Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Non-Mainstream and Controversial Science
What the brain is really for (get ready for this)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ViaCrucis" data-source="post: 77462556" data-attributes="member: 293637"><p>That's one way to define "fish", e.g. "gills and scales", but that would exclude fish from being fish. So it's not a useful definition of a fish. </p><p></p><p>That's actually kind of a problem itself, "fish" could be argued to be be kind of meaningless. </p><p></p><p>As far as your definition of "gills and scales", that would exclude, for example catfish which don't have scales (which is the reason why catfish are treyf in Judaism). </p><p></p><p>At any rate, the reason why a mouse could be called a "fish" is if are operating by clades, then a mouse is a sarcoptergyian (the lobe-finned fishes and their descendants). In the same way that a mouse is a rodent, and a mammal, and an amniote, and a tetrapod.</p><p></p><p>But, as a rule, we don't usually use the term "fish" to describe tetrapods, but use "fish" in such a way that it includes all sarcoptergyians except tetrapods. </p><p></p><p>Your definition of "gills and scales" is a description of many animals that we can call "fish", but it is hardly exhaustive nor biological. That would be like saying that the definition of "bird" is "thing that flies with feathers", that describes the majority of animals we call birds, though it excludes flightless birds such as most ratites.</p><p></p><p>That's why grouping animals based on things like this are unhelpful in biology--instead grouping animals by relationships is far more helpful. </p><p></p><p>So, again, it may seem weird to call a mouse a fish, but a mouse is cladistically within the sarcoptergyians. And sarcoptergyians are gnathostomates, which also include the arctinopterygians (ray-finned fish). Which means that a salmon is more closely related to a mouse than either are to a hagfish. Yet we call hagfish "fish" even though they are more distantly related to your goldfish than a mouse.</p><p></p><p>-CryptoLutheran</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ViaCrucis, post: 77462556, member: 293637"] That's one way to define "fish", e.g. "gills and scales", but that would exclude fish from being fish. So it's not a useful definition of a fish. That's actually kind of a problem itself, "fish" could be argued to be be kind of meaningless. As far as your definition of "gills and scales", that would exclude, for example catfish which don't have scales (which is the reason why catfish are treyf in Judaism). At any rate, the reason why a mouse could be called a "fish" is if are operating by clades, then a mouse is a sarcoptergyian (the lobe-finned fishes and their descendants). In the same way that a mouse is a rodent, and a mammal, and an amniote, and a tetrapod. But, as a rule, we don't usually use the term "fish" to describe tetrapods, but use "fish" in such a way that it includes all sarcoptergyians except tetrapods. Your definition of "gills and scales" is a description of many animals that we can call "fish", but it is hardly exhaustive nor biological. That would be like saying that the definition of "bird" is "thing that flies with feathers", that describes the majority of animals we call birds, though it excludes flightless birds such as most ratites. That's why grouping animals based on things like this are unhelpful in biology--instead grouping animals by relationships is far more helpful. So, again, it may seem weird to call a mouse a fish, but a mouse is cladistically within the sarcoptergyians. And sarcoptergyians are gnathostomates, which also include the arctinopterygians (ray-finned fish). Which means that a salmon is more closely related to a mouse than either are to a hagfish. Yet we call hagfish "fish" even though they are more distantly related to your goldfish than a mouse. -CryptoLutheran [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Non-Mainstream and Controversial Science
What the brain is really for (get ready for this)
Top
Bottom