this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
301 points (96.3% liked)

Science Memes

16745 readers
2493 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 46 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

I think a more nuanced answer is better: "Only if you believe mammals and fish are not mutually exclusive."

[–] tyler@programming.dev 34 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the even more nuanced answer is that “fish” is not a scientific category so comparing it to mammals makes no sense.

[–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Got it , got it... writes in margin

Ichthyology ≠ Science

[–] tyler@programming.dev 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish

In a break from the long tradition of grouping all fish into a single class (''Pisces''), modern phylogenetics views fish as a paraphyletic group.

Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages. The grouping is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. In contrast, a monophyletic grouping (a clade) includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants.

This is in contrast to the class Mammalia which is a complete clade.

In other words, I could make up a branch of science called foobarthology that studies Jurassic raptors, whales, and the Rock Dove, but that doesn’t mean those things are related, or a ‘true’ scientific group of their own. It just means I put them together for some other reason, either cause it’s easier for the requirements of the job, or I wanted to, or many other reasons including historical.

[–] Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"Scientific group" is not the applicable term. "natural group" or "monophyletic group" or "clade", would be more... scientific

[–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago

Sure, and not calling them fish is even more scientific. From a grouping perspective, (which is how you refer to it) there is no such group.

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

lol no. Whales are clearly not foobars.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 12 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

I'm flattered, honestly, that guy is my favorite treefucker.

[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 8 points 3 weeks ago

Humans living under the sea are fish.

Like people in Netherlands.

[–] negativenull@piefed.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)


or something, I'm not a biologist

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Continuing a long proud tradition of "midwit" memes being made exclusively by people who think they're the 145 IQ guy, but are actually the the 55 IQ guy who found a brown hood.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Whales aren’t fish, they’re whales. There is no such thing as a fish.

[–] FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don’t know how many times I have to say this, I AM NOT A FISH! I am a regular tasty human, and frankly I’m growing real tired of these targeted attacks. You people are ridiculous. I won’t swi-STAND! Y-we stand. I won’t stand for this!

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Guys I think this guy might be a fish

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Guys, I think this guy might be a HUGE JERK FACE!

[–] count_duckula@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Dunno mate, seems like a dragon to me.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A dragon with a jerk for a face.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No that guy's Canadian I think

[–] Magnum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

STOP TELLING PEOPLE I’M A FISH!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hagdos@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Whaddayamean there's no such thing as a fish? I just ate one!

[–] lime@feddit.nu 25 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 9 points 3 weeks ago

Yes but only when culinary, this is why it's okay for vegans to eat whale.

[–] Mist101@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

This tracks, berries keep their seeds on the inside. Whales are bananas and vice versa.

[–] azi@mander.xyz 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Broke: Whales are fish because they look like other fish

Woke: Whales aren't fish because they're in the class Mammalia, not Pisces

Bespoke: Whales are fish because any monophyletic group that encompasses all the fishes must also include the clade Tetrapoda

Artichoke: Whales aren't fish because fishes are a paraphyletic group that includes the entire clade Vertebrata at the exclusion of the clade Tetrapoda.

Stick and Poke: Whales are fish because they've developed the same bodyplan and are in the same ecological niche as the pelagic fishes.

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Tadpoles are fish too, right?

And they even have gills.

[–] StrongHorseWeakNeigh@piefed.social 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Look all I'm saying is Hank Green agrees with me that whales are fish.

https://youtu.be/-C3lR3pczjo

[–] teft@piefed.social 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Hank Green is great but good god the adhd runs strong in that one. Watch some of his vlogbrothers videos and count the number of cuts. It's like watching Liam Neeson jump a fence.

Maybe that's why I like him so much lol

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

As one of the horde of neurodivergent folks that love Hank's content, I kind of need it this way. Chris Boden is another one. Long, still, static shots, just punch me right in the attention span and are hard to get through. It takes way more effort than the occasional jump-cut to pull off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 11 points 3 weeks ago

You can't fool me. I've read Moby Dick and Melville dedicated an entire chapter about how whales are absolutely fish

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I know a doctor of marine biology who disagrees with your assessment.

Everyone that doesn't revel in their fishness is a coward or worse, a creationist.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

whales are fish because they successfully went back to the ocean and i'm jealous

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 6 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Whales are mammals. How is the dude on the right even being pedantic and not just outright dumb?

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"Fish" isn't a real type of animal, it's a term of convenience for similar looking/acting things that humans have lumped together.

Its taking that back to the medieval level of "whales are fish"... Which ignores that key difference of them breathing air and not having gills.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Calling something a fish is like calling something a tree.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

you're a tree

[–] chaos@beehaw.org 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There isn't a simple evolutionary definition of "fish", not the same way there is for, say, mammals. If you found the common ancestor of everything we call a mammal and said "everything descended from this one is also a mammal", you'd be correct. If you did that for everything we call fish, every animal in the world would be a fish. Also, we decided which animals were fish mostly on vibes, so without a clear definition you can pedantically argue that everything is a fish including mammals.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

That's not quite true. A lot of worms, for example, wouldn't be fish, but all fish would be worms. Most invertebrates also wouldn't be fish.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't that only if they are born between February 19th and March 20th? 🤔

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 weeks ago

Those are fishies.

[–] Derpenheim@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"BuT thEy aRe iN ThE sAmE tReE oN thE fUnnY ChArT!!!1!!1"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›