Science Memes

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] boydster@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Impossible. If there were no such thing as fish, how could bees be fish?

parent

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

I don’t have the tools to know how to respond to this comment. You win.

Edit: Holy shit. I just did a quick google. Boydster is not shitting us. Just google “bees are fish.” Oddly enough, this actually furthers the thesis of fish not existing.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Devmapall@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

To add on for anyone who is lazy like me, the thing where Google summarizes says California has classified bees as fish under an environmental protection act. According to the first result (Reddit) it's because fish is a catch all term in that law. Instead of listing all the animals they just use fish. Because fish,bees, and the other animals are all invertebrates.

Now whoever reads this has three Lemmy comments, a reddit thread reference, and an ai overview reference as some solid sources

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Fish are vertebrates they have a backbone

parent

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Some fish are, yeah

parent

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Sorry bro, all fish are vertebrates

While I understand it is an arbitrary classification system designed by humans, one of the defining factors of fish is that they are vertebrates.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

What about starfishes? Checkmate.

parent

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

That made me chuckle, but because this is a science meme forum, I will just clarify that starfish are not fish.

parent

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Source?

Because all the sources I've come across say that "fish" is not a monophylatic classification and is essentially arbitrary.

parent

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

parent

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

... and Wikipedia states that the category of "fish" is paraphylatic, meaning that it is defined by convention rather than 'fact' and its boundaries can be argued, since it excludes some of the descendants of fish.

also, as pointed out by another commenter, we use the word fish to describe lots of things that are not included in this definition, like starfish and crayfish.

parent

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

So you’re suggesting that because we all evolved from a sesspool swamp we are all fish?

I’m down

Trees also do not have a real definition. But you think you know what a tree is.

Fish have a more strict definition than trees.

I provided you a source please name a fish that is an invertebrate or what not that is really cool and has the backbone in some other genetically cool place

parent

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

Having recently learned about trees, I actually don't think I know what a tree is. at least, not enough to create a reasonable, non-blurry definition of "tree."

You've defined fish as being vertebrates, and as such I cannot find an invertebrate that fits that definition. But what you can't do is just say the word "fish" and expect me to know what you mean - you have to provide a definition, and I could provide a different definition in a different context and neither of us would really be "wrong."

If you did just say "fish" without providing a definition, I would be tempted to either exclude sharks or include crabs, depending on context.

parent

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 1 point 1 year ago

Sharks are fish I believe but I am not the one making the definitions. Wikipedia / fish …