Summations Only

You must agree also that humans are not more complex than monkeys, apes or fish. Listening to evolutionary arguments you could be forgiven for thinking that we evolved from monkeys or apes or fish. But the argument continues that we evolved from ape like creatures or fish like creatures rather than actually from apes or fish.Modern apes could equally argue that they evolved from human-like creatures. Both species are perfectly adapted to their niches right?Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys. Fish are perfectly adapted to their niche right. And they are the height/pinnacle of complexity as we all are. So this argument seems to have some missing holes.

If you can't believe that fish evolved from monkeys, can you believe that monkeys evolved from fish?

But the ToE states that monkeys didn't evolve from fish...but fish-like creatures.

So monkeys evolved from fish-like creatures?
Humans evolved from fish-like creatures?
Fish evolved from fish-like creatures?Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is?

So would I be right in saying that none of the examples given are actually ancestors of modern day fish?

The issue I am raising here is one of complexity. Dr Adequate argues that he is not more complex than say a lobster. Extrapolating this argument a monkey is not more complex than a fish. However, when I suggest that a fish might have evolved from a monkey you baulk at this idea. You can only see evolution going one way...ie from a fish to a monkey. This suggests to me that a monkey is more complex than a fish. If it wasn't then evolution, which is directionless, should have the capacity to go both ways.Now if you suggested that a complex creature could evolve into a simpler creature where its very survival depended on it I might understand this. However, if I gave any example of this you would no doubt claim I was raving mad. I see huge holes in the logic being applied.

Not in all cases. The red colobus monkey is no longer. However, we still have fish in the sea. Does this mean that the red colobus has evolved into a form of fish?

But clearly the red colobus monkey failed to adapt to the modern world. Its cousins, the fish, however have continued to thrive and demonstrated that they don't need this relics attributes or features. Surely, this is evolution in action. Survival of the fittest!

I think this is clear evidence then that a monkey can evolve into a fish and that at least one has evolved into a fish.

You use extinct fish to conclude that they evolved into monkeys. I am using an extinct monkey to conclude that it evolved into a fish. Same logic. Why should either conclusion be wrong.

I think Dr Adequate would disagree about the complexity issue. He's already stated that one species is not more complex than another. They are simply more adapted to their particular niche.I do wish you scientists would at least maintain some meaningful set of rules or axioms whenever you discuss these topics. Are some species more complex than others or not?

I appreciate that fish appear before monkeys in the rock layers. So there might be a living common ancestor for fish and monkeys right? Can't we track this down? DNA evidence should do the trick.

Ok...so the ancestor for a modern fish is just another fish by anyones understanding.
And the ancestor of a monkey is a fish based on the arguments here.
So if we found the common ancestor we could probably just assume that it was infact only the ancestor for a fish. I am guessing that there must be thousands or millions of pieces of evidence showing that the ancestors of fish were infact fish.Would I be wrong in thinking that we couldn't actually deduce anything from this at all?

That's the whole point though. We DON'T have access to ancestral DNA so we can't deduce what you have deduced above.
If you are suggesting that it would make more sense to assume that an ancestral fish was a direct ancestor of say a rabbit I could equally ask you why you have assumed this.My point is that an ancestral fish was a fish and will have DNA to match this. It will also be more closely related to a modern fish than say a rabbit in terms of its DNA. So it would be safe to assume that an ancient fish was an ancestor of the modern fish.Now, if you are suggesting that the DNA of some modern fish is more closely related to a rabbits than it is to other fish then dare I say it.....fishy pun.....this would be a red herring. Because these fish are NOT the ancestors of rabbits. They are infact modern fish.Ofcourse, all of this is indeterminate without the ancestral DNA.

Why would you assume this? Does this sound familiar?Let's consider three creatures A, B and C where A is the parent of B and C and all of these creatures are fish. Imagine that C's lineage produces a rabbit and B's lineage on the other hand remains a fish. Furthermore lets imagine that A, B and C share some genes X, Y and Z that are not found amongst other fish. Now imagine that those genes appear in all rabbits. Your assumption is that the B's lineage should be lumped together with a rabbits. This is a false assertion as the genes X,Y and Z clearly don't define a species of rabbit nor do they define a species of fish. They are irrelevant genes because a fish with X,Y,Z genes will not evolve into a rabbit as evidenced by B's lineage. Similarly a rabbit with X,Y,Z will never evolve into a fish as evidenced by the fact that rabbits always give birth to rabbits.So there must be some other genes say P,Q,R which actually make a rabbit a rabbit. The P,Q and R genes will only appear in rabbit and never in a fish. If they did appear in a fish the fish would become a rabbit. These genes have effectively appeared by magic. These genes are proof that the rabbit could not have a fish ancestor as no fish have this sequence.Go figure....