• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      826 days ago

      No no, it’s that humans are technically in the fish group of evolution, even though it happened a LONG time ago. That’s what they mean by “cladistically”, there is no “clade” of fish. Look up “humans are hagfish by Clint’s Reptiles”. He explains it wonderfully

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      126 days ago

      Scientists said the oceans would run out of fish by 2048. In fact, fish stopped existing today. Sick burn.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4126 days ago

      It’s more that biological classification is tricky and linear, and vertebrates went in and out of the ocean a few times

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1326 days ago

      This is like bemoaning the fact that doctors don’t treat “the humors” anymore. We gained knowledge that invalidated what we thought we knew, so we’ve updated our understanding. Unless you’re a taxonomical marine biologist, it’s really very unimportant anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      126 days ago

      Yeah I disagree with the idea that there is no such thing as a fish.

      It’s like saying that there are no striped animals because both zebras and snakes can have stripes.

      Sure, there is no common ancestor for hundreds of millions of years but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t a thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1526 days ago

        It’s not even that we lack a way to define fish, it’s more that we lack a definition that isn’t arbitrary. One can define them as something like “vertebrates, except for all these ones that we don’t want to include”, but then there’s not really a clear reason to exclude all the amphibians and reptiles and mammals and such, other than that they don’t traditionally get called fish. Some of them even live in water, and a handful of fish can leave the water to a limited extent, so it isn’t even that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        126 days ago

        We don’t lack a definition, we actually just have so many narrower definitions that we don’t need one for “fish” anymore. The old, broad definitions become archaic and often inaccurate as we gain more knowledge.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        626 days ago

        When it’s a grouping that we lack the definition for, then the group doesn’t really exist, even if it’s members do and we all gave a good idea of what are, for instance, fish. Basically the group ‘fish’ contains all the things you think are fish, which is problematic as someone else may have a different idea of which things belong in the group, and while that’s fine when talking coloquially, you can’t really use it when trying to discuss things in a rigerous fashion.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          126 days ago

          The vast majority of language is not “rigorous”. Colloquial definitions are incredibly important.

          • Log in | Sign up
            link
            fedilink
            English
            226 days ago

            Which is fine as long as you don’t try to make rigid distinctions out of your arbitrary colloquia and claim to be acting logically.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    126 days ago

    Slightly off-topic from the intended point, but I’ve heard this more often, that there’s no such thing as a fish, but it’s a useful constructed concept to have.

    So why is it so important that we all remember that animals like whales are not fish, they’re mammals? Didn’t stop us from calling animals from other groups fish, why should mammals get a special treatment?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      326 days ago

      The point is to emphasize that whales biologies are significantly different from other similar-looking things, not technicalities about which named group they belong to.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      226 days ago

      Because mammals got those mammaries. So deeply rooted that humans can’t stop putting them even on non-mammals when we want to anthropomorphise in stories, myths and art

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    726 days ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2426 days 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.

    • AutistoMephisto
      link
      fedilink
      English
      525 days ago

      Not even close to a transphobe and my mind is still blown at the fact of the nonexistence of fish.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1626 days 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.

    • Tuukka R
      link
      fedilink
      English
      426 days ago

      The only land animals that aren’t fish are animals with exoskeletons. Whales are fish just as much as you and me are. And we are fish :)