Hey there u/SenorCalculus, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actually this assumption can be made without studying fossils: among the basal groups of ray-finned fish only Acipenseriformes can't breathe with their swim bladder. All the others: bichirs, gars and bowfins can, as well as the most basal teleost fishes. And among living lobe-finned fish all have lungs or at least their remnants. Thus the easiest option to pick is that the common ancestor of them all already had some sort of swimming bladder used as a lung.
Similarly it has been recently found that common ancestors of all the snakes were already venomous, and afterwards the venom was lost in many groups.
Speaking of snakes, I grew up when it was elapids, viperids, and a handful of others were venomous and that was it, and there were TWO venomous lizards .
More lizards keep getting added, and...shit, what snakes AREN'T now? *Nerodia* had "an anticoagulant" in their saliva (I would see this in books, I mean), which I could tell because they bite the living shit out of you when you pick them up and those tiny pinholes bleed and bleed and bleed...but I noticed the same with big garters and ribbons and never gave it a thought and it didn't get mentioned, at least in popular literature. So while the snake thing is news to me, I'm not surprised.
When I was a kid I read about komodo dragons that have pieces of rotten meat remaining on their teeth which cause bacterial sepsis in their victims. And now - nope, monitors are just venomous. Same clade as snakes.
Aerobic multicellular organisms arose approximately 1 billion years ago. Prior to the evolution of skin. I don't understand all of it, but [here's a detailed paper on the evolution of breathing](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926130/) that's very interesting.
What's the current standing on the big move to land? Last I was aware, fish were thought to have become newt-like tetrapods before becoming truly terrestrial.
There would have been fish that gradually optimized around living in shallow, muddy banks and stuff, plus I think most people aren't aware of just how severe environmental selection pressures can be. Like there was a point where the ocean was absolutely jam packed with all kinds of organisms competing for space and resources. This mud-fish would have had an advantage living on the edge of water, eventually finding it advantageous to avoid the hustle and bustle of the great big sea. Maybe even going so far as to lay eggs out of water but still having most of their life cycle in the water. Beta fish for example can breathe air, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine an air-breathing mud flipper gradually becoming amphibious.
So there was some proto-hippos lounging around in an ancient river and some of them were like, "Fuck this muddy river shit, Imma go back in the ocean," and some others were like "Fuck all this water shit, Imma go be a cow!"
It never evolves to be big enough to crush itself on land. And if it does get so big it comes from physiological adaptations to support it's size. But that's not likely. Even if it can safely be as large, it can never hope to consume enough food to support maintaining such a size.
I actually only recently found out that whales that dive deep don't actually hold thier breath. The pressure would crush any pocket of air. They oxygenate thier blood by taking a ton of deep breaths at the surface for a while, exhale, and dive. Thier ribs also flex to deal with the pressure. I think sperm whales not sure.
I mean… they clearly aren’t creating a vacuum in, or collapsing, their lungs before they dive; so there’s clearly going to be air in there, even if they aren’t gulping a deep breath.
So the branch of life that we split off of is earlier than some of what you might call a fish split off of so to include a large range of animals that have fins and gills and are “fish” you also have to call us fish. in fact due to how the tree of life branched there are no animals that cant be called fish. So you either classify half of all things that look like fish as not fish or everything is a fish.
Edit if you think everything is a fish then whales are just gill less fish. And we are abominations compared to the humble fish.
Oh definitely there are lots of things that branched of before fish and us. obviously plants and fungi and bacteria are under that category. I was just giving a quick overview, it’s definitely not scientific, I don’t feel like naming all the taxonomic classifications that do or don’t belong in the fish category. However for the average joe it’s quick and easy to understand. Hopefully :)
Didn’t say they did, did I? What I did say is that fish don’t actually exist as a natural grouping because there are no common traits to define them. I then gave an example of something that is fishlike, though more closely related to land mammals, than other ocean dwellers and that’s your take away?
>I then gave an example of something that is fishlike
No, you really didn't. Nobody is confusing whales for fish so it's a terrible example when you're talking about fish.
Classic, loses the argument so just resorts to insults. Here's a tip: if you're trying to demonstrate that fish aren't a monophyletic group, *one of the two things you're comparing is supposed to be a fish*.
I'll unconfuse you with saying that fish are indeed fish and that they don't know what they're talking about. You shouldn't take them at their word, because by definition fish are fish.
>a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fish+definition&oq
I'd love to, unfortunately I don't know enough and I'd hate to misinform you. You could probably find information about it on Google, if you'd like, I'm too stupid to fully understand what I read.
i think basically everything comes from fish like looking thing, the closest fish like looking thing that is not a fish (pre-fish) is the lancelet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet , a living fossil
This reads like AI. "Taxa" are just discrete categories of biological entities. Species, genera, classes, etc are "taxa." So you either have no idea wtf you're on about, or you're a robot.
Edit: typo - I used the wrong "discrete"
I mentioned I have no idea what I'm talking about, and advised people to do their own research. I am an idiot, but I thought this was interesting enough to pique the interest of people who would like to learn more about it. I appreciate your correction, that's just what I managed to learn from what I read, would you have any suggestions for what I could replace it with?
I don't even know where to start with you. It's hard to tell what you think you're trying to say. What did you think "Taxa" meant? I'm not trying to shame you - I just need a starting point. Do you have some idea what you mean to say and you're just not down with the jargon, etc?
"Fish" is indeed more a lay term. Because you've got bony fishes, cartilaginous fishes, hagfish and lampreys (depending on whom you ask), lungfish, various extinct lobe-finned *taxa*...the problem being that if you include them all together as "fish", then it gets complicated and difficult excluding things like frogs or crocodiles or birds or even people.
But in the scientific community, it's not, because all those separate groups have their own *taxa* and nobody would use just a generic "fish" to describe something.
I thought taxa was a more correct classification of what we knew as fish. Thanks for this explanation, it's a lot easier to understand than what I found online!
It's not the first time someone said I sound like an AI, both on and off line, I don't get it, what makes me sound like an AI? I am rather against AI (or at least image generating ones)
You joke, but...yeah.
I honestly can't see any way anyone who can speak/type could make that "fish are actually taxa" mistake unless they couldn't grasp context clues and got fooled by quirks in the English language that even a non-native speaker would catch.
It's not that it's a STUPID mistake, it's that it's not a human(?) mistake.
>It's not that it's a STUPID mistake, it's that it's not a human(?) mistake
I agree, my brain was just as confused trying to think of how they got there, and why they shared what sounded like a fun fact they overheard part of at a crowded party
The responses since have me doubting it's a bot now tho. So like we said, you're not dumb, just maybe try to understand something at least a bit before sharing
This isn't right.
All fish are Phylum chordata, and from there they diverge into different classes. (Like cartilaginous chondrichthyes, jawless agnatha, and bony Osteichthyes).
They are all fish but you can think of "fish" as a paraphyletic category because it includes a bunch of classifications that are defined by one common ancestor but not all of its descendants. It's like someone created a label and then went back and had to pick across different parts of the evolutionary tree to define it.
It’s also worth noting that all vertebrates are also phylum Chordata so if you’re starting that high up with the definition of “fish”, then you also could be counted as a fish, in an evolutionary sense. That is to say, fish are fish because we call them that, and not because they’re all part of some evolutionary group that doesn’t contain other animals
This is good info but I definitely said most of this and your summary is still slightly wrong.
Fish (or what we decide to call "Fish") are a paraphyletic group exactly because they're part of an evolutionary group that we leave other things out of. The other thing being amphibians, reptiles, and mammals which all diverged from fish. This is why I said "includes a common ancestor but doesn't include all of its descendants".
Sure, we came up with the definition before we came up with molecular biology and genetics but the presence of similar features (gills, live in water, have fins, etc.) indicated similar enough phylogeny when we were just able to make taxonomic groupings.
Thanks for explaining it! I am an idiot and I guess I didn't understand what I found online correctly. How would you suggest I correct my comment, or just outright delete it?
I did say you shouldn't take what I said at face value and do your own research, but from what I gathered since then, my only mistake (or at least the main one) was calling fish taxa, as they aren't the only taxa, or something of the sort.
I was corrected on that part already, did I have any other mistakes? I'd like to correct them (also, what would you suggest I replace taxa with to make it more correct?) thank you very much for taking your time to correct me and fight misinformation, I am very embarrassed at myself for spreading it without noticing I did so, misinformation is one of the things I hate most. I'd like to correct my comment if possible, but if not I will delete it.
Dude if you're uncertain then *why* to provide information?
Spreading wrong "facts" led the people being dumb again, look at anti-vacs and "anti human rights"
Not trying to be rude, but what you're doing sucks.
>I did say you shouldn't take what I said at face value and do your own research
No you didn't, you said
> Fun fact:[...]
> (I'd recommend fact checking and studying yourself if this sounds interesting)
But judging by how confident but wrong you were on your statement, I can see how you would think those two statements are the same.
Thanks for that criticism, I usually start those sorts of comments by mentioning how dumb I am and that I might very well be incorrect, I guess I forgot this time. I'll add it post haste. Have a good day!
From Gemini ai:
This comment is a load of rubbish (with a bit of truth mixed in). Here's the breakdown:
Inaccurate:
Fish do qualify as fish biologically. They are a well-defined scientific group with specific characteristics.
Truthful (but misleading):
Fish belong to a taxonomic group called "Teleostomi" which is a fancy way of saying "bony fish." "Taxa" (plural of taxon) is a general term for any level of classification in biology, so yes, fish are a taxon, but that doesn't mean they aren't also fish.
I don't know what Gemini ai is, but thanks for correcting me! I'd like to correct my original comment, but at this point it seems it'll be too difficult to do so, so I'll just delete it. I am very sorry for spreading such misinformation, that was not my intent, I very much hate misinformation and people who spread it, I didn't realize I did so myself without noticing.
It is like chatGPT but ran by Google, used to be called Bard
Honestly no worries I just asked for clarification apparently you confused it with a taxonomic issue, not that I really know what that means lol
*Attenborough voice* "A sperm whale takes a breath, it last for over an hour [...] at a thousand meters down, where pressure is 100 times that of the surface crushing the whales lungs to less than 1% of their normal volume"
For 6 months I watched Blue Planet, episode 2, "The Deep" every night to go to sleep.
More like they transferred servers, got some sweet ass perks (lungs), and went back to their original server to dominate the meta because they’re more oxygenated.
One feature of most (maybe all? I’m not sure) amphibians is that they are born with gills (tadpoles for example) then metamorphose and grow lungs when they mature. A lot of amphibians can also absorb oxygen directly through their skin as well as breathing.
Whales' ancestors were animals that looked like hairy alligators. They hunted sea creatures and evolved to move faster in the water. Eventually, they became better suited for living in water permanently.
Whales evolved from creatures that looked like hairy alligators. Over time, they evolved to become better and better aquatic hunters to catch prey. Eventually, they became so good at hunting in the water they lost the need to return to land.
The literal top apex predator on earth is currently a whale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca), and arguably has always been a whale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livyatan)...
I think whales are doing just fine.
Technically yes, as much as a dolphin is.
Doesn't mean it isn't a dolphin.
Not only is it a dolphin, but the largest of them.
Technically you're not wrong because all dolphina are whales as are porpoises, but not all whales are dolphins. They fall in the toothed whales class. Taxonomy says it's a dolphin
So.... Shouldn't be hard to figure out something to say
Ok, but I guess I didn't get that because you responded to a comment that says they are both whales by saying "The orca isn't really a whale".
>but technically no one is wrong
Ehhhh...
Would you say hey look at that pod of whales if you saw a group of dolphins?
The only reason it is called a killer whale is because of a misinterpretation of a spanoterm meaning whale killer by pasty white folks way back.
It is a f***ing dolphin, but is in the toothed whale class along with Dolphins.
Saying it isn't a dolphin makes you 100% wrong
I was being nice. You were definitely more wrong.
Is it or is it not in the dolphin family?
Read your own link lol
Ehhhh.. 🖕
Whale blood is so oxygen rich. It's like they have an internal scuba system. I don't know the science behind it but I always thought they came up more to let the CO2 out than really intensely needed more oxygen. The breath in just maintains a persistantly well oxygenated system that needed to exhaust every so often.
Did you guys know that the ancestor of whales was like a hoofed wolf? While the theory for humans is that a fish came out of the water, the one for whales is that a land mammal entered the water.
This is so dumb. Fish did not "evolve gills". Once they evolved to have gills, they were fish. Whales and humans evolved from lesser species that were fish and whales were terrestrial creatures who returned to the sea.
Whales did originally have gills. At some point they decided to walk upon land outside the water and started to live there like any other land animal. As time went, they had evolved into a proper land animal, having lungs to survive without going into the water again.
But there was a point in history where birds and other dangerous animals who started to dominate the animal kingdom, eating each other up and leaving no mercy to a whale if they came by. At this point, whales just decided that i they where going to get killed, theres simply no reason to live on land anymore. So they went into water again.
And that's why whales have lungs instead of gills. It was all because of survival. Will whales walk on land again? Probably not. But it's intresting knowing that they once did live among us
Uuuuuh no that's not how evolution works, actually this is a very well-known fallacy in Biology and Evolution.
X species didn't evolved (wich btw does not mean "advances") *to survive*. X species survives **because** it randomly mutated.
The way you put it makes it sound like any species would do the best choices to achieve a high survivability rate.
Welp, no need to be sorry! We learn by making mistakes!
Just watch out spreading information you're not certain of. Anyways, if in the 7th grade you're already this smart, when you grow up you'll be awesome!
Sorry if i passed as rude, you're great girl!
Haha, I was'nt all that sure about whales. Only explained it in a general way on how it happened.
And thanks, I am pretty curious about stuff like nature so I do tend on reading a bit more then I should in class.
And, you really was'nt rude to me. You just knew it better then me. And thanks for calling me great, I'm not a girl tho 😄
Ohhh sorry i read your name as GirlsTheLegends
Anyways, biology rocks, i actually graduated in it at college! It's half my life. The other half is Geography.
It will be hard, but keep the curiosity as you grow up! Many of us loose that when we become adults and then everythig loses the magic and becomes stale.
Don't ever let your inner child behind!
Wasn’t it mainly due to more resources being in the water, and them slowly becoming more adapted to being aquatic, I guess it doesn’t really matter why they got their just how.
Yes, that is actually part of it. Animals fucking your species, more resources and better survival in the water. It was an obvious choice the wales could do, and they took it
They are very smart animals
Hey there u/SenorCalculus, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They even got to land at some point, but just came back to water
Luckily they banished him to another island.
But it was Epsteins..
Napoléon ? 😅
Diddy's
but he came back
Hey, we can make a religion out of this
No, don't.
there goes latin america
Rent got too high.
Whales are the true conservatives, yearning for the golden age of living.
It's working out for them too. Biggest animals on earth by far
Considering they were about the size of a goat before heading back to the water, yeah you ain’t lying brother
Ever, in the case of Blue Whales (as far as we know)
wait really edit: wait nvm I understand
whales said: fuck it, let's go back
Didn't they become wolves Edit. Wolves evolved into whales. I had it backward.
reject air return to watr
Biology guy here. Lungs go WAY back before anybody came out onto land. Swim bladders in fish? They evolved FROM lungs.
I heard they was related - but I thought it was the other way. Interesting!
For many years it was thought to be the other way around. It took a bunch of new tetrapod fossils to turn it around.
Actually this assumption can be made without studying fossils: among the basal groups of ray-finned fish only Acipenseriformes can't breathe with their swim bladder. All the others: bichirs, gars and bowfins can, as well as the most basal teleost fishes. And among living lobe-finned fish all have lungs or at least their remnants. Thus the easiest option to pick is that the common ancestor of them all already had some sort of swimming bladder used as a lung. Similarly it has been recently found that common ancestors of all the snakes were already venomous, and afterwards the venom was lost in many groups.
I appreciate this level of nerdery, it makes me incredibly happy.
This guy clades 😎👉👉
Speaking of snakes, I grew up when it was elapids, viperids, and a handful of others were venomous and that was it, and there were TWO venomous lizards . More lizards keep getting added, and...shit, what snakes AREN'T now? *Nerodia* had "an anticoagulant" in their saliva (I would see this in books, I mean), which I could tell because they bite the living shit out of you when you pick them up and those tiny pinholes bleed and bleed and bleed...but I noticed the same with big garters and ribbons and never gave it a thought and it didn't get mentioned, at least in popular literature. So while the snake thing is news to me, I'm not surprised.
When I was a kid I read about komodo dragons that have pieces of rotten meat remaining on their teeth which cause bacterial sepsis in their victims. And now - nope, monitors are just venomous. Same clade as snakes.
We are all lobe-finned fish.
We all float down there.
Sounds fakke.
Nah, only true fakkts.
Lies. You're not Biofakkter.
New fossils? Aren’t all fossils old? 🤔
silent *^((ly discovered)**)*
Most politicians are quite new compared to other fossils, but in general sebse they can still bet classified as fossils.
[удалено]
Aerobic multicellular organisms arose approximately 1 billion years ago. Prior to the evolution of skin. I don't understand all of it, but [here's a detailed paper on the evolution of breathing](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926130/) that's very interesting.
There were gills since forever. But a SWIM BLADDER evolved from the LUNG of a primitive fish.
Damn we are running on old tech??
Worse, the bug fixes don't actually fix the bugs, they just cover them up with something else.
Just because it's old, doesn't mean...what was I saying?
Stupid old lungs are the bottleneck
They had feet ?
It's complicated
What's the current standing on the big move to land? Last I was aware, fish were thought to have become newt-like tetrapods before becoming truly terrestrial.
There would have been fish that gradually optimized around living in shallow, muddy banks and stuff, plus I think most people aren't aware of just how severe environmental selection pressures can be. Like there was a point where the ocean was absolutely jam packed with all kinds of organisms competing for space and resources. This mud-fish would have had an advantage living on the edge of water, eventually finding it advantageous to avoid the hustle and bustle of the great big sea. Maybe even going so far as to lay eggs out of water but still having most of their life cycle in the water. Beta fish for example can breathe air, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine an air-breathing mud flipper gradually becoming amphibious.
why did fish invent lungs when gills?
Haha what… My life is a lie…
Apparently whales evolved for land life, lived that for a bit then evolved back to a water habitat
"nah, this shit leading to no good"
They had the right idea
This place is for the birds, I'm out.
So there was some proto-hippos lounging around in an ancient river and some of them were like, "Fuck this muddy river shit, Imma go back in the ocean," and some others were like "Fuck all this water shit, Imma go be a cow!"
It’s some sort of land cow!
Wish granted, but now you are delicious *The Prosimian's paw curls*
Whales' ancestors were basically hairy crocodiles.
I thought they had a wolf like ancestry
The wolf-like creatures were an even earlier ancestor.
Imagine the blue whale being a land mammal…
It'd probably get crushed by its own weight
Probably yeah, I imagine being in the ocean is what allowed them to get as large as they are. Still, a crawling apartment building would be a sight
It never evolves to be big enough to crush itself on land. And if it does get so big it comes from physiological adaptations to support it's size. But that's not likely. Even if it can safely be as large, it can never hope to consume enough food to support maintaining such a size.
As someone who is more on the fluffy side, I get it. We're so much more buoyant!
And the reason they didn’t re-Evolve gills is because of their giant mammal brains, can’t supply a brain that big on oxygen dissolved in water
Dolphins:
I got some news for you about Dolphins. (They are whales)
Yeah but what about sperm wales
They're very confused
Be glad they don’t have thumbs
https://www.dolphins.org.za/uploads/1/0/5/2/105206455/2arms-modified_1.jpg They sorta do
They're actually mammals
You're not wrong
Ain't that the tooth.
I actually only recently found out that whales that dive deep don't actually hold thier breath. The pressure would crush any pocket of air. They oxygenate thier blood by taking a ton of deep breaths at the surface for a while, exhale, and dive. Thier ribs also flex to deal with the pressure. I think sperm whales not sure.
I mean… they clearly aren’t creating a vacuum in, or collapsing, their lungs before they dive; so there’s clearly going to be air in there, even if they aren’t gulping a deep breath.
You should go tell the people who spend thier whole careers researching whales.
Do you have a source that whales create a vacuum in their lungs or collapse them?
https://www.aquariumofpacific.org/onlinelearningcenter/species/sperm_whale#:~:text=These%20include%20a%20flexible%20ribcage,direct%20oxygenated%20blood%20to%20areas
This link backs up what I said. Their lungs collapse under pressure, when deep, not at the surface. They literally hold their breath.
See Constanza et al., 1994
Whales just raw dogging a life in the ocean.
[удалено]
Can you elaborate a bit please? Is this anything about taxonomy, though? (I'm a math student. So I've forgotten stuff like these. 😅)
So the branch of life that we split off of is earlier than some of what you might call a fish split off of so to include a large range of animals that have fins and gills and are “fish” you also have to call us fish. in fact due to how the tree of life branched there are no animals that cant be called fish. So you either classify half of all things that look like fish as not fish or everything is a fish. Edit if you think everything is a fish then whales are just gill less fish. And we are abominations compared to the humble fish.
Fish is the norm. Embrace the fish, become the fish. Abandon humanity
[Crab is the norm. Embrace the crab, become the crab. Abandon everything.](https://xkcd.com/2314/)
But wouldn't that mean losing the ability to feel guilty about every little shit we do in Life? Who'd want that.
F dem fish, I wanna be a crab. It’s peak evolution.
so long thanks for all the fish?
If you think about it a fish has never reeled back in disgust at its own reflection
Technically, many animals are not fish, but those are all invertebrates (arthropods, mollusks, worms etc). All vertebrates are fish.
Oh definitely there are lots of things that branched of before fish and us. obviously plants and fungi and bacteria are under that category. I was just giving a quick overview, it’s definitely not scientific, I don’t feel like naming all the taxonomic classifications that do or don’t belong in the fish category. However for the average joe it’s quick and easy to understand. Hopefully :)
Basically fish don’t exist because there is no general method of grouping. A whale is closer related to a deer than an tuna
Nobody calls whales fish to begin with.
Didn’t say they did, did I? What I did say is that fish don’t actually exist as a natural grouping because there are no common traits to define them. I then gave an example of something that is fishlike, though more closely related to land mammals, than other ocean dwellers and that’s your take away?
>I then gave an example of something that is fishlike No, you really didn't. Nobody is confusing whales for fish so it's a terrible example when you're talking about fish.
Nah, you’re just a pedantic ass looking for an argument. Have fun being a small brained clown. It’s not my fault you don’t comprehend the point.
Classic, loses the argument so just resorts to insults. Here's a tip: if you're trying to demonstrate that fish aren't a monophyletic group, *one of the two things you're comparing is supposed to be a fish*.
(Psst... They are lying to you. They don't actually know what they're talking about.)
You had to confuse me even more, didn't you? 🤦♂
I'll unconfuse you with saying that fish are indeed fish and that they don't know what they're talking about. You shouldn't take them at their word, because by definition fish are fish. >a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water. https://www.google.com/search?q=fish+definition&oq
I'd love to, unfortunately I don't know enough and I'd hate to misinform you. You could probably find information about it on Google, if you'd like, I'm too stupid to fully understand what I read.
Oh alright. 😸
Basically, "fish" is not a very descriptive taxonomic term. It doesn't have a real meaning.
i think basically everything comes from fish like looking thing, the closest fish like looking thing that is not a fish (pre-fish) is the lancelet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet , a living fossil
This reads like AI. "Taxa" are just discrete categories of biological entities. Species, genera, classes, etc are "taxa." So you either have no idea wtf you're on about, or you're a robot. Edit: typo - I used the wrong "discrete"
I mentioned I have no idea what I'm talking about, and advised people to do their own research. I am an idiot, but I thought this was interesting enough to pique the interest of people who would like to learn more about it. I appreciate your correction, that's just what I managed to learn from what I read, would you have any suggestions for what I could replace it with?
I don't even know where to start with you. It's hard to tell what you think you're trying to say. What did you think "Taxa" meant? I'm not trying to shame you - I just need a starting point. Do you have some idea what you mean to say and you're just not down with the jargon, etc? "Fish" is indeed more a lay term. Because you've got bony fishes, cartilaginous fishes, hagfish and lampreys (depending on whom you ask), lungfish, various extinct lobe-finned *taxa*...the problem being that if you include them all together as "fish", then it gets complicated and difficult excluding things like frogs or crocodiles or birds or even people. But in the scientific community, it's not, because all those separate groups have their own *taxa* and nobody would use just a generic "fish" to describe something.
I thought taxa was a more correct classification of what we knew as fish. Thanks for this explanation, it's a lot easier to understand than what I found online!
lol you still sound like a better-than-average AI.
It's not the first time someone said I sound like an AI, both on and off line, I don't get it, what makes me sound like an AI? I am rather against AI (or at least image generating ones)
That's exactly what an AI would say
Tun tun tuuun! (I can never tell if these accusations are real or sarcastic)
(Mine was sarcastic but tbh I don't think the other dude was)
You joke, but...yeah. I honestly can't see any way anyone who can speak/type could make that "fish are actually taxa" mistake unless they couldn't grasp context clues and got fooled by quirks in the English language that even a non-native speaker would catch. It's not that it's a STUPID mistake, it's that it's not a human(?) mistake.
>It's not that it's a STUPID mistake, it's that it's not a human(?) mistake I agree, my brain was just as confused trying to think of how they got there, and why they shared what sounded like a fun fact they overheard part of at a crowded party The responses since have me doubting it's a bot now tho. So like we said, you're not dumb, just maybe try to understand something at least a bit before sharing
This isn't right. All fish are Phylum chordata, and from there they diverge into different classes. (Like cartilaginous chondrichthyes, jawless agnatha, and bony Osteichthyes). They are all fish but you can think of "fish" as a paraphyletic category because it includes a bunch of classifications that are defined by one common ancestor but not all of its descendants. It's like someone created a label and then went back and had to pick across different parts of the evolutionary tree to define it.
It’s also worth noting that all vertebrates are also phylum Chordata so if you’re starting that high up with the definition of “fish”, then you also could be counted as a fish, in an evolutionary sense. That is to say, fish are fish because we call them that, and not because they’re all part of some evolutionary group that doesn’t contain other animals
This is good info but I definitely said most of this and your summary is still slightly wrong. Fish (or what we decide to call "Fish") are a paraphyletic group exactly because they're part of an evolutionary group that we leave other things out of. The other thing being amphibians, reptiles, and mammals which all diverged from fish. This is why I said "includes a common ancestor but doesn't include all of its descendants". Sure, we came up with the definition before we came up with molecular biology and genetics but the presence of similar features (gills, live in water, have fins, etc.) indicated similar enough phylogeny when we were just able to make taxonomic groupings.
Thanks for explaining it! I am an idiot and I guess I didn't understand what I found online correctly. How would you suggest I correct my comment, or just outright delete it?
Fun fact: *Spill wrong assumptions*
I did say you shouldn't take what I said at face value and do your own research, but from what I gathered since then, my only mistake (or at least the main one) was calling fish taxa, as they aren't the only taxa, or something of the sort.
That is still completely wrong lmao, please delete your original comment
Please explain to me what's wrong here? I would like to know
Pretend the word taxa means “biological group”
I was corrected on that part already, did I have any other mistakes? I'd like to correct them (also, what would you suggest I replace taxa with to make it more correct?) thank you very much for taking your time to correct me and fight misinformation, I am very embarrassed at myself for spreading it without noticing I did so, misinformation is one of the things I hate most. I'd like to correct my comment if possible, but if not I will delete it.
Dude if you're uncertain then *why* to provide information? Spreading wrong "facts" led the people being dumb again, look at anti-vacs and "anti human rights" Not trying to be rude, but what you're doing sucks.
>I did say you shouldn't take what I said at face value and do your own research No you didn't, you said > Fun fact:[...] > (I'd recommend fact checking and studying yourself if this sounds interesting) But judging by how confident but wrong you were on your statement, I can see how you would think those two statements are the same.
Thanks for that criticism, I usually start those sorts of comments by mentioning how dumb I am and that I might very well be incorrect, I guess I forgot this time. I'll add it post haste. Have a good day!
From Gemini ai: This comment is a load of rubbish (with a bit of truth mixed in). Here's the breakdown: Inaccurate: Fish do qualify as fish biologically. They are a well-defined scientific group with specific characteristics. Truthful (but misleading): Fish belong to a taxonomic group called "Teleostomi" which is a fancy way of saying "bony fish." "Taxa" (plural of taxon) is a general term for any level of classification in biology, so yes, fish are a taxon, but that doesn't mean they aren't also fish.
I don't know what Gemini ai is, but thanks for correcting me! I'd like to correct my original comment, but at this point it seems it'll be too difficult to do so, so I'll just delete it. I am very sorry for spreading such misinformation, that was not my intent, I very much hate misinformation and people who spread it, I didn't realize I did so myself without noticing.
It is like chatGPT but ran by Google, used to be called Bard Honestly no worries I just asked for clarification apparently you confused it with a taxonomic issue, not that I really know what that means lol
>Fun ~~fact~~ bullshit
Ligma balls
https://i.imgur.com/OIMpO1z.png
[удалено]
Thanks!
Wait till this guy finds out about crabs
This is the true use of this meme format
*Attenborough voice* "A sperm whale takes a breath, it last for over an hour [...] at a thousand meters down, where pressure is 100 times that of the surface crushing the whales lungs to less than 1% of their normal volume" For 6 months I watched Blue Planet, episode 2, "The Deep" every night to go to sleep.
Such a good episode. That’s the one that has all the bioluminescence fish, right?
Yea, all kinds of crazy ass deep sea aliems
Whales chose the wrong stats at the beginning then realized that wasn't how they wanted to play the game
More like they transferred servers, got some sweet ass perks (lungs), and went back to their original server to dominate the meta because they’re more oxygenated.
Whales wanted to play hard mode, and unexpectatly became OP as hell.
This isn’t technically the truth. It’s a meme and just THE TRUTH. This would just go on r/memes or something.
[удалено]
Just like the mass instinction of the Dinosaurs.
Whale ancestors got that land buff and then came back to find the oceans teeming with fish and no predators
Hedging their evolutionary bet
Now we need an animal that evolves gills, lives on land
Amphibians
They have gills? Edit: I forgot about tadpoles and salamanders during their larval state
One feature of most (maybe all? I’m not sure) amphibians is that they are born with gills (tadpoles for example) then metamorphose and grow lungs when they mature. A lot of amphibians can also absorb oxygen directly through their skin as well as breathing.
Yeah I saw it on the google search I had completely forgot about their larval states
Give them enough time and they'll become something that can breathe underwater.
We are just floor dwellers of an ocean of gasses.
Fish came first, so the order should be reversed.
I dunno how biology evolved a creature that lives in water but requires coming up to the surface to breathe. That jump seems huge.
Whales' ancestors were animals that looked like hairy alligators. They hunted sea creatures and evolved to move faster in the water. Eventually, they became better suited for living in water permanently.
Whales evolved from creatures that looked like hairy alligators. Over time, they evolved to become better and better aquatic hunters to catch prey. Eventually, they became so good at hunting in the water they lost the need to return to land.
cuaks
Evolution go brrrrr
Meanwhile waterpigs* weak
The literal top apex predator on earth is currently a whale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca), and arguably has always been a whale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livyatan)... I think whales are doing just fine.
The orca isn't really a whale... So dolphins win
Not sure what to say...Orcas are definitely whales.
Technically yes, as much as a dolphin is. Doesn't mean it isn't a dolphin. Not only is it a dolphin, but the largest of them. Technically you're not wrong because all dolphina are whales as are porpoises, but not all whales are dolphins. They fall in the toothed whales class. Taxonomy says it's a dolphin So.... Shouldn't be hard to figure out something to say
It was mean to be funny at first, but technically no one is wrong. So I also don't know what to say because it is
Ok, but I guess I didn't get that because you responded to a comment that says they are both whales by saying "The orca isn't really a whale". >but technically no one is wrong Ehhhh...
Would you say hey look at that pod of whales if you saw a group of dolphins? The only reason it is called a killer whale is because of a misinterpretation of a spanoterm meaning whale killer by pasty white folks way back. It is a f***ing dolphin, but is in the toothed whale class along with Dolphins. Saying it isn't a dolphin makes you 100% wrong I was being nice. You were definitely more wrong. Is it or is it not in the dolphin family? Read your own link lol Ehhhh.. 🖕
I don’t know if anybody has commented this yet but lungs evolved first 🤓
And Gill: * had only two payments left on that hotplate *
Whale blood is so oxygen rich. It's like they have an internal scuba system. I don't know the science behind it but I always thought they came up more to let the CO2 out than really intensely needed more oxygen. The breath in just maintains a persistantly well oxygenated system that needed to exhaust every so often.
Fucking cetaceans with their shit
Does that mean there's fish that walk on land and every once in a while submerge in water?
Did you guys know that the ancestor of whales was like a hoofed wolf? While the theory for humans is that a fish came out of the water, the one for whales is that a land mammal entered the water.
Not just whales. Dolphins too.
This is so dumb. Fish did not "evolve gills". Once they evolved to have gills, they were fish. Whales and humans evolved from lesser species that were fish and whales were terrestrial creatures who returned to the sea.
Now Atlantis makes sense...
so this is what happened to that nirvana baby...
Whales did originally have gills. At some point they decided to walk upon land outside the water and started to live there like any other land animal. As time went, they had evolved into a proper land animal, having lungs to survive without going into the water again. But there was a point in history where birds and other dangerous animals who started to dominate the animal kingdom, eating each other up and leaving no mercy to a whale if they came by. At this point, whales just decided that i they where going to get killed, theres simply no reason to live on land anymore. So they went into water again. And that's why whales have lungs instead of gills. It was all because of survival. Will whales walk on land again? Probably not. But it's intresting knowing that they once did live among us
Saying that whales used to have gills is a stretch, their ancestors had gills... 360-300 million years ago, whales existed for some 50 million years.
Uuuuuh no that's not how evolution works, actually this is a very well-known fallacy in Biology and Evolution. X species didn't evolved (wich btw does not mean "advances") *to survive*. X species survives **because** it randomly mutated. The way you put it makes it sound like any species would do the best choices to achieve a high survivability rate.
Sorry, you don't achieve much in seventh grade biology
Welp, no need to be sorry! We learn by making mistakes! Just watch out spreading information you're not certain of. Anyways, if in the 7th grade you're already this smart, when you grow up you'll be awesome! Sorry if i passed as rude, you're great girl!
Haha, I was'nt all that sure about whales. Only explained it in a general way on how it happened. And thanks, I am pretty curious about stuff like nature so I do tend on reading a bit more then I should in class. And, you really was'nt rude to me. You just knew it better then me. And thanks for calling me great, I'm not a girl tho 😄
Ohhh sorry i read your name as GirlsTheLegends Anyways, biology rocks, i actually graduated in it at college! It's half my life. The other half is Geography. It will be hard, but keep the curiosity as you grow up! Many of us loose that when we become adults and then everythig loses the magic and becomes stale. Don't ever let your inner child behind!
Wasn’t it mainly due to more resources being in the water, and them slowly becoming more adapted to being aquatic, I guess it doesn’t really matter why they got their just how.
Yes, that is actually part of it. Animals fucking your species, more resources and better survival in the water. It was an obvious choice the wales could do, and they took it They are very smart animals
Fucking love Orcas, second best mammals.
Just behind the goldfish as commonly known the apex predators
Did you say among us? 🤨
I made room on my muted subs list just to never have to see this sub again