Birds are a clade of dinosaurs ( a child group). In exactly the same way, dinosaurs are a clade of reptiles. So by extension, birds are a clade of reptiles.
I think they were pointing out the structural issue with your statement. They info you are attempting to convey is correct. Your ability to do so is questionable.
I’m not sure what is structurally wrong with that statement. Birds are dinosaurs (most people know this by now). Using the exact same logic, dinosaurs are reptiles as well.
Reptile ? You mean dino
If birds are dinos, then dinos are reptiles, and therefore birds are reptiles
?
Birds are a clade of dinosaurs ( a child group). In exactly the same way, dinosaurs are a clade of reptiles. So by extension, birds are a clade of reptiles.
You and I are also walking fish.
I think they were pointing out the structural issue with your statement. They info you are attempting to convey is correct. Your ability to do so is questionable.
I’m not sure what is structurally wrong with that statement. Birds are dinosaurs (most people know this by now). Using the exact same logic, dinosaurs are reptiles as well.
a= “birds are dinos”
b= “dinos are reptiles”
c= “birds are reptiles”
Structure: If a then b, therefore c
a does not imply b without an additional statement (which we can assume from the rest would be “because birds are reptiles”)
You’ve basically just said birds are reptiles because birds are reptiles
I see. Thank you you for that explanation. I was letting inference do some heavy lifting. (and yes, I’m not a great communicator)
But fish don’t exist.
We’re worms too!