this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2026
405 points (96.3% liked)

Science Memes

20399 readers
1997 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaded_genie@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Ducks are avians, thus descended from dinosaurs.

Anatomically, the hoof of a horse is equivalent to a human middle fingernail.

There are "sea bees" tiny crustaceans that are pollinators of underwater plants. Both crustaceans and "bugs" are arthropods.

Not sure about the pterodactyl fish reference.

Redwoods and all plants really descend from photosynthetic algae.

About 8% of the human genome is composed of ancient viral DNA from viruses that integrated into DNA...

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Well everything is a fish or fish don't exist.

[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I believe the pterodactyl, like most (all?) dinos descended from aquatic life forms. Dunno, though.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, all life from the ocean but its a bit more of a stretch to say pterodactyl are fishes.

[–] icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Any scientific definition of 'fish' which includes all the things we commonly consider to be fish also includes basically all animal life on earth (including humans and, presumably, pterodactyls).

Edit: Though generally this is avoided by declaring that 'fish' is not an evolutionary category.

No argument there 🤣

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

It's cladistics.

"Theoretically, a last common ancestor and all its descendants constitute a (minimal) clade. Importantly, all descendants stay in their overarching ancestral clade. For example, if the terms worms or fishes were used within a strict cladistic framework, these terms would include humans."

[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

so basically it's a language problem, not a biology problem? people are incorrectly assuming that any group of species with a word to describe it must be monophyletic, and therefore include all unrelated species which would make it monophyletic?

[–] iilwl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I'm honestly surprised this isn't better understood in this community, at least as an approach to the tree of life system of classification, with or without its merits. I didn't go to college and went to public school that suppressed science education, but this was how I came to understand evolution and that all types of life had a universal common ancestor.

I'm not speaking to the accuracy of the meme, and the science community at large has its criticisms of cladistics, but I'm not sure I would define this as a problem of biology or language, or a problem at all. It is the most common method of evolutionary classification at this time.

Keep in mind I'm a blue collar worker on my lunch break and not a scientist nor college educated. I just like to learn in my free time about a bunch of stuff.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago

the cladistic approach developed for a reason

you know, two organisms might look similar at first, but what's often more important is the set of internal features, such as biochemistry, tolerance of toxins, etc.

if you take all these internal features, you find that they're well-preserved within evolutionary groups; but not within groups that merely look alike

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Pretty much. It helps if you think the word "dinosaur" has two partially overlapping meanings:

  1. Cladistic: every single descendant of the last common ancestor between the triceratops and a duck, including both.
  2. Popular: a bunch of extinct animals like the T-Rex, velociraptor, triceratops, etc. Plus animals visually resembling them, regardless of cladistic classification. Notably, it does not includes Aves aka modern birds.

So for example. Turkeys would fit #1 but not #2. Depending on the person, dimetrodons and pterosaurs would fit #2, but not #1 [see note]. A T-rex would fit both.

In other words if your kid asks you "I want to see the dinos on a screen!", do not bring them to see a rotisserie chicken being roasted. I repeat, do not. They're using "dino" for meaning #2.

NOTE: pterosaurs aren't from the clade Dinosauria, but from a distantly related clade called Pterosauria. Dimetrodons are synapsids so they're closer to us mammals than to Dinosauria.