• nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month 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
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month 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
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month 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
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month 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
    66
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

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

  • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 month 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
      2
      ·
      1 month 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
        2
        ·
        1 month 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.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s not really how it works. Going from one food chain level to another you lose about 90% of the energy like:

        Plants - photosynthesize 100% of solar energy available

        Herbivores - eat the plants, losing about 90% of the total energy in the process of breaking it down and making it usable.

        Carnivores - eat another animal, losing another 90% aka (1% of total energy)

        Plus, consider that photosynthesis is capable of creating all the sugars and that we can convert sugars into fats and proteins and stuff using biological processes (this is essentially why plants need nitrogen and phosphorous to grow, but the generally get that from the soil and really don’t need a lot.

      • TheDoctor [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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
          ·
          1 month 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.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s a “crash cymbal”, by the way. Pronunciation is very similar, but it’s a different word.

  • sploosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Another fun fact is the Yellow Trumpet pitcher plant’s (sarracenia flava) flowers smell like cat pee.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 month 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.