• DancingBear@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    So you’re suggesting that because we all evolved from a sesspool swamp we are all fish?

    I’m down

    Trees also do not have a real definition. But you think you know what a tree is.

    Fish have a more strict definition than trees.

    I provided you a source please name a fish that is an invertebrate or what not that is really cool and has the backbone in some other genetically cool place

    • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Having recently learned about trees, I actually don’t think I know what a tree is. at least, not enough to create a reasonable, non-blurry definition of “tree.”

      You’ve defined fish as being vertebrates, and as such I cannot find an invertebrate that fits that definition. But what you can’t do is just say the word “fish” and expect me to know what you mean - you have to provide a definition, and I could provide a different definition in a different context and neither of us would really be “wrong.”

      If you did just say “fish” without providing a definition, I would be tempted to either exclude sharks or include crabs, depending on context.