Attention! Turn back. Going into these comments can bring you nothing of happiness. You can just look up the “tumblr reading comprehension” meme instead of needing to see the gory details of it in action.
But comments like that are exactly why I’m here!
Haha fair enough, in that case you will find exactly what you’re looking for.
The warnings are clear but we choose to advance anyway.
This is not a place of honor. Nothing of value is here.
Yes this! I hate when people say biology supports their trans/homo/ect. phobia when in reality it absolutely does not
Transphobic people must really hate frogs.
And many kinds of fish! Like clown fish : ]
i don’t think transphobes are educated enough to know frog biology. and if they are they suffer from a “humans are not animals” kind of mentality and put humanity on a pedestal of not being like the other
girlsliving beings on this planetWe aren’t like other animals though, we are the top species when it comes to resource usage and waste per capita!
I am trans and love toads
Which doesn’t prove the above statement but it hints towards it.
How do you feel about trans fish?
Edit el
Especially the gay ones.
I think those are called amfibiphobes
It’s 1st grade biology!
Yes, it is. Advertising the fact that you only know biology up to a 1st grade level is not the flex you think it is.
Taxonomy isn’t biology, though. It’s a man-made classification system. And at the species level it’s much closer to binary definitions than spectrums. So maybe not the best analogy to make.
As is gender:
A man-made classification system
So I’d say it fits perfectly
But taxonomy aims (even though it sometimes fails) to classify organisms into rigid categories, which is exactly the thing you want to avoid with gender, right?
Just like how we understand that species at a real level are actually a spectrum, we do the same thing with our (self-identified) genders. We feel a certain way about ourselves and find the closest available definition to provide to others. It may not be a 100% exact match to you and you will likely have nuance, but so do species.
It actually is helpful, too because it lets others know how you’d like to be treated in a word.
I like this, chihuahuas and wolves are the same species, but are very different morphologically.
Rigid: inflexible, unmoving
Ridged: has ridges (like Ruffles)
ha, thanks!
No problemo
Until you start to use evolution. What a species is, begins to blur as soon as you try to establish evolutionary lines. When is a whale not a whale but just a water enthusiast mammal? somewhere between 50 and 35 million years ago. Exactly when, it’s anyone’s guess. Taxonomy is indeed part of biology, though.
What a species is, begins to blur as soon as you try to establish evolutionary lines.
It doesn’t because “species” is definied as an animal that can have fertile offspring with other members of it’s species. Looking at evolution doesn’t change that definition, it just shows that it’s not a very good definition on an evolutionary timescale. Our concept of species in taxonomy only makes sense within small timeframes.
When is a whale not a whale but just a water enthusiast mammal?
First we have to establish what you mean by “whale” and translate that to the proper order/clade. Then you look at what was the first described fossile in the group is. And that’s your answer. And yes, that answer will change with new fossil discoveries or reclassifications based on other information happen. But as long as you keep up to date with them, the current way we use taxonomy gives quite binary definitions of the majority of lifeforms.
Taxonomy is indeed part of biology, though.
It sure is. But it’s just an arbitrary classification system within the greater field. It is like an “index”, so you can look up what information belongs to the thing you’re looking at. But it doesn’t actually hold much information about biology of the thing itself.
Species actually don’t have a rigid definition that works across all organisms. The most common definition is the one you gave but sometimes it simply doesn’t work, for example any organism the doesn’t use sexual reproduction doesn’t fit this definition. Clarification of extinct populations would also be an issue. Even considering organisms this is usually used with, there are exceptions. For example; domesticated cattle and American bison, coyotes and wolves, and most cat breeds with various wild species.
But it doesn’t actually hold much information about biology of the thing itself.
What do you mean “biology of the thing itself”? Are you talking about morphology which is a different part of biology. And taxonomic trees are often made based on morphological features so there is a connection.
Taxonomically speaking, the first whale was the last common ancestor of all (modern) whales, whether this was a land dweller or already aquatic isn’t important from a taxonomic point of view
Except you’re still at odds with what a “species” even is because you’ll have a bunch of fossils that exist over several million years as one “species” that definitely looks different at the beginning than it did at the end because evolution is such a gradual process that there never really is a clean break between species.
You are aware that whale isn’t a single species, are you? I’m not commenting on how blurry the species definition is, I’m aware of that. I’m commenting on the question about the first whale
It doesn’t really matter, whether it’s the category whale, fish, or specifically the Orcinus orca. Everything in nature is a spectrum, almost nothing in nature is binary. Gender, species, taxonomy, ink on paper? gradients, computer bits? yeah, they exist on a wide array of voltages, electrons? they are probabilistic. Even light itself, you can think of it as photons on and off. But sometimes light will act as a wave, because physics doesn’t give a damn about human sensibilities and categories. The closer you look at anything in the physical world, the less binary it gets.
Well, the comment above me was like:
When is a whale not a whale but just a water enthusiast mammal?
And I pointed out that that’s not how taxonomy works. It’s all about the last common ancestor and it’s obviously not possible to pinpoint this to a single individual. All I said was, from a taxonomic point of view, being a whale isn’t about being aquatic but about sharing a common ancestor with all whales.
So biology isn’t man made but god inspired?
I’m not quite sure how you got there, but you can check my reply to dustyData in this thread. I think that should clear up your question.
You seem to see taxonomy as separate of biology and by devaluing taxonomy as man made, you heavily imply that biology isn’t
It’s likely easier for people to learn to love trans people than understand there are no fish… If that tells you anything.
Unfortunately I could still read this, needs more jpeg.
Diogenes strips naked and does a cannonball into the pool
“Behold! A fish!”
I wonder if that guy did shrooms.
even Ancient Egyptians enjoyed some psychedelic lotus, so it’s pretty likely. Psychedelic drugs have been a staple of human fucking around since forever
Source (Tumblr), alternate frontend
Gender: fish
Is that you, Gil?
Is that you, Mr. Limpet?
Nice to meet you, MrMcLure
I prefer smizmar
:: ice cream: ________
31 Flavors
The world is a wonderful place, and far too wide to need to conform to your pet theory.
I have a theory that you’re all my pets. So you will conform, or you won’t get a treat.
I would oppose this theory, but I want treats more.
You get a cookie
I have a theory that you’re all my pets.
And I’m living off of grass, and the drippings from my ceiling It’s okay to eat fish 'cause they don’t have any feelings
Good stuff, “my friend says we’re like the dinosaurs” would also have been slick
Edit: Yes and
Post is about fish so it felt appropriate
Indeed and definitely, I liked your reference
I try to tell folks all the time that biology is not as simplistic as they think. It’s basically an endeavor of humans trying to make simplistic categories out of a naturally complicated clusterfuck. Some things defy labels, not everything fits into a nice, easy little box. Life is complicated. Get over it.
Just gonna swing by and drop this little grenade:
If you believe “race doesn’t exist”, then this post also applies to you. If you can refer to different genders while also understanding that at the individual level definitions are fluid and blurry, then you can refer to different races while also understanding that at the individual level definitions are fluid and blurry.
Got it, fish are racist confirmed.
Of course some fish are racist, especially humans.
Fish absolutely exist cladistically, OP just didn’t want to admit they’re a land dwelling fish. You believe the implications of cladistics or you don’t, cowards.
I’d also argue it’s relatively easy to separate fish-fish from land fish from land fish that became sea fish again to bully the fish fish.
Is fish just another name for vertebrates ?
Nah. You could have a fish that evolved out of having a spine (see: Chuck Schumer) but you can’t evolve out of a clade.
Seems so. Wikipedia tells there are seven classes of vertebrates:
- Agnatha (jawless fishes, paraphyletic)
- Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes)
- Osteichthyes (bony fishes, paraphyletic)
- Amphibia (amphibians)
- Reptilia (reptiles, paraphyletic)
- Aves (birds)
- Mammalia (mammals)
So yes, fishes is the same thing as vertebrates.
Probably because if you were a vertebrate living in the sea, you needed some sort of gills and fins and such. And those are what makes people assume something is a “fish”.
You sound exactly like a specimen from the Dunning-Krueger clade
I’m not gonna lie man this one sounded better in your head
Considering that you misspelled the name of a common term and that’s not a biological classification I’m going to stand by what the doctorates who taught my zoology courses said.
We’re all just collectively ignoring the biologist’s username?
I mean they are definitely correct, but that name detracts from their credibility somewhat.
That’s a problem for the future society
What’s the worst an evil biologist can do? Dissect a frog, but with a frown?
Oh nooooo, who’d want to turn into an awesome animal that’s beloved by young children around the world and doesn’t have to go to work on Monday mornings. Please don’t.
Evil biologists might turn to galvanism to animate dead creatures
I’m not afraid of religious people, doesn’t matter whether they’re protestant or catholic.
You hire them as henchmen in Evil Genius and Evil Genius 2. They are a bit buggy though and sometimes forget where their whiteboards are.
Bees are fish.
(in California)
Pizza is a vegetable
Things a Republican Congress will vote for are crazy man
I was going to say ‘how about bony fish?’, but then I checked and I am technically a bony fish (Osteichthyes).
“Gender is absolutely the same way.” - from How to Start a Vicious Online Argument
Honestly I sometimes feel like going to certain online communities and just making a single post that says “gender” and then vanishing and watching the ensuing arguments.
They called him “The Sniper”. He would strike without warning, always vanishing into the ether. No downvote could stop him. No harsh rebuke could change his merciless ways.
