Chicken with genetic defect - r/interestingasfuck

r/interestingasfuck • u/XyRow666 • Jul 21 '21

https://i.redd.it/98g39eh4pjc71.jpg

53k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

Abandon chicken, return to dinosaur

58

u/SilverSoundsss Jul 21 '21

Technically it’s literally still a dinosaur though

3

u/BEWARETHEAVERAGEMAN Jul 21 '21

It also technically isn't. By some definitions "dinosaurs are extinct" is a true statement and going by these definitions, a chicken can't be a dinosaur would be a contradiction.

By other definitions, as you said, it technically is.

Point is to not get lost in the definitions.

1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

I think the point is that some definitions are more technical than others.

19

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

There's nothing technical about it. They're as much dinosaurs as we are mammals or vertebrates. It's not like "here's this obscure thing in chapter 52, subsection B of science rules.". That's just how cladistics works.

40

u/TheDankestReGrowaway Jul 21 '21

You realize cladistics is the technicality there, right?

It's like "technically, the square root of two is computable" and you go "no, that's not technical, it's just how algebraic numbers work."

Like buddy, when it's a scientific or field dependent model or definition, it's technical.

-14

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

Is there anything technical about us being mammals, is there?

17

u/Damesie Jul 21 '21

We are, in fact, technically mammals.

-5

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

Technically, we're apes. Technically, we're eukaryotes. Does adding technically to those sentences help clarify anything? Does it help people understand the sentence more now that technically was added? No, it does not.

11

u/Damesie Jul 21 '21

Technically, it did help me to understand your point, which was “redundancy.”

Technically correct nonetheless.

10

u/StridAst Jul 21 '21

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

I ᴀᴍ Bᴇɴᴅᴇʀ. Pʟᴇᴀsᴇ ɪɴsᴇʀᴛ ɢɪʀᴅᴇʀ.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '21

[removed]

10

u/gachagaming Jul 21 '21

Technically, people DO understand how the downvote button works otherwise you wouldn't have any downvotes...

→ More replies

-3

u/Bishop-Owl-Art Jul 21 '21

Nah I'm with you dude, birds are "technically dinosaurs" but there's no point in throwing the word "technically" in there, because from a colloquial perspective it makes the statement seem less genuine.

1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

Does adding technically to those sentences help clarify anything?

Yes, because usually when someone says "ape" they don't include humans. They usually mean chimpanzess, orang utans, and gorillas.

7

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

Go and look up "dinosaur" in a dictionary and you'll invariably see something along the lines of:

dinosaur /ˈdʌɪnəsɔː/ n.

a fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era, in many species reaching an enormous size.

as the primary definition.

That's what makes it technical. Usually when someone says "dinosaur", they don't mean any animal in dinosauria (that's why the dictionary defines it the way it does; it's based on common usage). They mean the things from Jurassic Park.

4

u/Brookenium Jul 21 '21

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dinosaur

Merriam-Webster goes into the detail:

also : any of a broader group that also includes all living and extinct birds

It's only fairly recently that we concluded that birds are dinosaurs. It's not technical, it's just the right usage of the word now that we know.

-1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21 edited Jul 21 '21

That's why I said primary definition (what you quoted is a note under the primary definition, hardly the same thing), as in the one most people will take it to mean.

2

u/Brookenium Jul 21 '21

That's part of the primary definition. The meaning continues to more commonly refer to extant dinosaurs as well. Words evolve, let them.

0

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

The meaning continues to more commonly refer to extant dinosaurs as well.

Not quite sure what you mean by "continues", but, most commonly, use of the word "dinosaur" means the extinct reptiles and doesn't include birds.

Words evolve, let them.

Happy to. This one hasn't yet evolved to include birds in most cases, and probably never will, because it's far more useful as a word to mean the extinct reptiles than it is as its strict technical meaning.

1

u/Brookenium Jul 21 '21

Not quite sure what you mean by "continues", but, most commonly, use of the word "dinosaur" means the extinct reptiles and doesn't include birds.

Miriam-Webster disagrees with you, what's your qualifications again to disagree with them? Their primary definition includes both.

1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

No, it doesn't disagree at all. The "also" is not part of the primary definition. That note directly contradicts the definition in fact; it's not a clarification but an alternative definition, presumably one they didn't think separate enough to make a separate entry for.

It's not "1. Dinosaurs are a bunch of extinct reptiles plus living birds" but "1 Dinosaurs are either the extinct reptiles or the extinct reptiles plus living birds."

You only have to read the first part:

any of a group (Dinosauria) of extinct

to see that the primary definition immediately excludes modern birds.

All this is beside the point, really; when someone says "dinosaur", 99 times out of 100 they don't mean it to include birds. If they did, there wouldn't be a note; the note would be the primary definition.

→ More replies

1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

It's only fairly recently that we concluded that birds are dinosaurs

No, biologists concluded that. Everyone else still almost always means the extinct reptiles when they say "dinosaur".

The biologists don't win primacy in dictionary definitions just because they're scientists.

1

u/Brookenium Jul 21 '21 edited Jul 21 '21

You have fact and colloquial use of words mixed up.

Birds are factually dinosaurs, it's indisputable. This is a relatively recent conclusion though which lead to the colloquial use back when that was the scientific understanding.

The "biologists" (actually paleontologists) DO win truthful definitions. It just often takes a while for colloquial use to catch up. That's happening more and more with the use of the term Dinosaur.

But you cannot say someone is wrong when they say "birds are dinosaurs". You can say someone is wrong when they say "birds aren't dinosaurs". But you cannot say someone is wrong when they say "well I said dinosaur but only meant the extinct big reptile kind". It's a correct usage of the word to refer to those, but not the only nor the most accurate definition of the word.

Your initial disagreement was with someone saying "There's nothing technical about it. They're as much dinosaurs as we are mammals or vertebrates." That is an entirely factual statement. As far as is it "technical"

Merriam-webster again:

Technical: marked by or characteristic of specialization

Technical: according to a strict application or interpretation of the law or rules.

This isn't a strict application, or a special application. It's just the generally factual one.

1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

You have fact and colloquial use of words mixed up.

No I don't. If people use a word to mean a thing, then that is a meaning of the word. If enough people do so, it ends up in a dictionary. And if most people use it a particularly way, it gets to be the primary definition.

The "biologists" (actually paleontologists) DO win truthful definitions.

That's not how dictionaries work.

But you cannot say someone is wrong when they say "birds are dinosaurs".

I never have. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to argue that they aren't - although I personally wouldn't - based on almost very primary dictionary definition, though. I'd never argue that they aren't members of dinosauria, because that only has one widely recognised definition.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to think someone pedantic if they interject with an "Actually" after hearing someone say something like "the dinosaurs died out 65,000,000 years ago."

1

u/Brookenium Jul 21 '21

Most of this and your other reply (why did u split the discussion?!) is essentially opinion and this discussion isn't getting there. You ignored my bit about what defines "technical" either. I disagree that this is a technicality, it's just fact. Technicality is usually reserved for some ultra specific way in which it's true. This is just true because we've now learned better. I'll just respond to the last bit.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to think someone pedantic if they interject with an "Actually" after hearing someone say something like "the dinosaurs died out 65,000,000 years ago."

I disagree it's pedantry, it's just working to correct the misinformation from the past. This conclusion was literally only reached in the late 2000's. I see nothing wrong with educating the public on this, most people don't realize how true it is. They aren't "technically" dinosaurs any more than we're "technically" mammals. And nobody retorts like you did when someone says "humans are mammals"

0

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

You ignored my bit about what defines "technical" either.

No I didn't. You added that part after I started writing my reply.

But since you mention it:

This isn't a strict application, or a special application.

Yes it is, because it's not how the word is used in the vast majority of cases. Simple as that. People decide what words mean and how much weight different meanings have.

How most people use the word specifically excludes birds in a way that the common usage of the word "mammal" doesn't when it comes to humans - one of the defining attributes of what people commonly think of as "dinosaurs" is that they are extinct (as specified in M-W's definition).

→ More replies

1

u/Reddy_McRedcap Jul 21 '21 edited Jul 21 '21

~~Yeah, it's like saying "technically, humans are shrews" because all mammals evolved from small rodents.~~

~~Just because your ancestors of 65 million years were dinosaurs doesn't mean you are one now.~~

Edit: Move along. Nothing to see here.

1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

Well, not quite, because there is no technical or any other sense in which humans are shrews.

Just because your ancestors of 65 million years were dinosaurs doesn't mean you are one now.

Birds are dinosaurs because the cladistic definition of "dinosaur/dinosauria" includes them. But the way people usually use the word "dinosaur" doesn't. That's what makes it technical as opposed to colloquial.

-1

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

People put in 'technically' all the time, to make their sentences sound smarter. It doesn't help the reader understand the concept more, or mean that the speaker/writer has a better understanding of said topic. That is my beef with people overusing the word 'technically'.

2

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

The original use in this case was perfectly cromulent.

6

u/SilverSoundsss Jul 21 '21

What's your point?

-3

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

There's nothing technical about it.

7

u/SilverSoundsss Jul 21 '21

Aren't we both saying the same thing? Technically means "according to the facts", I don't get what you're trying to say.

-2

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

No. Technically means its some little known rule, in the context you're using it.

3

u/SilverSoundsss Jul 21 '21 edited Jul 21 '21

I still don't get what you're trying to get at, this feels like we're discussing pedantics. "Technically" is usually used when someone wants to get into details about a topic, not some little known rule, from my understanding.

2

u/doodoo_train Jul 21 '21

In no context does technically mean “some little known rule.” Please learn reading comprehension.

0

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

I can see how words are used and generally get a pretty good understanding of how that person is using them. There's the dictionary definition of a word, and then sometimes people don't go exactly by that definition. This is the real world, not some technicality.

3

u/doodoo_train Jul 21 '21

Lol. This is some /r/IAmVerySmart shit

1

u/shieldyboii Jul 21 '21

It is technically so. If we go all in monophyletic, we are also fish.

1

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

Please, inform me on what your use of the word 'technically' means.

0

u/Reddy_McRedcap Jul 21 '21 edited Jul 21 '21

~~Chickens and birds used to be dinosaurs. They aren't still currently dinosaurs today, they evolved from them.~~

Edit: Apparently I was incorrect. You learn something new every day

2

u/agnosgnosia Jul 21 '21

They are most certainly dinosaurs. You need to inform yourself on what clades are.

1

u/wonkey_monkey Jul 21 '21

They are. Technically.

When someone says "dinosaur," though, 99 times out of 100 they don't mean to include birds.

4

u/Seaatle Jul 21 '21

and we're technically apes.

1

u/SilverSoundsss Jul 21 '21

yes