You must log in or register to comment.
Fish is not a scientific classification.
The shitpost is correct. Bony fish, or the superclass Osteichtyes, absolutely is a scientific classification, and by the way modern cladistics work, every single thing descended from them, which includes all terrestrial mammals, reptiles etc. are also bony fish.
In other words, if the common ancestor of tuna and squirrels and whales is a bony fish, they are all bony fish. The squirrel and whale cannot be demoted from their bony fish status.
I fish?
You wish
Aww yish
Yes, yes, tomatoes are fruit, and birds are dinosaurs
Would you like your fried dinosaur strips with fruit purée?
And apes are monkeys.
I agree. With same logic:
- Water is not mercury
- Water is liquid
- Liquid is mercury
- Water is mercury
Not all liquids are, or come from mercury, while all tretapods come from fishes. So that logic doesn’t work.
Yes but “mammals are tetrapods” is the incorrect one
I agree. All animals and plants are single celled.
‘Single celled’ is a characteristic, not a lineage. Organisms don’t necessarily have the same characteristics as their ancestors.
You’re seriously splitting hairs about lineage when you know humans are obviously not fish.
A species can not evolve out of a clade. I am not splitting hairs, I am simply accepting cladistics classification as valid.
I am simply accepting cladistics classification as valid.
Obviously you are not, since fish are not considered a monophyletic group.
Bony fish (Osteichthyes) is monophyletic.
That would explain why water is so deadly. 100% of people that drink water will die
But not 100% of people who died have drunk water
But their bodies contained water(possibly inherited from parent, who were addicted to water)
“Kerosine is fuel Brian. Redbull is fuel. Kerosine is Redbull.”
Good evening. The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. ‘All wood burns,’ states Sir Bedevere. ‘Therefore,’ he concludes, ‘all that burns is wood.’ This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. ‘Oh yes,’ one would think. However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me, for how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder?
For example, given the premise, ‘all fish live underwater’ and ‘all mackerel are fish’, my wife will conclude, not that ‘all mackerel live underwater’, but that ‘if she buys kippers it will not rain’, or that ‘trout live in trees’, or even that ‘I do not love her any more.’ This she calls ‘using her intuition’. I call it ‘crap’, and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical. ‘There will be no supper tonight,’ she will sometimes cry upon my return home. ‘Why not?’ I will ask. ‘Because I have been screwing the milkman all day,’ she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. ‘But,’ I will wearily point out, ‘even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may now, logically, be got.’ ‘You don’t love me any more,’ she will now often postulate. ‘If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms.’ ‘I will give you one after you have got me my supper,’ I now usually scream, ‘but not before’-- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper. ‘God, you turn me on when you’re angry, you ancient brute!’ she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. ‘Fuck supper!’ I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yogurt.
I’m afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell: sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this, but it ‘is’ in the same sense that Mount Everest ‘is’, or that Alma Cogan ‘isn’t’.
Goodnight.
Brilliant! What’s this from?
Monty Python and the holy Grail. Yes. Love it.
Whales, dolphins, porpoises, and orcas are all sea doggos
Wait, seals are sea doggos, right? Whales are sea cows.
But manatees are sea cows
They are called sea cows, but they’re really sea elephants? I hope I’m not terribly wrong.
Why elephants? I mean whales are not cows just by looking at what they eat. In that way manatees eating mostly sea plants are closer to being cows. Are they not?
I think it’s a joke about manatees having evolved from the same land-based ancestor as elephants, making them pretty literally “sea elephants”.
Yes, I was referring to the evolutionary aspects, not the ecological ones :)
Interesting. Just like the actual closest living relative to the elephant looks like a malnourished beaver
Cetaceans evolved from a wolf like creature, not a bovine like one.
Did they? Wiki tells me “that cetaceans are phylogenetically closely related with the even-toed ungulates (Artiodactyla)”. So a horse is closer than a cow, but a cow is much closer than a dog. By the way, I like the fact that we’re both angry :)
It depends on what you want to call pakicetus, I think it looks kinda dog like.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/
The DNA may tell an entirely different story.
Pakicetus looks really cute in this reconstruction! I’ve always seen the species pictured looking as a kind of a big rat. This is so much better.
What are dugongs hen?
Never heard of them
They are similar to manatees but thinner and droopier in the snout. Hang out mainly in asia
Dunno. I said the former were sea doggos because they all evolved from some wolf-like creature
yeah i know dugongs could be the “sea cows” too
If both trout and sharks are fish, then so are whales. Mammals are more closely related to trout than trout are to sharks.
2+2=5
Shrimps is bugs, whales is whales
Whale is eukaryote.
No, you can’t carry it, it’s too heavy
Monke is fish.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chapter 32:
The uncertain, unsettled condition of this science of Cetology is in the very vestibule attested by the fact, that in some quarters it still remains a moot point whether a whale be a fish. In his System of Nature, A.D. 1776, Linnaeus declares, “I hereby separate the whales from the fish.” But of my own knowledge, I know that down to the year 1850, sharks and shad, alewives and herring, against Linnaeus’s express edict, were still found dividing the possession of the same seas with the Leviathan.
The grounds upon which Linnaeus would fain have banished the whales from the waters, he states as follows: “On account of their warm bilocular heart, their lungs, their moveable eyelids, their hollow ears, penem intrantem feminam mammis lactantem,” and finally, “ex lege naturae jure meritoque.” I submitted all this to my friends Simeon Macey and Charley Coffin, of Nantucket, both messmates of mine in a certain voyage, and they united in the opinion that the reasons set forth were altogether insufficient. Charley profanely hinted they were humbug.
Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me.
