Categorical no. Fish are an animal.. but mammals breathe air, fish do not. Mamals do not lay eggs (Excluding monotremes but that is a different conversation I don't think you're ready for). Unless you're confusing marine mammals, which breathe air, do not lay eggs, and are also.. not fish.

Please do look up cladistic classification in biology then come back and apologise.

Please stop drinking

Did you look up cladistics?

@thelouvreof.bsky.social

Insisting that all informal biological terminology must be clades, and refusing to acknowledge paraphyletic groups, is just silly. The English word "fish" (commonly) means the paraphyletic group vertebrates minus tetrapods, and never means all vertebrates.

This is fine. I am exposing a lack of understanding of biological concept in people who claim to be experts. We might have an interesting conversation about paraphyletic classifications vs cladistics. But that is not the time now.

I'm not sure who in this discussion has claimed to be an expert, including you.

The only thing you're exposing is your own ineptness. You're insisting on ridiculous classifications that ignore the specific details that people are bringing up.

Brian. Best not have strong opinions here.

I've been having strong opinions all my life and they have served me well. B/c they are well-reasoned on the facts with the ability to see what people are saying. You've been spouting stuff that would come out of one stoned out of their mind. "Hey, man, when you get down to it, we're all fish."

Bugs is shrimps.

Saying things that sound smart with zero actual understanding is this person's speciality.

what

bsky.app/profile/quac...

Oh God, you've been drinking.

If only that was the explanation.

Here's the thing: The reason why you can classify mammals as a type of fish is that, when it comes to biology, using arbitrary binary definitions basically never confirms with reality. Which is why you either define fish in a way that exclude a lot of fish, or you define it in a way that includes us

What are you on about mate?

It's called cladistics. It's basic biology.

It is what I have been explaining. Why in cladistics we can call a platypus a type of fish.

Who's "we"?

He's not wrong. But why he's confused by what Al said suggests he doesn't understand cladistics at more then a cursory level

So, I take that to mean "yes, you are right but I am not happy about it".

To be fair, that's only because you're a fucking idiot who struggles to understand basic English, as demonstrated again and again in this thread

You didn't answer the question.

No. I'm not afraid to "admit" someone is right when they are. But a person with a deeper than surface level understanding of cladistics would have understood @alvaroim.bsky.social's skeet. Two things can be true at once. You can be right about basic cladistics without understanding them deeply.

I was referring back to a question Kathryn was asking him because the knowledge a given audience has may cause them to respond differently.

Naw, he’s wrong, fish aren’t a cladistic grouping, strict cladists trying to co-opt existing groupings that just aren’t based on all descendants of a common ancestor is silly and lazy, most have abandoned the effort.

If only this was relevant to the topic being discussed and could teach someone exactly why insisting on putting artificial binary definitions on things like sex is a very stupid idea that doesn't conform with reality...

Humans are mammals, Sparky. Fish and mammals are completely different and distinct classes of animals. Again, this is basic biology. For instance, dolphins are mammals and not fish.

bsky.app/profile/quac...

Repeating stupid shit doesn't make the stupid shit any less dumb. If anything, it makes them more idiotic for the duplication.

Someone asked if humans have gills. We do early in development as we shared an evolved development pathway with fish.

Guess what that means for "gamete types"?

Go on brainiac. Tell me. Which these creatures does not have exactly two gamete types.

During early stages of development, humans have ovotestes, and so they lack gametes just as much as they possess gills.

"Gamete type" isn't a meaningful term, either.

I am afraid it is. We see two very different type. Large, resource rich and immotile. Few are produced with large parental investment in them. Very small (a million times smaller), resource poor and motile. Parents invest almost nothing in each individual gamete.

"We see two very different type." Erudite!

They asked it in a separate line of thinking that has nothing to do with platypuses and your inability to understand a joke or to apply basic biology to the what the platypus is.

I am messing with people who claim to understand biology. Anyone who understood biology would know about clades and what I was doing. There is an interesting thing to discuss there. But you and the others here are pretenders. Ideologically warped to reject actual science.

Clearly by pretending to be a person who doesn't understand biology or jokes for that matter.

The platypus was not intended just to be a joke. It was a stupidity offered as an insight under the guise of a joke.

The reference to it being a bird was a joke though, Lenny. You addressed it as being a serious assertion rather than addressing the underlying message that bringing up a platypus was meant to do.

Everyone has been triggered. They thought they knew biology. They do not.

bsky.app/profile/quac...

Fish are currently considered to be paraphyletic rather than a monophyletic clade.

bsky.app/profile/saga...

In a really stupid cladistic way which no one would ever actually use because see prior, all mammals are lobe finned fish. So are all amphibians, reptiles, and birds for that matter.

Indeed. Cladistics highlights shared common ancestors and relatedness. It is a classification system based on the reality of evolution rather than the arbitrary grouping of features..

My girl, now you just sound like you’re copying and pasting from an LLM. If it weren’t for the sloppy punctuation I’d assume you were a bot.

I see you have no actual response.

Response to what? Your reply was a regurgitated fact tangential to the actual topic. There’s no thing to reply to, except to point out that the fact is exactly the kind of response you’d expect from an LLM that didn’t understand the topic.

Unless the bot was instructed to use sloppy punctation occasionally. That can be done, right?

That's just some extremely basic, Peterson-tier sophistry. Like...the kind of thing that'd score you some points on a middle school debate team, MAYBE.

Because it would means that there are no differences from any of them. Especially since all life on earth comes from the same ancestor being single-celled organisms.

Yep. If you extend it beyond just "fish" it gets REALLY silly.

No it does not. We are all chordates for example.

Yes it does. You are mixing up two different ways of classification and calling that a "gotcha". It can sound impressive to someone who doesn't know any of this but it really just makes you look dumb to anyone with more than the most basic knowledge of the matter.

Wait until we get to the “we’re all carbon-based life forms” assertion.

Before then, it's just an even amount of silliness then.

Trust me - that dude doesn't understand what Denys is saying.

yeah well why do they keep getting caught in fishing nets then checkmate atheists

Not to anyone except the strictest cladists, basically everyone considers fish to be paraphyletic with respect to tetrapods, which includes mammals. Did you not know this?

Look, people, this guy regenerates 3hp/round except for fire and acid damage.

where did you learn this?