• nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      People tend to have a really hard time understanding evolution, and attribute human characteristics to it.

      • modifier@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Which I think is really fine for casual internet conversation. It’s not even attributing human characteristics, just mis-characterizing what is happening. But it’s a useful way to short hand it, especially if the discussion is more about the result than the process.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yeah, there’s absolutely nothing about the wording of this post that indicates they actually believe “it’s learning” as opposed to just using quite a common shorthand. Calling that out is the laziest, most bad-faith type of “um, actually” behaviour IMO.

          • Ephera@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Personally, I’m not a fan of these shorthands, because I’ve seen many people (including me when growing up) make some pretty glaring logical errors based on them. And particularly with creationists also existing, I’m really wary of people thinking it’s an intelligent process.

  • Xantar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I mean if you kill your pollinators you’re not going to reproduce, so that makes sense the genes survived.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Get that randomized “trial and error” crap out of here. Everyone knows nobody and nothing ever uses trial and error, because it can’t deliver results.

      • workerONE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Genetic mutation is always occurring. It’s not trial and error, there is no intent to do anything. You make it sound like a function but it seems like more of a failure to me.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Evolution works like a tree’s structure branches over time. That’s why it’s always animated like that. It is NOT that everything gets expressed and then gets tested. It is that the current thing “alive” is changing. It seems crazy now only because you’re seeing the veeeeerry complicated leaves at the ends of very complicated branches. Branches that have mostly ended by now.

        You know what happens to animals with unsurvivable mutations? They die. All the time. Even humans with unsurvivable mutations happen ALL THE TIME.

        That’s why it’s ridiculous to outlaw abortion: Bad things randomly happen all the time, because it’s a complicated process with LOTS of areas that can go wrong. It goes wrong all the time. The body has mechanisms to fix a lot of “wrongness”, but macro-level bad stuff still happens all the time.

        The same thing happens on a species level over many survivable generations.

        It IS basically “trial and error”, but trial and error in a VERY complicated and dynamic system after a very, very long time, currently stemming from the complicated results of that system.

        You cannot dismiss the system just because one aspect confuses you when removed from context…

  • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    Also, the energy to make that flower is an enormous strain on the plant. Usually, growing that flower causes most or all of the carnivorous leaves to die, and therefore often growing that flower spells the death of the plant.

    • maeries@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Interesting. I would imagine that the plant has a lot of energy since insects are way more rich in nutrients than light and water, no?

      • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The specific nutrients it gets from the bugs are nitrogen and phosphorus, which plants normally absorb through their roots. It evolved carnivory to compensate for the poor soil in its native habitat instead of developing its roots like other plants in the area, so it can’t pick up the nutritional slack with its atrophied roots.

        In addition, every time a leaf closes and tries to digest what it caught, it uses a lot of energy. Flowering always is a big strain on a small plant, no matter what species, so when this strain is introduced the number of carnivorous leaves becomes a difficult risk/reward calculation, and plants are not known for cleverness.

      • batmaniam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        We’re used to getting our energy and building blocks from our food. Plants get their energy from the sun, and their building blocks from the air (CO2). They get water and some minerals, but a plant is made up off solidified air. It’s like if you could be solar powered living off just air, water, and an occasional multi-vitamin.

        Anyway, carnivores don’t really get energy from their prey, just the nutrients. It’s like self fertilizing.

      • TheDoctor [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Just a random guess, but I could see the argument that it would reduce crash bleed into the rest of the kit. It might make it easier to mix the main kit more tightly. But if that’s the case, then why leave the hihat low? It might just be a stylistic thing or it might be for the drummer to remember to not ride the crash. I dunno. It’s certainly not standard. They’re the only ones I’ve seen do it on such a small kit.

        Edit: I just realized it’s probably up so high so the drummer doesn’t accidentally kill their pollinators

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          But if that’s the case, then why leave the hihat low

          Because the hihat is probably being accessed far more frequently, which both means it doesn’t really need to be separated from the “main kit” in the mix as much (it is part of the main kit!), and means that the ergonomics of making the drummer play that way would have a much bigger impact on their drumming.

  • Chef_Boyardee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    I had an idea once to make a travel pack sized blanket for air travel.

    Venus Flight Wraps

  • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    It started as a flowering plant. As it got some early carnivorous genes, if it killed the pollinators it would not reproduce.

    It slowly turned into the terrifying plant we know and love.

    • sploosh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Before it got jaws it was a glue trap. Venus flytraps are an evolutionary offshoot of Drosera, the sundews.