Message from @I-VaPE-ChEMtrAiLS
Discord ID: 494097691748335637
in the fossil records of turtles we see signs of one of the apsids
But you can't use a single retained feature to classify the species as being one thing or the other
You can use them to trace origins
wich is the point i made
turtles arent strictly diapsids but are still clasified as one in phylogenic clasification
You said birds are reptiles, that's not true. Birds are birds, birds evolved from dinos, but they are birds.
yes
they are also reptiles
They are reptiles in the same way we are
false
not in phylogenic clasifification
it was a few more branches earlier where you get mamals and a goup that has reptiles
Read the whole thing
"while the Linnaean system is more useful for understanding how animals live."
im guessing your going to point to that
yes i agree
in ways
but that was never my point
it literaly says what i was saying
It also says what I was saying
false
well yes
<:why:492975944445853696>
<:smart:484956754489376781>
but its a false look at phyletic clasification
thats not what phylogenic clasification says
Practically speaking the phylogenic classification has issues, which is why it's often suplimented
birds reptiles and mamals are in amniota
phylogenic clasification has problems in where you should put teh roadsigns
but its a similar problem in taxonomic clasification
Which is why we use DNA now
yes wich only helps tell you what the tree looks like
but dosent tell you where to put teh ropadsigns
the roadsigns are arbitrary but based on linean clasification
I'm gonna do a debate sin, but I'm gonna argue from status or whatever it's called. But I have a zoology degree I know how all this works.
so far it dosent seem like it
Oof
Bit rude