Topic: the habit of refering to today's living creatures as BEING examples of their common clade ancestor
boof started this discussion 11 months ago#123,985
is a bit much to take sometimes. Annoyingly pedantic people who like to hop on trends because they see opportunities to smugly "correct" people for saying something not in line with some strand of thinking -- I could have less of that. Sure, birds are dinosaurs in that botanical sense, but don't shit on someone who prefers the culinary sense. People are apes is more apparent OK, but it would also fallow that people are worms, and people are sea sponges. And all cellular life from bacteria to us is some fuckin germ
boof (OP) replied with this 11 months ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,349,770
@previous (B)
well for me the interesting thing is that birds are on the dinosaur branch, and that the dinosaur branch itself and the crocodile branch are on the same branch further back, and so on. the relatedness and where branching occurs is the interesting part.
I agree it's interesting crocodiles haven't changed for millions of years. The bird dinosaur thing is because there's this artificial division between birds and dinosaurs and people say "birds are descended from dinosaurs which went extinct", when they literally are the same type of animal
boof (OP) replied with this 11 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,349,807
@1,349,795 (B)
well yes and no -- look at the closely related elephant species. they include the golden mole. they are more related to each other than a chicken to a T-rex. when true relatedness and the names we choose to refer the groups of species clashes with our common usage of the same words, it's a bit much to be scolded by a pedant on the matter when we wish to talk with the common usages.