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 2 months ago
Whales are mammals. How is the dude on the right even being pedantic and not just outright dumb?
chaos@beehaw.org 2 months ago
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 months 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 2 months ago
Mammals are fish
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 months ago
Isn’t that only if they are born between February 19th and March 20th? 🤔
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
Those are fishies.
Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 2 months 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 2 months ago
Calling something a fish is like calling something a tree.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
you’re a tree