Any scientific definition of ‘fish’ which includes all the things we commonly consider to be fish also includes basically all animal life on earth (including humans and, presumably, pterodactyls).
“Theoretically, a last common ancestor and all its descendants constitute a (minimal) clade. Importantly, all descendants stay in their overarching ancestral clade. For example, if the terms worms or fishes were used within a strict cladistic framework, these terms would include humans.”
so basically it’s a language problem, not a biology problem? people are incorrectly assuming that any group of species with a word to describe it must be monophyletic, and therefore include all unrelated species which would make it monophyletic?
I’m honestly surprised this isn’t better understood in this community, at least as an approach to the tree of life system of classification, with or without its merits. I didn’t go to college and went to public school that suppressed science education, but this was how I came to understand evolution and that all types of life had a universal common ancestor.
I’m not speaking to the accuracy of the meme, and the science community at large has its criticisms of cladistics, but I’m not sure I would define this as a problem of biology or language, or a problem at all. It is the most common method of evolutionary classification at this time.
Keep in mind I’m a blue collar worker on my lunch break and not a scientist nor college educated. I just like to learn in my free time about a bunch of stuff.
you know, two organisms might look similar at first, but what’s often more important is the set of internal features, such as biochemistry, tolerance of toxins, etc.
if you take all these internal features, you find that they’re well-preserved within evolutionary groups; but not within groups that merely look alike
Eeeeeehhhhlaborate
Ducks are avians, thus descended from dinosaurs.
Anatomically, the hoof of a horse is equivalent to a human middle fingernail.
There are “sea bees” tiny crustaceans that are pollinators of underwater plants. Both crustaceans and “bugs” are arthropods.
Not sure about the pterodactyl fish reference.
Redwoods and all plants really descend from photosynthetic algae.
About 8% of the human genome is composed of ancient viral DNA from viruses that integrated into DNA…
I believe the pterodactyl, like most (all?) dinos descended from aquatic life forms. Dunno, though.
Yeah, all life from the ocean but its a bit more of a stretch to say pterodactyl are fishes.
No argument there 🤣
Any scientific definition of ‘fish’ which includes all the things we commonly consider to be fish also includes basically all animal life on earth (including humans and, presumably, pterodactyls).
Edit: Though generally this is avoided by declaring that ‘fish’ is not an evolutionary category.
Well everything is a fish or fish don’t exist.
It’s cladistics.
“Theoretically, a last common ancestor and all its descendants constitute a (minimal) clade. Importantly, all descendants stay in their overarching ancestral clade. For example, if the terms worms or fishes were used within a strict cladistic framework, these terms would include humans.”
so basically it’s a language problem, not a biology problem? people are incorrectly assuming that any group of species with a word to describe it must be monophyletic, and therefore include all unrelated species which would make it monophyletic?
I’m honestly surprised this isn’t better understood in this community, at least as an approach to the tree of life system of classification, with or without its merits. I didn’t go to college and went to public school that suppressed science education, but this was how I came to understand evolution and that all types of life had a universal common ancestor.
I’m not speaking to the accuracy of the meme, and the science community at large has its criticisms of cladistics, but I’m not sure I would define this as a problem of biology or language, or a problem at all. It is the most common method of evolutionary classification at this time.
Keep in mind I’m a blue collar worker on my lunch break and not a scientist nor college educated. I just like to learn in my free time about a bunch of stuff.
deleted by creator
the cladistic approach developed for a reason
you know, two organisms might look similar at first, but what’s often more important is the set of internal features, such as biochemistry, tolerance of toxins, etc.
if you take all these internal features, you find that they’re well-preserved within evolutionary groups; but not within groups that merely look alike