• PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catEnglish
    671·
    2 years ago

    Attention! Turn back. Going into these comments can bring you nothing of happiness. You can just look up the “tumblr reading comprehension” meme instead of needing to see the gory details of it in action.

      • shneancy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        even Ancient Egyptians enjoyed some psychedelic lotus, so it’s pretty likely. Psychedelic drugs have been a staple of human fucking around since forever

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.socialEnglish
    251·
    2 years ago

    Fish absolutely exist cladistically, OP just didn’t want to admit they’re a land dwelling fish. You believe the implications of cladistics or you don’t, cowards.

    I’d also argue it’s relatively easy to separate fish-fish from land fish from land fish that became sea fish again to bully the fish fish.

      • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        Seems so. Wikipedia tells there are seven classes of vertebrates:

        • Agnatha (jawless fishes, paraphyletic)
        • Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes)
        • Osteichthyes (bony fishes, paraphyletic)
        • Amphibia (amphibians)
        • Reptilia (reptiles, paraphyletic)
        • Aves (birds)
        • Mammalia (mammals)

        So yes, fishes is the same thing as vertebrates.

        Probably because if you were a vertebrate living in the sea, you needed some sort of gills and fins and such. And those are what makes people assume something is a “fish”.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.socialEnglish
        52·
        2 years ago

        Considering that you misspelled the name of a common term and that’s not a biological classification I’m going to stand by what the doctorates who taught my zoology courses said.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
    264·
    2 years ago

    Just gonna swing by and drop this little grenade:

    If you believe “race doesn’t exist”, then this post also applies to you. If you can refer to different genders while also understanding that at the individual level definitions are fluid and blurry, then you can refer to different races while also understanding that at the individual level definitions are fluid and blurry.

  • GooberEar@lemmy.wtfEnglish
    161·
    2 years ago

    I try to tell folks all the time that biology is not as simplistic as they think. It’s basically an endeavor of humans trying to make simplistic categories out of a naturally complicated clusterfuck. Some things defy labels, not everything fits into a nice, easy little box. Life is complicated. Get over it.

  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.worldEnglish
    143·
    2 years ago

    We’re all just collectively ignoring the biologist’s username?

    I mean they are definitely correct, but that name detracts from their credibility somewhat.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      2 years ago

      Honestly I sometimes feel like going to certain online communities and just making a single post that says “gender” and then vanishing and watching the ensuing arguments.

      • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        2 years ago

        They called him “The Sniper”. He would strike without warning, always vanishing into the ether. No downvote could stop him. No harsh rebuke could change his merciless ways.

  • Simulation6@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    7·
    2 years ago

    I was going to say ‘how about bony fish?’, but then I checked and I am technically a bony fish (Osteichthyes).

  • Frostbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
    71·
    2 years ago

    Regarding “fish” Old classification relied on “phenotype” characteristics. And yes lamprey, a shark or a cod has little in common genetically. But they still share some common traits that distinguishes them considerably from whales, sea lions and seals. I still think the term “fish” is useful, and modern classifications rely more on genetics so I would say that the argument is semi void.

    • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      2 years ago

      They didn’t say that fish wasn’t a useful concept, they said that the more you delve into the facts, the less certain you can be that it has a definite meaning that can be pinned down scientifically.

      People think the science agrees with them that the world can be divided into fish and not fish, but that’s absolutely not what the science is saying, and their understanding is superficial.

      Similarly, the terms male and female are generally quite useful, but the people who think that there’s some kind of scientific and absolute binary distinction between them are just incorrect, and their understanding is superficial.