Huh, is it because of evolution? Men, fish and worms have the same ancestors? But then everything would be the same.
Also are Dragons a type of Wyvern? ;P
Yes, the problem phrase being “you can’t evolve out of a clade.” Every terrestrial animal is therefore a type a fish, and every fish is a worm, and we’re also all bacteria, etc.
A lot of people who say they agree with the idea (because you can’t really argue with the smaller scale usefulness of it) don’t like the actual larger implications and seemingly want a more vibe based classification, which is pointless. They’ll say things like “that’s why there is no fish clade” until you ask them what the clade of our earliest discernable fish ancestors was then, and how it’s different than “fish.”
“I actually didn’t know that, thanks for telling me you smartass monkey!”
Tbf not everyone agrees with cladistics, on account of it also classifying humans as fish and worms.
Huh, is it because of evolution? Men, fish and worms have the same ancestors? But then everything would be the same.
Also are Dragons a type of Wyvern? ;P
All Wyverns are a type of Dragon!
Yes, the problem phrase being “you can’t evolve out of a clade.” Every terrestrial animal is therefore a type a fish, and every fish is a worm, and we’re also all bacteria, etc.
A lot of people who say they agree with the idea (because you can’t really argue with the smaller scale usefulness of it) don’t like the actual larger implications and seemingly want a more vibe based classification, which is pointless. They’ll say things like “that’s why there is no fish clade” until you ask them what the clade of our earliest discernable fish ancestors was then, and how it’s different than “fish.”
Hmm, if it is useful, it does not need to make sense.