Nature is wild

calodo2003 said:
Absolutely no idea.
Click to expand...
It's probably something obvious but it looks like a magic trick to me!

I also don't get how the grass can be totally OK despite having been deprived of sunlight by the pollen - except if the pollen had only fallen pretty recently.

So many questions! (Well, two.)
 
Cheimoon said:
It's probably something obvious but it looks like a magic trick to me!

I also don't get how the grass can be totally OK despite having been deprived of sunlight by the pollen - except if the pollen had only fallen pretty recently.

So many questions! (Well, two.)
Click to expand...

From a logical perspective, the pollen is light and highly combustible so it burns away before the green (and wet) grass can start to burn. The pollen likely covers the grass quickly, over a couple of days. Grass is very resilient, as you see in summer it can be dried out and brown but returns to brilliant green with on a little rainfall so a few days like this won't hurt it.

For the trees, the fire moves past so quickly there's not enough time for the bark to ignite. As well, like the grass, the flames are not intense enough due to the lack of flammable material in the fluffy pollen to start a big tree on fire.

Edit: a neat and similar trick you can try yourself is lighting your socks on fire.* Not all socks are compatible with this and from my youth I remember that white tube socks work best. You can light the fuzz of a worn in pair on fire and it will spread and burn out before your foot feels any heat. The sock itself won't start on fire because the burn takes place too quickly. This is a similar principle to what's happening with the pollen and grass.

*You probably shouldn't light your socks on fire. Be safe, not stupid.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Dwayne said:
From a logical perspective, the pollen is light and highly combustible so it burns away before the green (and wet) grass can start to burn. The pollen likely covers the grass quickly, over a couple of days. Grass is very resilient, as you see in summer it can be dried out and brown but returns to brilliant green with on a little rainfall so a few days like this won't hurt it.

For the trees, the fire moves past so quickly there's not enough time for the bark to ignite. As well, like the grass, the flames are not intense enough due to the lack of flammable material in the fluffy pollen to start a big tree on fire.

Edit: a neat and similar trick you can try yourself is lighting your socks on fire.* Not all socks are compatible with this and from my youth I remember that white tube socks work best. You can light the fuzz of a worn in pair on fire and it will spread and burn out before your foot feels any heat. The sock itself won't start on fire because the burn takes place too quickly. This is a similar principle to what's happening with the pollen and grass.

*You probably shouldn't light your socks on fire. Be safe, not stupid.
Click to expand...
I won't try your socks experiment, but thanks for the explanation all the same! That's interesting. :)
 


This is a myosin protein dragging an endorphin along a filament to the inner part of the brain’s parietal cortex. This creates happiness…so we’re literally watching happiness.
 
The Corinthian said:


This is a myosin protein dragging an endorphin along a filament to the inner part of the brain’s parietal cortex. This creates happiness…so we’re literally watching happiness.
Click to expand...

Oh and myocin. Saw a doc 10 years ago showing myocin taking a virus to cell nucleus and went "those things are real!" Little machines inside every cell, so cool.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wqsBegQIBxAE&usg=AOvVaw0IrlPM8NZvqYEkY0QiLjIB
Every scene is so literally awesome your brain can barely keep up. A must watch for all in this thread (a bit ad heavy though)
 
Last edited:


Incidentally, I'm currently watching a new show on the BBC about this: Nature's Misfits, narrated by Bill Bailey, and his narration over this part was identical to David Attenborough's in the show above. Cheeky feckers.
 
Salt Bailly said:


Incidentally, I'm currently watching a new show on the BBC about this: Nature's Misfits, narrated by Bill Bailey, and his narration over this part was identical to David Attenborough's in the show above. Cheeky feckers.
Click to expand...


I quite enjoyed that, despite the premise not really being true which was said at the end. They weren't so much misfits as highly evolutionarily specialised... perhaps too specialised? It makes me wonder if we were seeing the end of an evolutionary road for some of them. I suppose with natural selection that's what happens. We don't see the "misfit" species who've already been eliminated, and some on the planet will always be close to joining them.
 
Wasn’t that where they filmed the final fight scene in the most recent Mission Impossible?
 
Discovered in the deep: is this the world’s longest animal?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-in-the-deep-siphonophore-species-australia

5116.jpg
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Very, very slowly.
Click to expand...
I was thinking it might have been fairly quickly actually. I'm thinking a predecessor might have had random spots for camouflage, and the few specimens where the random spots have a meaningful shape would have had a huge advantage. Given the probably pretty large and short-lived population of those flies (or maybe I'm thinking of fruit flies too much), that might have happened relatively suddenly (in terms of usual evolutionary timelines).

Or not. :)
 
Last edited:
Cheimoon said:
I was thinking it might have been fairly quickly actually. I'm thinking a predecessor might have had random spots for camouflage, and the few specimens where the random spots have a meaningful shape would have had a huge advantage. Given the probably pretty large and short-lived population of those flies (or.maybe I'm thinking of fruit flies too much), that might have happened relatively suddenly (in terms of usual evolutionary timelines).

Or not. :)
Click to expand...
Good point about the life cycles. I always say the secret ingredient with evolution is time. But an adaptation untill fully developed should be by and large useless so how does it get from nothing to fully developed.
While those incremental adaptation stages shouldn'tve given the creature any better chance of survival.
But with enough time and evolutionary dead ends there are enough chances for the spectacular to evolve. I guess its a game of numbers. Still mind blowing though.
 
giggs-beckham said:
Good point about the life cycles. I always say the secret ingredient with evolution is time. But an adaptation untill fully developed should be by and large useless so how does it get from nothing to fully developed.
While those incremental adaptation stages shouldn'tve given the creature any better chance of survival.
But with enough time and evolutionary dead ends there are enough chances for the spectacular to evolve. I guess its a game of numbers. Still mind blowing though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, absolutely!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.