you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments