←back to thread

Eels are fish

(eocampaign1.com)
178 points speckx | 1 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 #
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 #
1. IAmBroom ◴[03 Sep 25 16:35 UTC] No.45117767{3}[source]▶
Ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny.

Exactly.

But I believe in weak Haeckel's principle.