as funny as it is to say, "theres's no such thing as a fish" is not actually true
"science doesn't know what a fish is" is really not true
"fish" is not a monophyletic category. there is no common ancestor of everything that we call a "fish," and none of the things that we don't
"fish" is a paraphyletic category -- and a useful one! marine biologists use it! "fish" describes a general body plan and lifestyle. it is useful to be able to talk about coelacanths and tuna in a shared category, though coelacanths are more closely related to us than to tuna.
where this bugs me is the repetition of the idea that "scientists" are hidebound and uncreative, unable to comprehend anything that doesn't conform to a specific idea of categorization -- when this is fundamentally untrue! we know perfectly well what a "fish" is. the fact that it's a paraphyletic group is only confounding to pop science, as a funny factoid, not to anyone who actually understands what a paraphyletic group is.
As someone who works with aerial imagery, I've seen a lot of pictures of bizarre interchanges. This has to be one of my all-time favorites.
This is a 3-level stacked interchange. The bottom level is an interstate. The top level is the local road that crosses the interstate. The middle level is a TRAFFIC CIRCLE.
At least it looks like they put in a pedestrian bridge as a (probably very expensive) afterthought.
i love the 18th/19th century use of the word "exploded" to mean "debunked" cause theyll say stuff in fankystine like "cornelius agrippa's theories were exploded long ago!" and i just imagine a bunch of scientists going up to cornelius agrippa and saying hey man. your theories are wrong and stupid and they suck. and then they kill him with bombs and guns and dynamite and fire and