Now we just need to bio-engineer them to grow larger stems, so that they could catch larger flies. And voila - natural (and pretty) fly paper!
what could go wrong, right?
New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
51–60 of 108 posts
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, the Andromeda Strain should also teach to not so quickly use fire.
Wow, yes. It's been too long since I've read that book. It was very formative for me when I read it in school long ago, and at least twice more since, but it has to have been nearly 20 years. Have you happened to read the recent sequel, and if so how was it? I was kind of put off of Crichton by his later works after the original Jurassic Park (as usual, better than the movie) I know the sequel was not completely Crig…
Sorry, never read that, but I've seen 2 different screen adaptations of Andromeda Strain, and neither of them would be considered "good". The most recent version was made for TV, so not as large of a budget as a true feature and more disappointing that it wasn't better than it was for being the redo.
However, since this is carneverous plant stuff, if they start getting too big for their britches, we can use dandruff shampoo according to sily scifi plot lines instead of fire. That way it won't get out of control. The lastly, since we're not sure the effect of fire, it might be best to just take off and nuke it from orbit.
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#53[deleted]
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#54Interesting that they started with data. Some of the most interesting discoveries I've made have started with me saying "that's weird" while looking at data. From the article: "Graham's team was doing an unrelated project on plant genetics and noticed that the western false asphodel had a genetic deletion that's sometimes seen in carnivorous plants. The researchers started to think about the fact that this flower gre…
When you figure out a library by reading the source.
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both lead to common biases - the former in fraudulent experimentation, the latter (your suggestion) in fraudulent data snooping and anecdotal case-finding. Both have their merits done correctly, however, but the latter is only possible because of the former - the data has to come from somewhere, and experimentation was how it was historically done... since there wasn't a global database upon instantiation of the plan…
IANAPOSE (I am not a philosophy of science expert) but I think a happy medium is to observe, collect data, and look for things that are interesting, and then perform properly formulate experiments to test those hypotheses. I think that focusing on either side alone can lead to biases and problematic science, and focusing on both is actually the most "fun"
Both center around observation for all definitions of the word. Before we had microscopes or MRI machines, we still have those but we now have powerful statistical machines called ML models. In all cases though, we need perceive the world.
You can't see what do you don't look for.
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#56[deleted]
[deleted]
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#57I like the technique of testing if it was carnivorous. For the lazy people, they put a nitrogen isotope inside fruitflies and then tested the plant later to see if it was absorbing the nitrogen, and it was.
This sounds like an incomplete test. What was the control? Did they try sticking fruit flies to the stems of known non-carnivore plant?
What's the test for a "known non-carnivore plant"?
If it absorbs half it's nitrogen from insects that get stuck to the stem…
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've long felt that the American school system's version of the scientific method (formulate hypothesis, run experiment, collect data, draw conclusions) is totally wrong and turns people off of science. The real procedure that we should teach kids is: collect data, ask questions about it, hypothesize some answers, and only then do a experiment to test your theory. The question formulation, based on observational evid…
Both lead to common biases - the former in fraudulent experimentation, the latter (your suggestion) in fraudulent data snooping and anecdotal case-finding. Both have their merits done correctly, however, but the latter is only possible because of the former - the data has to come from somewhere, and experimentation was how it was historically done... since there wasn't a global database upon instantiation of the plan…
I argue that there is no such thing as formulating a hypothesis with no prior knowledge. We all have prior observations - hypotheses don't appear out of nowhere.
In this respect I think GP's comment is admirable - it means teaching kids to use their experiences to formulate hypotheses, rather than forcing them to guess what you want them to formulate.
(As an aside, I set out to comment here because I tire of the point that XYZ can be done incorrectly... Everything can be - it's not very interesting - I wish we could discuss less about that, more about new things to do correctly.)
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#59Now we just need to bio-engineer them to grow larger stems, so that they could catch larger flies. And voila - natural (and pretty) fly paper!
"I suspect that there might be more carnivorous plants out there than we think."
Now we just need to bio-engineer them to ...
Somehow I'm sensing the onset of something that might have once been the plot of a Hollywood blockbuster.... or an episode of Doctor Who.
Re: New carnivorous plant discovered in Pacific Northwest
#60I've got a specimen of one of these preserved in a photoalbum from a school project from 10 years ago or so. There was no idea at the time these were in any way carnivorous. For all our knowledge, there really is so much about all the other life around us we just don't understand.
Agree. We tend to believe that most of the important stuff has already been discovered. What if it's the opposite? Hasn't it always been the opposite - Why should it be different now?