my /an/.

>>2303805
>Genetics is it's own branch of Biology/Biochemistry
again, morphology is required for all branches of biology.

>>2303809
Lets not pretend that a baseline knowledge of all major fields are not required for other fields. You are not going to be a good biologist of any kind if you do not understand DNA for example or the principles of evolution, or the makeup of the cell and the differences between major groups of life. That does not make X field part of Y field because knowledge of Y is necessary to understand X.

>>2303808
>my /an/
hi bugguy

>>2303810
since processes are observed by noting morphological changes, all natural science rests on morphology.

denying that would be like pretending scientists don't measure objects. Objects have shapes, shapes are the purview of morphologists.

>>2303813
The sad thing is someone out there actually thinks this is true.

>>2303815
that doesn't explain why you disagree.

I assume it's because you think labels matter, and that a physicist could never work in geology or a pharmacist can't do chemistry.

in real life a pharmacist is also a chemist and all geologists are also physicists.

because the sciences aren't strictly segregated fields that don't influence each other. They are more like variations of the same theme.

>>2303817
This makes sense except no morphologist ever claimed to "also study dna since it's all about shape". Morphology is the study of shape in macroscopic organisms, not chemicals. A morphologist does obviously need to have some basis in chemistry, but that doesn't mean all people who study chemistry consider themselves morphologists just because they study the shape of chemicals.
Why am I even replying to you?

>>2303818
so you're telling me you read genetics and have never come across phrases such as, "morphology of dna," or "morphology of the genome"?

Because I'm not even interested in genetics and I've seen that.

regarding the macroscopic, I'm pretty sure if you spend two seconds on google scholar you can prove yourself wrong by searching "morphology of viruses," "morphology of mitochondria," or whatever other microscopic morphology crosses your mind.

>>2303822
>so you're telling me you read genetics and have never come across phrases such as, "morphology of dna," or "morphology of the genome
>"morphology of viruses," "morphology of mitochondria," or whatever other microscopic morphology crosses your mind
Sure. But the people who study these things aren't morphologists. No one calls them that, not even themselves. Everyone considers morphologists to study exclusively the shape of macroscopic organisms.
So either you live on lala land, or you're not a real morphologist.

>>2303824
>the people who study these things aren't morphologists. No one calls them that, not even themselves
sure, just like no geologist calls themselves a chemist, but that doesn't mean they can't or don't do chemistry every day.

labels man. We call ourselves the farthest post we've reached, that doesn't mean the nearer posts aren't also ours.

>>2303826
That's not what the word "morphologist" means, in any language. You're delusional.

Guys can you please stop posting offtopic in my thread? How do I convince my friend that she was in the wrong?

>>2303827
yes, I know you get hung up on labels.

a morphologist is just someone that does and publishes works in morphology. Being a morphologists doesn't mean you can't also be something else, nor does being something else prevent you from working in morphology.

I don't know what else to say. You seem to imagine jobs as strictly defined things you can't break out of and that have no overlap. Which is amusingly autistic but has nothing to do with reality.

>>2303828
>How do I convince my friend that she was in the wrong?
she's not.

primitive in biology literally means around before the others.

>>2303832
>a morphologist is just someone that does and publishes works in morphology.
Glad we agree.

>>2303828
Like we said, evolution doesn't have a point. There is no more or less evolved. Evolution describes a process, not an ends.

>>2303833
Not really.

>>2303828
You tell her to read "Memorphology".

"basic" means nothing and a characteristic (i don't know if that's the right name in english) is primitive compared to another only if they are related.
A butterfly's wing is not primitive to a bat's wing because they have different origins.
In the end you are as likely to convince her as we are to convice >>2303833 that he is absurdly wrong.

>>2303836
>Glad we agree.
then we can further agree that all zoological diagnoses are works of morphology, as is any phylogenetic analysis.

and thus most works of morphology aren't done by people that call themselves morphologists.

>>2303839
>A butterfly's wing is not primitive to a bat's wing because they have different origins.
it is because the butterfly wing existed earlier.

>>2303840
Nope, because morphology isn't the study of zoological diagnoses. It's the study of macroscopial organism shape.
Not all mammals are elephants, but all elephants are mammals.

>>2303844
>Nope, because morphology isn't the study of zoological diagnoses
you have that exactly backwards.
all zoological diagnoses are morphological studies,
not all morphological studies are diagnoses.

>>2303843
The butterfly wing evolved earlier and does its job better than the bat's wing. Which is why bats are clumsy in flight and have evolved to live in the night only, since most birds are diurnal.

>>2303846
Sorry to tell you no scientific source ever says that. It in fact corroborates what I said.

>>2303848
>does its job better
better or worse has nothing to do with primitive or derived.

>Sorry to tell you no scientific source ever says that
any zoologist would say that.

>>2303852
>any zoologist would say that.
Such as?

>>2303852
>primitive or derived.
The bat's wing isn't derived from the butterfly wing. Therefore the butterfly wing isn't "primitive". It has no "derivations".
It's a classic example of parallel evolution.

>>2303848
The butterfly wing cannot be primitive to the bat's because they have a different origin.
It's an homoplasy.

>>2303853
literally any.
find one and ask them.
they'll chuckle at your silliness and tell you that, yes, zoological diagnoses are indeed morphological studies. Then pat you on the head and give you a lizard turd wrapped up in a tootsie roll wrapper and send you on your way.

or more likely they'll ignore you because they don't have time for fools asking autistic questions with obvious and simple answers.

>>2303855
>The bat's wing isn't derived from the butterfly wing.
it doesn't have to be since we're not comparing wings.

>>2303859
But I'm a zoologist. Guess I've been wrong all my life!

>>2303869
Paleontologist here, we all learn something new every day!

>>2303869
>But I'm a zoologist.
lol
are you a lurking paleontologist in uni?

>>2303863
>we're not comparing wings
>it's primitive because the butterfly wing existed earlier
Dude.

>>2303872
Nope. I'm a biologist who did his PhD in zoology. I give classes in a European university.

>>2303873
yes, it's confusing because both organs are called "wings" even though we can agree they're not the same thing at all.

so change that and ask, e.g., are butterfly feet more primitive than bat wings?

again, we still aren't comparing wings.

>>2303876
Dude waht

File: morte e vida stanley.gif (4MB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 450x320px

>>2303876

>>2303879
when you ask which is more primitive, a bat wing or a butterfly wing, you aren't comparing a wing to a wing. It's more like a wing to a hand. Either way we agree that one is not derived from the other and they aren't the same organ. They're not homologous.

so we're comparing two different organs just as effectively as if we asked if bat lungs are more primitive than dragonfly eyes. Two completely different things.

We're just asking which of the two structures is closer to the ancestral condition. So we imagine the MRCA of bats and butterflies and ask which form is closer to that MRCA. In any situation we can imagine, the butterfly is going to be the closer, or more primitive, than the bat.

In part this is a temporal judgement, the butterfly wing evolved long before the bat wing so it's presumably closer to the primitive form. Because generally speaking earlier forms will be more primitive than later.

>>2303897
we need sequence analysis on how the components of modern gills and modern lungs compare to the ancestral gill, everything else in this thread is fart-catching.

>>2303904
there's not a lot of variation in modern fish gills, they're highly conserved. The oldest fossil gills are indistinguishable from modern ones.

and we know for a fact tetrapods with lungs started off having gills so no matter how much gills evolved they'll still be the primitive condition compared to lungs.

File: disappointed black man.jpg (88KB, 650x837px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 650x837px

>>2303655
>One vet major in my class believes you have to spit in a dog's mouth at least daily to show you're the alpha.
Have you considered minoring in veterinary sciences? That way you can get a feel for it without necessarily committing yourself to a major switch. Virology is cool, by the way.

>>2303440
Yall both dead wrong evolution is only a theory

>>2303881
I have no idea what the fuck is going on.