4 ms·

What is this "there no fish" thing? The blog link takes to a British show.

sshine 1y ago
All fish are not phylogenetically correlated: Things became fish multiple times independently. There is no "first fish from which all fish derived". Phylogenetic existence refers to the evolutionary history and relationships of a species as represented in a phylogenetic tree. This tree is a diagram that depicts the lines of evolutionary descent of different species, organisms, or genes from a common ancestor. So monkeys are phylogenetically related, because all monkeys that we know have common ancestors. Fish came to be multiple times independently. Being a fish, a tree, or a crab is a strategy, not a species. Which is ironic because we call it the "tree of life", but it should be "forest of life" (but since life originated in the sea, it should be the "sea of life"), since trees don't have a single phylogenetic root: There wasn't a "first tree that all trees descend from": Things became trees independent of one another, because being treelike is beneficial early on, much like being fishlike and crablike.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
  I understand the idea, I was asking for a link where the original "there's no fish" is discussed. I've seen it linked on HN but haven't been able to find it since.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    It was an internet hot topic on sites like Reddit in recent months/years. Basically, another way for nerds to demonstrate their superior technical knowledge on a subject, and afterwards a way for cool internet kids to demonstrate their superior knowledge of current memes.
boxed 1y ago
Cladistically you can decide: a) There are fish. Sharks are fish. Trout are fish. So therefore humans are fish as we are more related to trout than we are to sharks. This is basically saying that "fish" is roughly the same as "any vertebrate" or "any vertebrate with teeth" (depending on where you draw the line). or b) There is no such thing as a fish. There are THREE things: sharks/rays, ray finned fishes, and lobed finned fishes (which includes humans) That's the joke in the name of the British show.
- baobun 1y ago
  > we are more related to trout than we are to sharks wait what
  - boxed 1y ago
    Yea. And a lot. Like 10s of millions of years. Trout have skulls and calcified bones, sharks do not.
mrkickling 1y ago
It says in the wikipedia article that the quote comes from the show.
netruk44 1y ago
Edit: Removed. I would delete but I can't, because there's a reply now.
- boxed 1y ago
  Even though you might not want the answer to the question you only accidentally asked, I think it's useful to answer it for others.
  - netruk44 1y ago
    It looks like this post was second-chanced, and already has a few better answers than what I had written here a few days ago. I only answered because nobody else had commented on this post at the time.
- jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - netruk44 1y ago
    Sorry for commenting, I guess. I was just excited to share something I knew. I deleted my reply as much as I could. In the future, you might want to ask your question a little more clearly, or else you risk being misunderstood again.

All fish are not phylogenetically correlated: Things became fish multiple times independently. There is no "first fish from which all fish derived". Phylogenetic existence refers to the evolutionary history and relationships of a species as represented in a phylogenetic tree. This tree is a diagram that depicts the lines of evolutionary descent of different species, organisms, or genes from a common ancestor. So monkeys are phylogenetically related, because all monkeys that we know have common ancestors. Fish came to be multiple times independently. Being a fish, a tree, or a crab is a strategy, not a species. Which is ironic because we call it the "tree of life", but it should be "forest of life" (but since life originated in the sea, it should be the "sea of life"), since trees don't have a single phylogenetic root: There wasn't a "first tree that all trees descend from": Things became trees independent of one another, because being treelike is beneficial early on, much like being fishlike and crablike.

jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
I understand the idea, I was asking for a link where the original "there's no fish" is discussed. I've seen it linked on HN but haven't been able to find it since.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  It was an internet hot topic on sites like Reddit in recent months/years. Basically, another way for nerds to demonstrate their superior technical knowledge on a subject, and afterwards a way for cool internet kids to demonstrate their superior knowledge of current memes.

boxed 1y ago

Cladistically you can decide: a) There are fish. Sharks are fish. Trout are fish. So therefore humans are fish as we are more related to trout than we are to sharks. This is basically saying that "fish" is roughly the same as "any vertebrate" or "any vertebrate with teeth" (depending on where you draw the line). or b) There is no such thing as a fish. There are THREE things: sharks/rays, ray finned fishes, and lobed finned fishes (which includes humans) That's the joke in the name of the British show.

baobun 1y ago
> we are more related to trout than we are to sharks wait what
- boxed 1y ago
  Yea. And a lot. Like 10s of millions of years. Trout have skulls and calcified bones, sharks do not.

mrkickling 1y ago

It says in the wikipedia article that the quote comes from the show.

netruk44 1y ago

Edit: Removed. I would delete but I can't, because there's a reply now.

boxed 1y ago
Even though you might not want the answer to the question you only accidentally asked, I think it's useful to answer it for others.
- netruk44 1y ago
  It looks like this post was second-chanced, and already has a few better answers than what I had written here a few days ago. I only answered because nobody else had commented on this post at the time.
jxjnskkzxxhx 1y ago
[flagged]
- netruk44 1y ago
  Sorry for commenting, I guess. I was just excited to share something I knew. I deleted my reply as much as I could. In the future, you might want to ask your question a little more clearly, or else you risk being misunderstood again.