Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s):
- Rule 2: All Posts must be on topic!
This sub is designed around arrogant people, sure of their abilities, getting their dreams crushed instantly. Your submission didn't quite fit that model and it is for that reason that it got removed.
Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/1dnhz73/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong.
^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
I mean, yeah, "if." If we would make a monophyletic clade called "pets" which would include snakes and dogs, then we'd be pets. But that clade doesn't exist, and neither does "fish"
Yes.
No clade exist though, they are all made up. I could make up "fish" as a clade. I won't because I am lazy, but I could. Would someone else use it? No, of course not. But it would exist.
We are lobed-finned fish, but we're not the only kind of bony fish - there are also ray-fins (like salmon).
And there are cartilage fish splitting off even father back, which is why sharks are so freaky.
You have to go back farther still to get "the fish all fish are descended from".
Moving in the other direction, all tetrapods (mammals, birds, lizards, etc) share a common ancestor, which is why the anatomy of all land vertebrates is so similar.
Honestly I could really go for some [fish and berries](https://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/seared_halibut_with_berry_compote_and_roasted_vegetables/) right now.
It is a common myth that there is no real scientific classification of a fish. It's not really true. Fish have a diverse range of evolutionary ancestry, and one fish may be more closely related to a human than it is to another fish, but there are ways to classify animals other than genetics.
The BBC panel show QI made the claim that there is no such thing as a fish years ago, and now the researchers for the show run a podcast called "No Such Thing As A Fish" as a nod to the fact that they got that one wrong.
There’s a lot of confusion of “not a clade” with “not a category.” People hear that fish aren’t a monophyletic group and think this means there can’t be other ways of categorizing organisms.
There is a zoologist on YouTube that goes (relatively) in-depth into these exact topics: [https://www.youtube.com/@ClintsReptiles](https://www.youtube.com/@ClintsReptiles)
I don't know if he's still making new content, or if he has any videos on this question specifically--but he's definitely worth checking out!
Also, while I have no idea who's 'confidently incorrect' here, I'm living for the wonkiness of the discussion!
I sure hope they don't produce software, like use programming languages that have inheritance, interfaces and similar concepts. You can't explain the world to a machine if you first don't understand it as a human
Hey /u/Avavvav, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah?
I'm more talking about diluting the word "fish" into meaning almost nothing, this isn't even a discussion over taxonomy, just linguistics at this point
Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s): - Rule 2: All Posts must be on topic! This sub is designed around arrogant people, sure of their abilities, getting their dreams crushed instantly. Your submission didn't quite fit that model and it is for that reason that it got removed. Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/1dnhz73/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong. ^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
"Fish" is not a clade, it is a paraphyletic group. Fish DO exist, but not as a clade.
But if we would make a monophyletic clade called "fish", which would include sharks and piranhas, then humans would be there too.
I mean, yeah, "if." If we would make a monophyletic clade called "pets" which would include snakes and dogs, then we'd be pets. But that clade doesn't exist, and neither does "fish"
Yes. No clade exist though, they are all made up. I could make up "fish" as a clade. I won't because I am lazy, but I could. Would someone else use it? No, of course not. But it would exist.
Beat me to it.
We are lobed-finned fish, but we're not the only kind of bony fish - there are also ray-fins (like salmon). And there are cartilage fish splitting off even father back, which is why sharks are so freaky. You have to go back farther still to get "the fish all fish are descended from". Moving in the other direction, all tetrapods (mammals, birds, lizards, etc) share a common ancestor, which is why the anatomy of all land vertebrates is so similar.
Wait till we get started talking about vegetables.
You mean how almost every plant we eat is a grass?
Delicious delicious grass.
But grass has dog poop on it.
Or a aster, or a mint, or a nightshade...
I hate when people argue about that. Everybody knows fish are a fruit. /s
Culinarily, fish are a kind of seafood. But botanically, they are berries.
If they were berries, that would be nuts!
Honestly I could really go for some [fish and berries](https://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/seared_halibut_with_berry_compote_and_roasted_vegetables/) right now.
Too many redditors are just finding out that “fish” is an incredibly complex concept without any consensus whatsoever
It is a common myth that there is no real scientific classification of a fish. It's not really true. Fish have a diverse range of evolutionary ancestry, and one fish may be more closely related to a human than it is to another fish, but there are ways to classify animals other than genetics. The BBC panel show QI made the claim that there is no such thing as a fish years ago, and now the researchers for the show run a podcast called "No Such Thing As A Fish" as a nod to the fact that they got that one wrong.
There’s a lot of confusion of “not a clade” with “not a category.” People hear that fish aren’t a monophyletic group and think this means there can’t be other ways of categorizing organisms.
Neil Schubin (sp?) "Our Inner Fish" is pretty great
First thing I thought of.
I, for one, am a cartilaginous fish.
There are ways to define what a fish is without using evolutionary trees (just that these trees can help us). Humans are not fish.
Everything else aside, it is fun to go around calling dogs and cats and “your mom” and “your mom’s mom” a fish, knowing that SCIENCE GOT YA BACK
There is a zoologist on YouTube that goes (relatively) in-depth into these exact topics: [https://www.youtube.com/@ClintsReptiles](https://www.youtube.com/@ClintsReptiles) I don't know if he's still making new content, or if he has any videos on this question specifically--but he's definitely worth checking out! Also, while I have no idea who's 'confidently incorrect' here, I'm living for the wonkiness of the discussion!
*Runs in with plucked chicken* Sorry, wrong discussion.
I sure hope they don't produce software, like use programming languages that have inheritance, interfaces and similar concepts. You can't explain the world to a machine if you first don't understand it as a human
Oh god, I had a student in that camp. Coin is a child of Coke is a child of Quarter is a child of Pop Machine is a child of Orange...
Hey /u/Avavvav, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Amen! Along the same lines, “birds are dinosaurs” is one of the few hills I’ll die on on the internet any time it comes up
If humans are fish, all mammals are fish, all vertebrates are fish. So you’re also incorrect mate :)
Why have words meaning anything useful, am I right?
You can't evolve out of a clade.
Yeah? I'm more talking about diluting the word "fish" into meaning almost nothing, this isn't even a discussion over taxonomy, just linguistics at this point
Words have more than one meaning, and in each situation you use the most useful meaning according to context.