@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • edit-222 days agoWILD Jellyfish Gangmander.xyzimagemessage-square70fedilinkarrow-up1752arrow-down16
arrow-up1746arrow-down1imageWILD Jellyfish Gangmander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • edit-222 days agomessage-square70fedilink
minus-squareNoSpiritAnimallinkfedilinkEnglish55•edit-220 days agoThere is a species of jellyfish which is functionally immortal. When they get too old they simply turn into children again and re-age. Edit: I’m not saying it’s not biologically immortal, I’m saying functionally immortal because I’m indicating that it can still be killed. Saying something doesn’t experience aging is not the same as insisting it cannot die. 2+2=4 is not less correct because 2x2 also equals 4.
minus-square@hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglish16•21 days ago functionally immortal Biologically immortal is the term you were looking for
minus-squareNoSpiritAnimallinkfedilinkEnglish-14•21 days agoNo, I meant functionally. As in practically. For all intents and purposes. As in under normal conditions. It’s like if I said “You meant ‘searching for’ and not ‘looking for’”, when looking indicates visual searching. In other words it’s a meaningless distinction in the usage and I would look like a real dickhead pedant if I insisted you use another word.
minus-square@hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglish20•21 days agoBiological immortality is the term for what you were describing. The fact that I politely pointed it out and linked a relevant Wikipedia article of the topic doesn’t warrant you to get insulted and call me a dickhead
minus-squareNoSpiritAnimallinkfedilinkEnglish-17•edit-220 days agoThere is a functional difference between being pedantic about the word “functionally” and supplying relevant information. My comment indicates that the animal can still die, your comment indicates it doesn’t age. Do you see the meaningless distinction?
minus-squareNoSpiritAnimallinkfedilinkEnglish-1•20 days agoNo, my point with “functionally” is that it can be killed. Biological immortality is a very specific concept indicating an absence of aging and the absence of an increase in expected mortality along with age. I just mean that something can still eat it. This is an easy concept to understand if you’re not focused on correcting people needlessly.
minus-square@Hackworth@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish1•20 days agoI was just being a smartass, but I appreciate your commitment to clear communication.
minus-square@fsxylo@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish27•21 days agoThen they’ll be unfunctionally immortal.
minus-square@fsxylo@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish6•21 days agoThey will be aerodynamically immortal.
minus-square@fsxylo@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish3•20 days agoThen they will be comfortably immortal.
minus-square@shawnofthedead_@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglish1•20 days agoWhat if they are fans of Evanescence?
minus-square@prole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglish8•21 days agoI came here to say this… that shit is insane.
minus-square@LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish4•edit-220 days agoSort of like humans, but we turn into children again and die. Can’t say we don’t try tho.
There is a species of jellyfish which is functionally immortal. When they get too old they simply turn into children again and re-age.
Edit: I’m not saying it’s not biologically immortal, I’m saying functionally immortal because I’m indicating that it can still be killed.
Saying something doesn’t experience aging is not the same as insisting it cannot die.
2+2=4 is not less correct because 2x2 also equals 4.
Biologically immortal is the term you were looking for
No, I meant functionally. As in practically. For all intents and purposes. As in under normal conditions.
It’s like if I said “You meant ‘searching for’ and not ‘looking for’”, when looking indicates visual searching.
In other words it’s a meaningless distinction in the usage and I would look like a real dickhead pedant if I insisted you use another word.
Biological immortality is the term for what you were describing. The fact that I politely pointed it out and linked a relevant Wikipedia article of the topic doesn’t warrant you to get insulted and call me a dickhead
There is a functional difference between being pedantic about the word “functionally” and supplying relevant information.
My comment indicates that the animal can still die, your comment indicates it doesn’t age.
Do you see the meaningless distinction?
No, it’s “biologically.”
No, my point with “functionally” is that it can be killed.
Biological immortality is a very specific concept indicating an absence of aging and the absence of an increase in expected mortality along with age.
I just mean that something can still eat it. This is an easy concept to understand if you’re not focused on correcting people needlessly.
I was just being a smartass, but I appreciate your commitment to clear communication.
What if they get eated
Then they’ll be unfunctionally immortal.
What if they get yeeted?
They will be aerodynamically immortal.
What if they get seated?
Then they will be comfortably immortal.
What if they are fans of Evanescence?
Then they’re My Immortal.
This is what I mean by functionally.
I came here to say this… that shit is insane.
Sort of like humans, but we turn into children again and die. Can’t say we don’t try tho.
Fantastic.