Lumi's Batshit Insane Thread

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
WHAT WAS A MUDSKIPPER BEFORE IT WAS A MUDSKIPPER?
A fish.

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT IT TRANSITIONED FROM BEING FULLY AQUATIC OR FULLY TERRESTRIAL? WHAT IS IT IN TRANSITION INTO?
Mudskipper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mudskippers are members of the subfamily Oxudercinae (tribe Periophthalmini),[1] within the family Gobiidae (gobies). They are completely amphibious fish that can use their pectoral fins to walk on land.[2][3] Being amphibious, they are uniquely adapted to intertidal habitats, unlike most fish in such habitats which survive the retreat of the tide by hiding under wet seaweed or in tidal pools.[4]
rrr_img_91298.png


Mudskippers come from one of the largest family of fish, the Goby, or Gobiidae

Goby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gobies form the family Gobiidae, which is one of the largest families of fish, with more than 2,000 species in more than 200 genera.[1] Most are relatively small, typically less than 10 cm (4 in) in length. Gobies include some of the smallest vertebrates in the world, such as Trimmatom nanus and Pandaka pygmaea, which are under 1 cm (3/8 in) long when fully grown. Some large gobies, such as some species of the genera Gobioides or Periophthalmodon, can reach over 30 cm (1 ft) in length, but that is exceptional. Generally, they are benthic, or bottom-dwellers. Although few are important as food for humans, they are of great significance as prey species for commercially important fish such as cod, haddock, sea bass, and flatfish. Several gobies are also of interest as aquarium fish, such as the bumblebee gobies of the genus Brachygobius. Phylogenetic relationships of gobies have been studied using molecular data.[2][3]
Mudskippers are a transitional form between what was an aquatic fish and what will be, unless the species returns to its aquatic roots for one reason or another, a fully adapted terrestrial land animal which will require a new classification but will be very close to an amphibian.



Here is an incomplete list of transitional fossils to date

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A list of some of the transitional fossils and features between dinosaurs and birds

9 links in the dinosaur-to-bird transition - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

A discussion of Archaeopteryx, transitional form between dinosaurs and birds

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...aeopteryx.html

A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany, which is marked by rare but exceptionally well preserved fossils. Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.
It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds.

As you can see, Archaeopteryx certainly had feathers, although whether these feathers were used for regulating its body temperature or for flight is a matter still open for debate. Feathers may have originally evolved for insulation and then been co-opted into flight. The origin of flight, and the actual flight capabilities of Archaeopteryx, are debated. Two models of the evolution of flight have been proposed: in the "trees-down" model, birds evolved from ancestors that lived in trees and could glide down, analogous to today's flying squirrels. In the "ground-up" model, the ancestors of birds lived on the ground and made long leaps. For more information, see our new exhibits on vertebrate flight and avian flight.

The flight stroke may have originated as an extension of the grabbing forearm motions that smaller, agile theropods such as Deinonychus may have used to grab and hang on to prey. As you know if you've ever cut up a chicken, living birds (except for flightless birds like the ostrich and kiwi) have a keeled sternum to which the large, powerful flight muscles attach. Archaeopteryx, however, had a comparatively flat sternum. Although it is currently thought that Archaeopteryx could sustain powered flight, it was probably not a strong flier; it may well have ran, leaped, glided, and flapped all in the same day.
rrr_img_91299.jpg


Evidence for common descent of man from great apes

Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Let me know if I've missed anything.
 

Frenzied Wombat

Potato del Grande
14,730
31,803
I gotta give Hodj A+ for effort, as trying to ram this home to Lumie is pretty much the equivalent of trying to teach a Down's kid advanced calculus.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
The last time Lumie and I had a serious encounter he ended up getting banned for awhile because he broke down and started spamming one sentence in all caps in a giant wall of text over and over for like 30 pages while everyone laughed at him.

Good times were had by most.
 

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,389
43,426
I don't understand why hodj seriously engages Lumie, but has Tanoomba on ignore. You're a true southern enigma, hodj!
 

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,636
31,437
Lumie actually remembers things that were said five minutes ago. Moon Bat just pretends shit never happened and declares victory.
 

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,389
43,426
The end result is, and always will be, the same.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I don't understand why hodj seriously engages Lumie, but has Tanoomba on ignore. You're a true southern enigma, hodj!
Tanoomba's particular flavor of self flagellating martyrdom complex is simply white noise that contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion.

Lumie's batshit at least gives a launching pad for decent conversation about factual scientific evidence.

Wanted to post this video earlier when Lumie was crying about "You can't directly observe evolution, therefore its not science" nonsense.

 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,015
14,964
No, its size just makes it a planetoid rather than a planet
That's what they want you to think.

Question about the mudskipper cause I aint gunne read all that shit that was linked. Are you saying regular fish give birth to mudksippers all the time? Or are you saying at some point in history a regular fish gave birth to a mudskipper once, and that created them? If not, then what else would 'transitional species' mean.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
That's what they want you to think.

Question about the mudskipper cause I aint gunne read all that shit that was linked. Are you saying regular fish give birth to mudksippers all the time? Or are you saying at some point in history a regular fish gave birth to a mudskipper once, and that created them? If not, then what else would 'transitional species' mean.
A lineage of fish whose habitat was primarily in low tidal areas has gradually adapted via natural selection acting on genomic and morphologic variations in the various members of this fish lineage, resulting in the species we term mudskippers today.

A fish gave birth to a fish that was slightly better modified to the low tide habitat, and that fish survived to pass those favorable traits on to its children so forth and so on, until gradually, after many successive generations, the mudskipper population became a distinct entity separate from the fish lineage which gave birth to it.

A transitional species is merely a term used to indicate various steps we recognize between one ancestor form and another, or many, descendent forms.
 

TomServo

<Bronze Donator>
6,878
9,515
A fish.



Mudskipper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



rrr_img_91298.png


Mudskippers come from one of the largest family of fish, the Goby, or Gobiidae

Goby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Mudskippers are a transitional form between what was an aquatic fish and what will be, unless the species returns to its aquatic roots for one reason or another, a fully adapted terrestrial land animal which will require a new classification but will be very close to an amphibian.



Here is an incomplete list of transitional fossils to date

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A list of some of the transitional fossils and features between dinosaurs and birds

9 links in the dinosaur-to-bird transition - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

A discussion of Archaeopteryx, transitional form between dinosaurs and birds

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...aeopteryx.html



rrr_img_91299.jpg


Evidence for common descent of man from great apes

Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Let me know if I've missed anything.
I seriously was thinking of following hodj's example and link to evidence of themogenic muscle theory related to dinoasaurs and birds, and the shit discovered in the soft tissue of the t-rex back in 2005. but nah I no wanna engage the derp
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,015
14,964
So at one point in time, something that wasn't a mudskipper gave birth to a mudskipper? And it happened often enough and at close enough to the same time for them to viably breed. Assuming I got it right so far, my next question is, does the species that gave birth to the first mudskipper still exist?
 

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
So at one point in time, something that wasn't a mudskipper gave birth to a mudskipper? And it happened often enough and at close enough to the same time for them to viably breed. Assuming I got it right so far, my next question is, does the species that gave birth to the first mudskipper still exist?
First you don't just magically jump from x to y. The change is extremely gradual. Also, the individuals with advantageous traits were still capable of producing offspring with others without those traits.
 

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,897
So at one point in time, something that wasn't a mudskipper gave birth to a mudskipper? And it happened often enough and at close enough to the same time for them to viably breed. Assuming I got it right so far, my next question is, does the species that gave birth to the first mudskipper still exist?
I've read dozens of books about evolution. This is among the best of the YouTube breakdowns that I've seen. There are several others but this one is a good one. It only costs you 12 minutes.

How Evolution works - YouTube
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
So at one point in time, something that wasn't a mudskipper gave birth to a mudskipper?
No. At some point something that was not a mudskipper gave birth to something that was marginally closer to a mudskipper, and that organism gave birth to a child that was marginally closer to a mudskipper, for many successive generations, until at some point in time, a new population was recognizable from the old.

nd it happened often enough and at close enough to the same time for them to viably breed.
This is a misunderstanding. Populations evolve. Not individuals. Lions and Tigers, for instance, are related to one another enough that they can still breed, but since one species has two more chromosomes than the other, the offspring cannot breed and therefore at not viable. This is an example of the type of cross breeding that occurs late in the speciation process. Speciation is not a singular event where a mother who is a lion gives birth to a child who is a tiger, or as I explained earlier, as with languages, you don't get a transition point where a mother who speaks Latin gives birth to a child who speaks Spanish, but the populations using these languages evolve and diversify over time as a result of population interactions.


my next question is, does the species that gave birth to the first mudskipper still exist?
I can't personally name it because mudskippers, and in fact, fish, aren't remotely my area of care or expertise. My background is focused on humans, for the most part, and generalized biology outside of human specific contexts.
However:

Natural History Magazine | Feature

In a 1961 paper describing the natural history of a mudskipper, zoologists Robert C. Stebbins and Margaret Kalk wrote, "Watching these gobies one can readily appreciate the survival value of the terrestrial habit." By coming ashore, mudskippers have gained an advantage over their aquatic relatives in avoiding competition with other fish and in searching for food. But mudskippers are still fish, and they remain tied to the water-which, because of their knack for burrowing, is never far away.
It has been identified by the people who actually do conduct research on these organisms.

Here's a preview of an article on the subject on JSTOR

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

And this might very well be the paper in question

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This looks like a fairly well sourced layman's article on their history. Might be in there.

Mudskippers

rrr_img_91321.jpg