you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 11 months ago (9 children)

They are kind of right ... there is no such thing as a fish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Of course there's such a thing as a fish! A fish is any swimming vertebrate (or its descendant), such as a tuna, or a duck, or a human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Being cold blooded and living "wholly in water" are also requirements.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Nah, phylogenetically speaking, all descendants of fish must also be fish, by definition. Therefore, "being cold blooded" cannot also be a criterion (not that it would work anyway since tuna are warm blooded, BTW, and nobody would argue tuna aren't fish).

    The "living wholly in water" criterion actually works, though: land-fish (e.g. humans) live inside a bag of water that we carry with us.

  • source
  • parent