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

lol

anyway i have a wierd reptile i want to show yu

(if i can find it)

But you are being needlessly pendantic, i will also call Mammals reptiles as there is a clear line of descendance

pedantic*

Ironic

lol

I'm on my phone so I can't spell

that sounds like an argument that trees are mamals because they have a common ancestor

altho its more likely you are going by

that the ancestor of them was reptilian

Well no, because you can track reptiles forwards to mammals.

mamals and lizards

Instead of backwards to plants

thats why i said its more likely the next thing i said

Dude, this is just being pedantic now

And I'm still a bit annoyed at you insulting my education and kinda being disrespectful

kiwi education is good education

it's the best in the world

i simply stated how it seems

along with aussie and finnish

although, personally, ive found australians to be _very_ dumb lol

Kiwi education is a solid 7/10