What is this "there no fish" thing? The blog link takes to a British show.

All fish are not phylogenetically correlated:

Things became fish multiple times independently.

There is no "first fish from which all fish derived".

Phylogenetic existence refers to the evolutionary history and relationships of a species as represented in a phylogenetic tree. This tree is a diagram that depicts the lines of evolutionary descent of different species, organisms, or genes from a common ancestor.

So monkeys are phylogenetically related, because all monkeys that we know have common ancestors.

Fish came to be multiple times independently. Being a fish, a tree, or a crab is a strategy, not a species.

Which is ironic because we call it the "tree of life", but it should be "forest of life" (but since life originated in the sea, it should be the "sea of life"), since trees don't have a single phylogenetic root: There wasn't a "first tree that all trees descend from": Things became trees independent of one another, because being treelike is beneficial early on, much like being fishlike and crablike.

Cladistically you can decide:

a) There are fish. Sharks are fish. Trout are fish. So therefore humans are fish as we are more related to trout than we are to sharks. This is basically saying that "fish" is roughly the same as "any vertebrate" or "any vertebrate with teeth" (depending on where you draw the line).

or

b) There is no such thing as a fish. There are THREE things: sharks/rays, ray finned fishes, and lobed finned fishes (which includes humans)

That's the joke in the name of the British show.

It says in the wikipedia article that the quote comes from the show.

Edit: Removed.

I would delete but I can't, because there's a reply now.