There isn’t a simple evolutionary definition of “fish”, not the same way there is for, say, mammals. If you found the common ancestor of everything we call a mammal and said “everything descended from this one is also a mammal”, you’d be correct. If you did that for everything we call fish, every animal in the world would be a fish. Also, we decided which animals were fish mostly on vibes, so without a clear definition you can pedantically argue that everything is a fish including mammals.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 week ago
Whales are mammals. How is the dude on the right even being pedantic and not just outright dumb?
chaos@beehaw.org 1 week ago
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 week ago
That’s not quite true. A lot of worms, for example, wouldn’t be fish, but all fish would be worms. Most invertibrates also wouldn’t be fish.
Revan343@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Mammals are fish
Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 week ago
Isn’t that only if they are born between February 19th and March 20th? 🤔
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
Those are fishies.
Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
“Fish” isn’t a real type of animal, it’s a term of convenience for similar looking/acting things that humans have lumped together.
Its taking that back to the medieval level of “whales are fish”… Which ignores that key difference of them breathing air and not having gills.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
Calling something a fish is like calling something a tree.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
you’re a tree