I get what they try to say. But it’s just funny that they correct a statement with another wrong statement.
There are animals that inhabit shells, like a Hermit crab. This is different.
What part of the second statement is wrong? A turtle cannot survive without its shell, just like you could not survive without your skull. It is an intrinsic part of what allows it to function as a living organism, therefore the line between “turtle” and “shell” is a bit blurred
You cannot survive without air but you’re not air
I mean yes, no one, human or turtle, can survive without the ecosystem of the earth, so you could really argue that the planet is the true organism and we are simply byproducts of its existence
Yet you won’t argue that you are the earth. Why would you argue that a turtle is the same as a turtle’s shell then?
Where can you really draw the line? Could you survive in space without any air or equipment? Even if you could, where did the equipment and air come from?
Photosynthetic organisms are for all practical purposes part of your lungs
Me needing something doesn’t make that thing me, right? I need the sun to survive but neither the sun is part of me / I am part of the sun. Like, are you your skeleton? What about the other parts that are not bones then?
You can bring extra air and survive just fine.
You can’t bring an extra skull.
Likewise, a hermit crab can bring an extra shell, but a turtle cannot bring an extra shell.
