←back to thread

Eels are fish

(eocampaign1.com)
178 points speckx | 5 comments | 03 Sep 25 14:02 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
boesboes ◴[03 Sep 25 14:37 UTC] No.45116372[source]▶
Apparently we are all fish. Or fish don't exist.

To explain: if you want to define a taxonomy in which all things that look like fish and swim are 'fish' then we are too. We are more closely related to most 'fish' than sharks are. I.e the last common ancestor of herring AND sharks is older than our & herring's LCA.

replies(16): >>45116523 #>>45116561 #>>45116589 #>>45116591 #>>45116672 #>>45116695 #>>45116701 #>>45116727 #>>45116873 #>>45116932 #>>45117053 #>>45117159 #>>45117194 #>>45117563 #>>45121139 #>>45123694 #
tgv ◴[03 Sep 25 15:07 UTC] No.45116695[source]▶
> things that look like fish

Well, apart from the circularity, we don't look like fish, do we? What we look like, we define, just like we define what 'fish' is. There's no need to go all Linnaeus about it.

replies(2): >>45116853 #>>45117216 #
1. rikroots ◴[03 Sep 25 15:53 UTC] No.45117216[source]▶
Human embryogenesis would like to disagree with you.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

replies(2): >>45117640 #>>45117767 #
2. tgv ◴[03 Sep 25 16:25 UTC] No.45117640[source]▶
Evolving from doesn't make you the thing, does it? It makes you something else. Fish in particular, since that's a group of animals named by us, based on physical appearance.
replies(1): >>45117817 #
3. IAmBroom ◴[03 Sep 25 16:35 UTC] No.45117767[source]▶
Ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny.

Exactly.

But I believe in weak Haeckel's principle.

4. dragonwriter ◴[03 Sep 25 16:38 UTC] No.45117817[source]▶
> Evolving from doesn't make you the thing, does it?

Depends on the system of taxonomy; in phylogenetic taxonomy, that’t exactly how membership in a clade is determined.

replies(1): >>45135238 #
5. mcv ◴[05 Sep 25 05:28 UTC] No.45135238{3}[source]▶
So politicians are reptiles after all?