First it misunderstands my question, which was where can I find more info about his idea.
Second, it quotes Wikipedia back to me, which is easy, but doesn't give me a reference to the idea because Wikipedia also doesn't do that.
Third, it misunderstands the idea itself. There are no fish phylogenetically speaking has nothing to do with the fact that some fish can breath air, it has to do with the disconnect between attributes of animals and their position on the evolution tree.
What is this "there no fish" thing? The blog link takes to a British show.
Edit: Removed.
I would delete but I can't, because there's a reply now.
Was this written by an LLM?
First it misunderstands my question, which was where can I find more info about his idea.
Second, it quotes Wikipedia back to me, which is easy, but doesn't give me a reference to the idea because Wikipedia also doesn't do that.
Third, it misunderstands the idea itself. There are no fish phylogenetically speaking has nothing to do with the fact that some fish can breath air, it has to do with the disconnect between attributes of animals and their position on the evolution tree.
Sorry for commenting, I guess. I was just excited to share something I knew.
I deleted my reply as much as I could.
In the future, you might want to ask your question a little more clearly, or else you risk being misunderstood again.