[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

File: 555 KB, 1000x500, arthropod-trio.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15670463 No.15670463 [Reply] [Original]

Why are insects considered 'animals'? I get it makes it easier to identify, but it just feels wierd lumping them in the word animals along with dogs, whales or birds.

>> No.15670484

they belong to the kingdom animalia, having a certain degree of shared ancestry with the rest of the species in this classification

>> No.15670488

That's not a reason, that's just the scientific classification.

I should say that when considering linguistics it doesn't make sense why they should be considered animals, considering they are so different biologically to other entities that people call animals.

>> No.15670541

Because they move

>> No.15670551

maybe if you consider that humans are not animals, it starts to make sense.

>> No.15670596

Why wouldn't they be? Dogs, whales, and birds are a pretty narrow selection of animals. All amniote tetrapods. Animalia also includes things like worms and jellyfish and coral. Insects are practically our brothers by comparison.

>> No.15670605

Creature is the word you're looking for. It must have fallen out of fashion because it was too sovlfull for normies. They only care about concrete categories.

>> No.15670608

If it makes it easier for you, call them inverts. That's how I do it in the aquarium hobby. I love inverts btw

>> No.15670625
File: 259 KB, 1201x601, 5ac397e3ff241a45468b4876.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15670661

Animal cells

>> No.15670664

Bacteria are animals

>> No.15671375

This makes the most sense.
Animal->mammals, also including avians and aquatic life possibly
Creature->generic; anything non-human

>> No.15671420

Man this thread is full of retards. Any member of the Animalia kingdom is an animal, which includes humans, and birds aren't mammals. All of you should have learned this in highschool biology and all of you should be ashamed for being inattentive in your studies and shitting up this board.

>> No.15671467

I could care less about scientific classifications, linguistically it makes zero sense calling insects 'animals'. Your average person in real life does not use that word to describe insects.

>> No.15671477

Well they aren't plants? What else are you gonna call them, minerals?

>> No.15671478

You are a special kind of stupid. Insects are a subset of animals. If you don't care about scientific classifications then what possessed you to come to /sci/ and create a garbage thread? Be less of a retard or fuck off.

>> No.15671675

Creature or just insects.
I'm not saying that the classification is wrong or stupid, just that it doesn't line up with how people use the term animal.

And anyway I made the thread to ask why scientists consider insects animals, which I'm still waiting on. If you're so smart you should be able to answer without acting like an idiot yourself.

>> No.15671689
File: 498 KB, 690x953, mxq2dry1amf61.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Get a load of this retard

>> No.15671695
File: 234 KB, 1080x1538, Screenshot_20230817_173210_Samsung Internet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>linguistically it makes zero sense calling insects 'animals'.
linguistically speaking, you are wrong.

>> No.15671701

would you be happier if we called them lifeforms you sperg?

>> No.15671707

Show me an insect that breathes, then.

>> No.15671710

they respirate. your vocabulary is amateurish and unscientific

>> No.15671711

they are not animals as in the english word animal used in everyday speech
but they are animals as in the scientific word animal that people use in science, but is not actually the meaning used in everyday speech even though know it alls like to tell you you're wrong if you say that some things aren't animals (like people which are their own distinct class in the english language)

>> No.15671714

Mate you are actually the wrong one, learn english, and not just from a science book.

>> No.15671722
File: 24 KB, 396x257, first-impressions.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Behold! An Animal!

>> No.15671724

>etymology is the meaning of a word
guess girl means 'young person of any gender' now

>> No.15671771
File: 84 KB, 828x933, F3NeZvzXwAApund.jpeg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Linguistically speaking yes. The meaning is in the realm of philosophy so not relevant to r claim

>> No.15671775

are you a girl then

>> No.15671785

They require oxygen to live but do not exhale co2.

>> No.15671846
File: 70 KB, 792x612, animal_kingdom_chart72.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Spiders aren't insects but belong to the Arachnids group, you moron.

>> No.15671887

That's because people are retarded.

>I made the thread to ask why scientists consider insects animals
Are you stupid? Didn't you pay any attention in school? Are you aware that google is free? Read this and stop wasting everyone's time.

>> No.15671893

You might be the dumbest person ITT

>> No.15672042

wash your ass

>> No.15672053

This: they are animated. Hence "animal"

>> No.15672067

Real answer: animal comes from the root anima which means soul. In aristotelian philosophy anything that moved itself was ensouled.

>> No.15672207

But enough about you.

>> No.15672513

No one said they are insects, anon...

>> No.15672533

You are the retard who can't read as all those people clearly KNOW that insects are currently categorized as animals, they just have issues with that classification schema that you apparently didn't even seem to understand, so can't seem to address their issues.

>> No.15672545

OP implied it by having a picture of a spider while complaining about insects.

>> No.15672549

Insects are more like biological drones/robots.

>> No.15672551

Not a coincidence

>> No.15672578

Their issues are banal and retarded. Just like you, actually.

>> No.15672593

No, your explanation is banal and retarded.
>They are animals because they just are, ok.

>> No.15672680

Yes because OP made that image and didn't just grab a random picture off of google

>> No.15672689

That has nothing to do with OP's decision to use it as a thread about insects, if OP didn't need to be corrected, he would have grabbed a random picture of insects to use in the first place, that is the complaint here, not whether OP made the image, but why OP made the image one used for a thread about insects.

>> No.15672693

All consciousness is the same, it's just biochemical reactions bro

>> No.15672751

> Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and multicellular.[12] Unlike plants and algae, which produce their own nutrients,[13] animals are heterotrophic,[14][15] feeding on organic material and digesting it internally.[16] With very few exceptions, animals respire aerobically.[a][18] All animals are motile[19] (able to spontaneously move their bodies) during at least part of their life cycle, but some animals, such as sponges, corals, mussels, and barnacles, later become sessile. The blastula is a stage in embryonic development that is unique to animals, allowing cells to be differentiated into specialised tissues and organs.

they are multicellular organisms who aren't plants or fungi

>> No.15673143

That's taxonomy, which is just as arbitrary, not the topic they're talking about which is the divisions present in languages/cultures.

>> No.15673205

See if you can figure it out for yourself. Try pretending you aren't a drooling retard that wasted everyone's time.


>> No.15673211

If you want to discuss silly bullshit that has nothing to do with science or reality then fuck off. This is the math and science board.


>> No.15673212
File: 125 KB, 128x128, 1670585915546304.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is the dumbest fucking thread this board has seen in the past month. Including all of the LK-99 shit and the usual /pol/baiting.

>why is this called an animal when it's not like other animals?
>Because it fits the definition of an animal.
>But that's just because of how you define animals!
What makes your definition of an animal somehow more valid than the current one, and why is "chordate" or the like not good enough for you?

>> No.15673324

>question the reason behind a fact
>NPC's brain short-circuits and just keeps reciting the fact more and more angrily

>> No.15673331

interestingly, some scientists believe starfish are closer to chordata

I think there is a stage in the fetal development which is not seen in other kingdoms

>> No.15673337

>plants produce their own nutrients
That isn't even true. They pull in nutrients from the soil.

>> No.15673431

They eat, sleep, fuck, fight, and breath and shit.

>> No.15673444

I forgot how much sugar is in dirt. I guess I'll move my plants out of the sunlight so they don't overeat.

>> No.15673449

>retard who doesn't know what an animal is doubles down on being a retard

>> No.15673480

>nutrients = sugar

Are you suggesting that plants don't receive external nutrients from the dirt they're planted in?

>> No.15673488

In this context nutrients are molecules that you can extract energy from. The fact that plants need calcium doesn't mean they are not autotrophs. You should have learned this in high school.

>> No.15673505

>when plants absorb nitrogen through their roots in order to grow that doesn't count as nutrition because... because it just doesn't, okay?!

>> No.15673508

That's just how English works. You can call an insect an insect or a bug or an animal.

>> No.15673632

you answered your own question. Linguistically they are not animals. They are only animals in the narrow sense of biological classification. Just like humans are not animals in anything other than a narrow biological materialist framework

>> No.15673637

It isn't. You just don't know what linguistics is. This thread is a clash between scientific terminology and vernacular terminology. If you cannot realize that, and instead pass the thread off as stupid, that's a problem you yourself have, not the person who made this thread.

>> No.15673642

>scientific terminology
They're animals because they're in Animalia.
>vernacular terminology
They're animals because they move around, breathe, eat stuff, fuck, etc.

Still see no reason why "vertebrate" does not suffice for the latter if you want to exclude all of the creepy crawlies.

>> No.15673645

I'm neither of those anons. The linguistic problem is on your end. In vulgar English, we call an ant an insect, an animal, a creepy-crawly, whatever we feel like.

>> No.15673673

It's not whatever we feel like, semantic categories are bound by rules, rules that don't always fit with scientific classification.
You can call an ant a bug, because it fits into the semantic category of bug in vernacular english. Though this may vary by dialect.

>> No.15673686

What rule do you imagine where people don't call insects animals? We certainly do. We call them animals, beasts, little beasties, and so on. Your "rule" is insular to you and whatever tiny neighborhood of English you grew up in.

>> No.15673701

If you do, that's your dialect mate. If you come to my county you won't find that. Don't make universals about it.

>> No.15673708

That's what I said. What else is a county but a more or less tiny neighborhood. You're the one making unversals and claiming that your neighborhood rule somehow applies to a generic English "vernacular."

>> No.15673710

How much energy do they get from nitrogen? You might as well be saying that you can live on multivitamins alone because calories are irrelevant.

>> No.15673715

The board for discussing fiction is over there >>>/lit/

>> No.15673721

it's obviously not, since if you go to wiktionary, it gives two formal definitions based on Animalia, then it gives a colloquial definition based on land-living vertebrates. Which is the vernacular meaning.

>> No.15673722

linguistics is more rigorous than most of the fields discussed on this board.

>> No.15673723

they're invertebrate animals, distant from their vertebrate counterparts, but still closer than they both are to plants or fungi or other lifeforms.
either way, how you call them do not change what they are. if you call a dog a cat, it is still a dog, and not a cat. same thing if you call a man a woman, it is still just a man.

>> No.15673727

The fact that your colloquialism is explicitly designated as a colloquialism isn't the argument you were looking for,

>> No.15673730

Yes it is, that's what vernacular is. It's not a scientific definition. It's the definition used in everyday speech unrelated to scientific disciplines.

>> No.15673739

By you and by the people in your dialectical neighborhood who share your colloquialisms. The fact that "bad" can be colloquially applied to something you like doesn't mean it's not commonly applied to things people don't like.

>> No.15673743

Lol no.

>> No.15673746

You sound like my boomer dad. Do you not know what a cell is?

>> No.15673756

Mate, read the entry. There's a scientific definition (not vernacular and contained to science and scientific discussion), a strict version of that very same scientific definition, and then the rest of the definitions are free from such restraints which mean they appear in all other contexts.
Example of a context: A couple is walking in the park and see a bug. This context is not a scientific one, therefore the only definition on that page they could use to refer to the bug as an animal is the sixth one, which could also be applied to a rock.
For a fox however, they can use the 3rd definition, and differentiate it from bugs and rocks.
The clash between vernacular and scientific vocabulary is the entire point of the argument. If you cannot identify that clash, it is your problem. If you can and choose to ignore it, that's also your problem.

>> No.15673765

Lol yes.

>> No.15673779

No, the problem is that you're taking a colloquialism to restrict common English when its function is to expand common English.

>> No.15673845

I have never heard of "animal" being used colloquially to refer only to some subset like chordates. It's perfectly natural to call worms, or bees, or jellyfish animals.

>> No.15673851

I guess the one thing is that people are sometimes surprised that sessile animals are animals. But that's still more like "Dude, WTF, sponges are animals? Weird." than an actual denial that they are animals.

>> No.15673857

Calories are a faulty measurement to begin with, it's just how much heat energy food gives off when it's literally burned in a flame, and digestion doesn't work like that at all. Animals are not steam engines, animal stomachs are not furnaces. Animals take in substances that get broken down and used as building blocks to create and restore organs and systems and so on. Saying food gives "energy" in the form of "calories" is a complete misrepresentation of the process to begin with. Taking in protein that is then used to grow or rebuild muscle is no different from a plant taking in elements from the soil and using them to grow or rebuild leaves, branches, and buds.

>> No.15673858

My wife had never heard of "skeet" as a colloquialism for semen. (But I agree with your point.)

>> No.15673869

Try living without ingesting any calories and get back to me. Maybe you'll learn to make your own food like plants.

>> No.15673872


>> No.15673876

Try living by eating 2-3k calories of everything except protein.
Try living by eating 2-3k calories of everything except fat.
Try living by eating 2-3k calories of only pure protein and fat with zero micronutrients.
Food doesn't nourish you by burning out general heat energy in a furnace fire, its constituent parts are chemically broken down and utilized in specific, often non-interchangeable ways.

>> No.15673884

Not him but one of your scenarios has a caveat that isn't related to eating 2-3k calories of everything except carbohydrates.

>> No.15673903

Humans are capable of gluconeogenesis and can survive without carbohydrate intake by synthesizing all the carbohydrates they need from other carbon sources.

>> No.15673910

You are missing the point so hard that it almost makes me feel bad for you. Why don't you just read these pages? Remember, in this context 'food' and 'nutrition' is what you get your energy from. Not the other substances that your body needs to grow and rebuild itself.


>> No.15673913

Yes, and the parallel you drew glosses over that.

>> No.15673919


insects maybe evolved from round worms 700 million years ago

700 million years ago: sea-roundworm
660 million years ago: sea spider
630 million years ago: sea scorpion
610 million years ago: lobster
550 million years ago: fairy shrimps
400 million years ago: somehow oceanic pill-bug had made a landing
also 400 million years ago: sea-scorpion made a landing

330 million years ago: pillbugs had turned into flying insects (dragonfly was the first) and also into centipedes wihch seem to be also insects but they went through somekind of massive mutation changing their body plan

also 330 million years ago: sea-scorpion had turned into land scorpion, land spider, harvestmen and a few other obscure arachnids, sharing last common ancestor with insects 300 million years earlier

so while spiders and insects look like they are cousins, they have actually evolved separate from each other for about 600 million years

in a sense, spider is as far from an insect as it is from a human (humankind started as a primitive vertebrate sea worm 660 million years ago, this worm had been separated from insect worms sometime earlier and never again interbred with insect)

>> No.15673921

They have the same kind of cells as other animals

>> No.15673927

>610 million years ago: lobster
Huh? Did lobsters evolve before the cambrian?

>> No.15673929

so do a few single celled organisms

but plant cell and fungal cell is different from animal cell

>> No.15673932

There is no "getting energy" in such a general sense. Your stomach is not a furnace, your body does not run on heat. Everything your body does is expending chemical resources and replenishing chemical resources.

Why does that matter? What point are you trying to make here? All I did was provide 3 examples of situations where you could take in the appropriate number of calories and still become ill or die from malnutrition.

>> No.15673934

it seems so

it wasnt the exact same lobster we see today but it looked very similar but it didnt have well developed legs (or maybe the legs did not fossilize)

>> No.15673935

>so do a few single celled organisms
Those aren't multicelled so not animals (I think)

>but plant cell and fungal cell is different from animal cell
Yes, that's why they are divided in kingdoms

>> No.15673944

Samefagging just to add: The wikipedia article you linked literally says plants can be heterotrophs so this isn't a hard division between plants and animals in the first place.
>Living organisms that are heterotrophic include all animals and fungi, some bacteria and protists,[5] and many parasitic plants.

>> No.15673951

I thought by that time there were only the weirdos of the Edicaran fauna, where did you read about lobster evolution?

>> No.15673964

Fine. It's pointless to argue about whether your examples implied something you didn't mean them to imply.

>> No.15673970

>There is no "getting energy" in such a general sense
Yes there is. Are you trying to imply living things are some kind of perpetual motion machines that only need repairs and no energy inputs?

>> No.15673974

I don't understand which part of this is so difficult for you to understand. Are you even trying?

>There is no "getting energy" in such a general sense.
Retarded statement. Life requires energy and gets it from it's food. Plants make their own food.

>The wikipedia article you linked literally says plants can be heterotrophs so this isn't a hard division between plants and animals in the first place.
Nobody said there was a hard division and there are like 5 species of plants in the whole world that don't photosynthesize.

Again, this is all covered in high school biology. You should already know all of this. Which part exactly is giving you trouble?