• dalekcaan@lemm.eeEnglish
      18·
      11 days ago

      It’s 1st grade biology!

      Yes, it is. Advertising the fact that you only know biology up to a 1st grade level is not the flex you think it is.

    • remon@ani.socialEnglish
      104·
      11 days ago

      Taxonomy isn’t biology, though. It’s a man-made classification system. And at the species level it’s much closer to binary definitions than spectrums. So maybe not the best analogy to make.

        • remon@ani.socialEnglish
          57·
          11 days ago

          But taxonomy aims (even though it sometimes fails) to classify organisms into rigid categories, which is exactly the thing you want to avoid with gender, right?

          • otacon239@lemmy.worldEnglish
            20·
            11 days ago

            Just like how we understand that species at a real level are actually a spectrum, we do the same thing with our (self-identified) genders. We feel a certain way about ourselves and find the closest available definition to provide to others. It may not be a 100% exact match to you and you will likely have nuance, but so do species.

            It actually is helpful, too because it lets others know how you’d like to be treated in a word.

      • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        11 days ago

        Until you start to use evolution. What a species is, begins to blur as soon as you try to establish evolutionary lines. When is a whale not a whale but just a water enthusiast mammal? somewhere between 50 and 35 million years ago. Exactly when, it’s anyone’s guess. Taxonomy is indeed part of biology, though.

        • remon@ani.socialEnglish
          62·
          11 days ago

          What a species is, begins to blur as soon as you try to establish evolutionary lines.

          It doesn’t because “species” is definied as an animal that can have fertile offspring with other members of it’s species. Looking at evolution doesn’t change that definition, it just shows that it’s not a very good definition on an evolutionary timescale. Our concept of species in taxonomy only makes sense within small timeframes.

          When is a whale not a whale but just a water enthusiast mammal?

          First we have to establish what you mean by “whale” and translate that to the proper order/clade. Then you look at what was the first described fossile in the group is. And that’s your answer. And yes, that answer will change with new fossil discoveries or reclassifications based on other information happen. But as long as you keep up to date with them, the current way we use taxonomy gives quite binary definitions of the majority of lifeforms.

          Taxonomy is indeed part of biology, though.

          It sure is. But it’s just an arbitrary classification system within the greater field. It is like an “index”, so you can look up what information belongs to the thing you’re looking at. But it doesn’t actually hold much information about biology of the thing itself.

          • its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            4·
            11 days ago

            Species actually don’t have a rigid definition that works across all organisms. The most common definition is the one you gave but sometimes it simply doesn’t work, for example any organism the doesn’t use sexual reproduction doesn’t fit this definition. Clarification of extinct populations would also be an issue. Even considering organisms this is usually used with, there are exceptions. For example; domesticated cattle and American bison, coyotes and wolves, and most cat breeds with various wild species.

    • Lemming6969@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      11 days ago

      It’s likely easier for people to learn to love trans people than understand there are no fish… If that tells you anything.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catEnglish
    571·
    11 days 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.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
    233·
    11 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.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.socialEnglish
    201·
    11 days 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·
        11 days 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
        42·
        11 days 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.

      • shneancy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 days 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

  • GooberEar@lemmy.wtfEnglish
    131·
    11 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.

    • PapaStevesy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      11 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.

    • Derpenheim@lemmy.zipEnglish
      8·
      11 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

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netEnglish
      31·
      11 days ago

      Just because we lack a definition, doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist.

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.socialEnglish
        15·
        11 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.

      • notabot@lemm.eeEnglish
        5·
        11 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.

      • PapaStevesy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 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.

    • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      1·
      11 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)_/¯

    • LanguageIsCool@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      11 days ago

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

  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.worldEnglish
    123·
    11 days 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.

  • Simulation6@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    7·
    11 days ago

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

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      11 days 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.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        11 days 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.

  • Frostbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
    71·
    11 days 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
      81·
      11 days 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.