fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · edit-22 years agoWILD Jellyfish Gangmander.xyzimagemessage-square14linkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageWILD Jellyfish Gangmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · edit-22 years agomessage-square14linkfedilink
minus-squareNoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-22 years 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-squarehemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 years ago functionally immortal Biologically immortal is the term you were looking for
minus-squareNoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 years 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-squarehemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 years 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
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