Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iuafira wrote

[deleted]

78

iTanooki t1_iuahp8s wrote

How many other “fish” have no gills? Oceanic mammals typically aren’t at risk of drowning, as they can easily float for hours at a time and hold their breath for crazy lengths, too.

17

NinDiGu t1_iuc7kyo wrote

> hold their breath for crazy lengths

Not really. Humans can hold their breath as long as dolphins.

Turtles drown routinely from running out of oxygen. As do marine animals.

Living in the ocean is safer for ocean living surface breathing animals because they are thermally adapted, and a good measure of airway protection so that when they are at the surface they are not drowned by water in their throat (this is what drowns humans) but surface breathers live at the same knife edge as humans do it in the water, and can drown just as quickly if they are kept from the surface.

1

willie_caine t1_iudr6uq wrote

>Humans can hold their breath as long as dolphins.

Eeeeeeh not to be that guy but on average, dolphins can hold their breaths for 8-10 minutes. Humans are closer to 2 minutes tops, some as low as 30 seconds, and that's not including people who just freak out when their heads are submerged...

2

NinDiGu t1_iudygxn wrote

The only people who can only hold their breath for two minutes are people who have never practiced it.

Ask a free dive instructor about how long it takes a classroom of average students to learn to hold their breath for more than two minutes even when they max out at 10-20 seconds their first try.

We are talking about capabilities here, and dolphins do not have the deep diving abilities that whales and sea lions and elephant seals do.

They have about the same capabilities as humans.

0

willie_caine t1_iue6wdi wrote

But we're talking average people vs. average dolphins...

2

NinDiGu t1_iuet6d0 wrote

You are. I am talking about the capabilities of the species

Dolphins are in motion they entire lives even when they are asleep.

For most of human existence until we started exploiting fossil fuel to become WALL-E human tubs of lard, we exercised at least 8 hours a day.

−1

IceNein t1_iub0bvo wrote

Well there’s also the fact that berry has a botanical definition and a culinary definition. It’s the same deal with vegetables that are fruits.

It’s comparing apples and oranges, for example there is no horticultural definition of vegetable. So botanically there is no such thing as a vegetable.

13

zachzsg t1_iuc6nsa wrote

I’ve always just viewed vegetables as the plant itself. If you’re eating the actual plant you’re eating a vegetable. If you’re eating the product of a plant you’re eating a fruit. Not very scientific but works for me lol

−1

SeiCalros t1_iubm14i wrote

its not necessarily just layman speak - theyre culinary terms as well

like fruit and vegetable are culinary terms - but fruit also has a biological definition that includes many vegetables and excludes many fruits

5

Deracination t1_iub5uiv wrote

I always go with descriptive grammar with things like this. Language is just a way to group ideas to communicate them more efficiently. The way we need to do this is context-dependant; a botanist doesn't care much how things taste, and a chef doesn't care much how things reproduce. Thus, they use different language, and that's good.

3

Tyraels_Might t1_iubiaiu wrote

Instead of a officially science, you might phrase it as agreed-upon science convention. I say this because officially tends to give authority or credence to the content that follows. The word berry could have been defined to represent something else entirely, but it represents what it does in Biology by convention.

1

NinDiGu t1_iuc73r6 wrote

Add trees, crabs, jellyfish, and nuts to that list.

0