OK, it’s still wrong, because you have different look and feel, different processor architectures, and different memory architectures WITHIN a single company.
No, it doesn’t at all. You clearly don’t grasp the concept of twin nested hierarchies.
And you’re switching from company to designer. How come? Designer doesn’t work either.
Makes no difference. Your problem is the same.
No. Reptiles are fish, if by that you refer to Osteichthyes. You’re a fish too. Remember that lungfish are more closely related to lizards (and you) than to trout.
I’m afraid your opinion is worthless, since you know just as little about the subject as he does.
@colewd, phylogenetic trees are not constructed by similarity. This is just false.
This is not a subject about which Bill knows anything, and he has shown himself unwilling or unable to learn too. I’ve tried.
Where did I make this claim?
You endorsed @scd, who has been arguing that they are constructed by similarity.
Thanks for the correction.
And Bill made the same claim himself:
So what’s the block to learning this, Bill?
When you point out an error, he says “thanks for the correction” and immediately forgets about it. That’s a major block.
so when someone look at the mirror he see a fish?
so? it doesnt make human a fish.
You’re confusing the colloquial or typological definition of fish, with the cladistic definition, which is why John used the word Osteichthyes. You’re basically asking “so when I look at the mirror I see a mammal?”. Yes.
Try to find out what the word means.
You’re also a cellular life form, a eukaryote (your cells have a nucleus), a bilaterian (you are symmetrical along your axis of length), deuterostome (during early embryological development, the first body opening to emerge is your anus, which gave birth to the expression “we all begin as assholes”) a chordate (have a nerve cord running from the brain down your back), a vertebrate (you have a spine), a tetrapod (you have four limbs), and so on and so forth.
A sufficiently educated person does, yes. For your own education, you might try Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish.
If you understood cladistic classification it would.
Rejoice, then. Evolution is true. We don’t have to assume it. We can reliably conclude it from the data. There is no problem except in your mind.
Just out of curiosity, are you a mammal?
No, I don’t see a problem.
Personally, I don’t think of myself as a fish. But then I am using the ordinary language meaning of “fish” rather than the technical meaning from cladistics. It does not bother me at all, if biologists say that I’m a fish.
You seem to be seeing a problem with biologists have a precise technical definition for their terminology. But if that’s a problem for you, then you should abandon your religion. For religion is chock full of specialized technical definitions.
And no, we do not need to assume that evolution is true to accept the evolutionist’s definition. We merely have to accept that definition within the context of discussing things that evolutionists discuss. And, when done with that discussion, we can switch back to the ordinary language meaning of “fish”. You are seeing a problem, where there isn’t one.
so prove me that human evolved from a fish then. but first: according to this definition dolphin is a fish as well, since it also evolved from a fish ancestor. right?
yes. are you a fish? no.
Why are you a mammal?