this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
342 points (96.0% liked)

Science Memes

10940 readers
2825 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 53 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Fish is not a scientific classification.

[–] baropithecus@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The shitpost is correct. Bony fish, or the superclass Osteichtyes, absolutely is a scientific classification, and by the way modern cladistics work, every single thing descended from them, which includes all terrestrial mammals, reptiles etc. are also bony fish.

In other words, if the common ancestor of tuna and squirrels and whales is a bony fish, they are all bony fish. The squirrel and whale cannot be demoted from their bony fish status.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] imgcat@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago
[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 41 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yes, yes, tomatoes are fruit, and birds are dinosaurs

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 6 months ago

Would you like your fried dinosaur strips with fruit purée?

[–] wanderer@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

And apes are monkeys.

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.ca 27 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Good evening. The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. 'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. 'Oh yes,' one would think. However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me, for how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder?

For example, given the premise, 'all fish live underwater' and 'all mackerel are fish', my wife will conclude, not that 'all mackerel live underwater', but that 'if she buys kippers it will not rain', or that 'trout live in trees', or even that 'I do not love her any more.' This she calls 'using her intuition'. I call it 'crap', and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical. 'There will be no supper tonight,' she will sometimes cry upon my return home. 'Why not?' I will ask. 'Because I have been screwing the milkman all day,' she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. 'But,' I will wearily point out, 'even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may now, logically, be got.' 'You don't love me any more,' she will now often postulate. 'If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms.' 'I will give you one after you have got me my supper,' I now usually scream, 'but not before'-- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper. 'God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!' she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. 'Fuck supper!' I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yogurt.

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell: sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this, but it 'is' in the same sense that Mount Everest 'is', or that Alma Cogan 'isn't'.

Goodnight.

[–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Brilliant! What's this from?

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Monty Python and the holy Grail. Yes. Love it.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

I agree. With same logic:

  • Water is not mercury
  • Water is liquid
  • Liquid is mercury
  • Water is mercury
[–] L1to@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Not all liquids are, or come from mercury, while all tretapods come from fishes. So that logic doesn't work.

[–] shasta@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

Yes but "mammals are tetrapods" is the incorrect one

[–] lauha@lemmy.one -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I agree. All animals and plants are single celled.

[–] wanderer@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

'Single celled' is a characteristic, not a lineage. Organisms don't necessarily have the same characteristics as their ancestors.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're seriously splitting hairs about lineage when you know humans are obviously not fish.

[–] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A species can not evolve out of a clade. I am not splitting hairs, I am simply accepting cladistics classification as valid.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I am simply accepting cladistics classification as valid.

Obviously you are not, since fish are not considered a monophyletic group.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That would explain why water is so deadly. 100% of people that drink water will die

[–] Fogle@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But not 100% of people who died have drunk water

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 months ago

But their bodies contained water(possibly inherited from parent, who were addicted to water)

[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

"Kerosine is fuel Brian. Redbull is fuel. Kerosine is Redbull."

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Whales, dolphins, porpoises, and orcas are all sea doggos

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Wait, seals are sea doggos, right? Whales are sea cows.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They are called sea cows, but they're really sea elephants? I hope I'm not terribly wrong.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why elephants? I mean whales are not cows just by looking at what they eat. In that way manatees eating mostly sea plants are closer to being cows. Are they not?

[–] shuzuko@midwest.social 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I think it's a joke about manatees having evolved from the same land-based ancestor as elephants, making them pretty literally "sea elephants".

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Interesting. Just like the actual closest living relative to the elephant looks like a malnourished beaver

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Yes, I was referring to the evolutionary aspects, not the ecological ones :)

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Cetaceans evolved from a wolf like creature, not a bovine like one.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Did they? Wiki tells me "that cetaceans are phylogenetically closely related with the even-toed ungulates (Artiodactyla)". So a horse is closer than a cow, but a cow is much closer than a dog. By the way, I like the fact that we're both angry :)

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It depends on what you want to call pakicetus, I think it looks kinda dog like.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/

The DNA may tell an entirely different story.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Pakicetus looks really cute in this reconstruction! I've always seen the species pictured looking as a kind of a big rat. This is so much better.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They are similar to manatees but thinner and droopier in the snout. Hang out mainly in asia

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Dunno. I said the former were sea doggos because they all evolved from some wolf-like creature

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

yeah i know dugongs could be the "sea cows" too

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

If both trout and sharks are fish, then so are whales. Mammals are more closely related to trout than trout are to sharks.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Shrimps is bugs, whales is whales

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 months ago
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

Monke is fish.

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] lordmauve@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago

No, you can't carry it, it's too heavy

[–] Scaatis@feddit.de 1 points 6 months ago

Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chapter 32:

The uncertain, unsettled condition of this science of Cetology is in the very vestibule attested by the fact, that in some quarters it still remains a moot point whether a whale be a fish. In his System of Nature, A.D. 1776, Linnaeus declares, “I hereby separate the whales from the fish.” But of my own knowledge, I know that down to the year 1850, sharks and shad, alewives and herring, against Linnaeus’s express edict, were still found dividing the possession of the same seas with the Leviathan.

The grounds upon which Linnaeus would fain have banished the whales from the waters, he states as follows: “On account of their warm bilocular heart, their lungs, their moveable eyelids, their hollow ears, penem intrantem feminam mammis lactantem,” and finally, “ex lege naturae jure meritoque.” I submitted all this to my friends Simeon Macey and Charley Coffin, of Nantucket, both messmates of mine in a certain voyage, and they united in the opinion that the reasons set forth were altogether insufficient. Charley profanely hinted they were humbug.

Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me.