Potemkin wrote:I sense that we're finally getting somewhere. You have admitted that defining the word 'fish' to exclude the tetrapods results in a polyphyletic clade which has no natural meaning. Only if the tetrapods are included in the clade of 'fish' (as they should be, on evolutionary grounds) does the clade of fish become monophyletic, and therefore have a natural meaning.
There is already a word for that in phylogeny, and it is not fish, it is vertebrate. If you gonna come here lecture your nonsense then use the proper term, rather than coming with all these twisted ideas.
Strawman argument. This is not the logic I am using, and you know it. If I chopped up some fish and used the bits to construct a model of a fish, that model would not itself be a fish.
Really? How much you want to bet that if I go to my nearest restaurant and ask for fish, they would bring me a chopped fish and there woulnd't be much confusion. They would not bring me a chopped human, and they wouldn't look at me horrorized for trying to eat my fellow homosapiens.
Can you walk into the furniture store and ask for a tree and get a chair?
At what generation do they stop being fish?
Just because it is hard to understand, it does not mean it is not true.
The distance between your two eyes can be divided in centimeters, millimeters, nanometers, picometers, etc... infinetly. Yet we know that your eyes are not infinitely apart. It might be hard to identified the specific single individual that left one species to be the first member of another, but that is a limitation of the vast complexity and the vast timelines at play rather than its veracity.
Nevertheless, the student would be correct. Back in the 18th century, if a student had answered "primate" to classify a human, he would have lost credit for that question. And probably been burned at the stake for heresy to boot. Lol.
Don't worry, I will not advocate for your death or burning for being wrong
One of the great breakthroughs of Linnaeus was to understand that, say, a rat can be a rodent, a mammal and a vertebrate all at the same time. Likewise, we can be humans, primates, mammals, and fish all at the same time.
No, we cannot. The definition of fish explicitly excludes mammals and other tetrapods, including reptiles, birds, amphibians, mammals.
Now you're just making shit up as you go along....
It is a thought experiment. Very common use in science/philosophy. But a I guess they don't teach you those in fishschool.
Potes annual BS chat and say, "Yes I can see your point, but I don't see it that way" and move on.
Maybe I should follow your advise, will see
Potemkin wrote:A scientific understanding of the world is not the same as a "common sense" understanding of the world. This is why science is even a thing. From a strict, scientific understanding of evolution, humans are highly derived fish. You can of course assert that this is not how you personally use the word "fish", and that's fine. But don't then claim that your use of the word "fish" has any scientific validity.
This is nonsensical.
Potemkin wrote:There is a meaning for the term "Fish" to begin with - the clade consisting of the last common ancestor of all the vertebrates and all its descendants. Which includes us, of course.
This is of course nonsense. Since fish is a paraphylogenic grouping. The term is vertebrate, and not fish. If you are going to be an obnoxious pedantic child about phylogeny and evolution, then use the fucking proper term, which is vertebrate.