I understand synergy as when Effect(A) + Effect(B) < Effect (A & B). Basically, when you get nonlinearity in response.
This would not only be if you try to use it as medicine as you say, but also in their own capabilities.
So in this case, if you consider the algal component of lichen, take them alone, and see where they can live and what they can do, and if you consider the fungal component of lichen, take them alone and see where they can live and what they can do, your results will be (if the claim is correct) that these will not be half as widespread or capable as the two together are.
It seems pretty clear to me that this is what is meant. Does it make sense? Is this also an incorrect statement of biology?
But what effect? You can determine, for example, how much CO2 do the fungi and algae produce when taken together not as lichen, but they won’t occupy the same habitats (and so their CO2 emissions will cause different effects in the environment, and totalling them would not be correct). I mean that yes, obviously you will obtain some values, and they even might be lower than for the lichen containing the exact same amounts of both. It just won’t have any practical sense.
The question is not is it whether this is accurate, but rather whether this is meaningful at all. I think it isn’t. I do not expect, therefore, that it can be proved, and any other defence seems to me to be circular, but I might be wrong.
No. Sorry. I meant ’whether a comparison between the parameters for the f&a and for the lichen is meaningful at all, given different methods of [sampling, cultivation, quantification] ‘searching’ for all three, different ways of reproduction for all three, and different dissemination strategies for all three’.
It is sometimes difficult to compare two populations of the same species, for example for orchids. Suppose there are twenty adult-to-senescing plants in the location A, and no young plants visible at all, and ten struggling adult plants plus three possibly young ones in location B. What population has better prospects? The three young plants might actually be underdeveloped adults; the dust-like seeds, however uncommonly maturing, might germinate considerably far away; and both young and old plants can just sit under the ground eating their mycorrhiza for years and be, therefore, uncountable.
Now compare the difficulty of this estimation with the difficulty of the f&a vs. lichen one. The second boggles the mind.
No, it does not. The less faith people put into the ‘evolutionary explanation’, the more water it holds. Everything that is not forbidden is allowed; as long as the two versions both exist, there is no better one.
Everything that is not forbidden is allowed; as long as the two versions both exist, there is no better one.
This reads as trying to sound wise. Population and diversity of habitats are a big deal for evolutionary fitness.
The reason the measurement ‘boggled the mind’ a few posts back is because YOU would have to go out and perform the experiment—you would have to collect the data, you would have to categorize the situations, etc. It’s too much. Also, the orchid example was a toy example. The question is too specific to even admit a statistical answer. But Lichen vs Fungus and Algae? Just take a bunch of samples and stick them down together and separately, over a wide range of locations and situations. Since you’d actually be sampling the overall space of interest instead of hyper-focusing in narrowly on orchid batch A vs orchid batch B, you can get an actual answer, like “In environments A, B, C, D, E, the algae thrive alone and the fungus die alone, but lichen thrive. In environments F, G, H, I, J, The algae and fungus die alone but lichen thrive. In environments K and L the algae alone survive but both fungus and lichen die. …”
The only thing mind-boggling about this is the work involved in making the measurement, not trying to figure out whether the question makes sense.
Also, this rather resembles what has been done—without proper monitoring, to be sure, and insufficient separation of the lichen components when it expands into new territories, and when either component expands into a new territory without the other no effort is made to bring the other along… but aside from those weaknesses, this is more or less what evolution has been doing. Trying everything and seeing what works best, as you say.
IF lichen dominates the performance of either component in any environment at all, then the statement that ‘the sum is greater than the parts’ is to some extent justifiable. The more such environments there are, the more it applies. If the two components do really badly except together, then it’s very reasonable!
I thought the point of this post was the meta-level of whether such phrases ever make sense, not the more object-level of whether they make sense in this case.
The point was that using such phrases in front of the kids nurtures in them the habit of making highly incontestable statements requiring lots of disclaimers the kids can’t think of, because they don’t know enough stuff, and that’s OK for them. The point was that I, personally, learned names for some (biological) concepts long after I was presented with the ‘meat’ of them, and I don’t know if it is a good thing. But whatever, lichens are very interesting, too.
I understand synergy as when Effect(A) + Effect(B) < Effect (A & B). Basically, when you get nonlinearity in response.
This would not only be if you try to use it as medicine as you say, but also in their own capabilities.
So in this case, if you consider the algal component of lichen, take them alone, and see where they can live and what they can do, and if you consider the fungal component of lichen, take them alone and see where they can live and what they can do, your results will be (if the claim is correct) that these will not be half as widespread or capable as the two together are.
It seems pretty clear to me that this is what is meant. Does it make sense? Is this also an incorrect statement of biology?
But what effect? You can determine, for example, how much CO2 do the fungi and algae produce when taken together not as lichen, but they won’t occupy the same habitats (and so their CO2 emissions will cause different effects in the environment, and totalling them would not be correct). I mean that yes, obviously you will obtain some values, and they even might be lower than for the lichen containing the exact same amounts of both. It just won’t have any practical sense.
The effect here is just being able to survive and thrive in a place. Their range and coverage and so forth grow a lot.
Prove it.
Prove what? That that interpretation is what “they” meant or that it is biologically accurate?
The parent says in his final paragraph that he does not know whether it is biologically accurate or not.
The question is not is it whether this is accurate, but rather whether this is meaningful at all. I think it isn’t. I do not expect, therefore, that it can be proved, and any other defence seems to me to be circular, but I might be wrong.
Whether ‘the range and coverage and total population’ is meaningful at all? I can’t even understand how this being meaningful could be in question.
No. Sorry. I meant ’whether a comparison between the parameters for the f&a and for the lichen is meaningful at all, given different methods of [sampling, cultivation, quantification] ‘searching’ for all three, different ways of reproduction for all three, and different dissemination strategies for all three’.
It is sometimes difficult to compare two populations of the same species, for example for orchids. Suppose there are twenty adult-to-senescing plants in the location A, and no young plants visible at all, and ten struggling adult plants plus three possibly young ones in location B. What population has better prospects? The three young plants might actually be underdeveloped adults; the dust-like seeds, however uncommonly maturing, might germinate considerably far away; and both young and old plants can just sit under the ground eating their mycorrhiza for years and be, therefore, uncountable.
Now compare the difficulty of this estimation with the difficulty of the f&a vs. lichen one. The second boggles the mind.
Measuring it would be a ridiculously exhaustive task, but it seems like evolution has already performed the measurement for us.
No, it does not. The less faith people put into the ‘evolutionary explanation’, the more water it holds. Everything that is not forbidden is allowed; as long as the two versions both exist, there is no better one.
This reads as trying to sound wise. Population and diversity of habitats are a big deal for evolutionary fitness.
The reason the measurement ‘boggled the mind’ a few posts back is because YOU would have to go out and perform the experiment—you would have to collect the data, you would have to categorize the situations, etc. It’s too much. Also, the orchid example was a toy example. The question is too specific to even admit a statistical answer. But Lichen vs Fungus and Algae? Just take a bunch of samples and stick them down together and separately, over a wide range of locations and situations. Since you’d actually be sampling the overall space of interest instead of hyper-focusing in narrowly on orchid batch A vs orchid batch B, you can get an actual answer, like “In environments A, B, C, D, E, the algae thrive alone and the fungus die alone, but lichen thrive. In environments F, G, H, I, J, The algae and fungus die alone but lichen thrive. In environments K and L the algae alone survive but both fungus and lichen die. …”
The only thing mind-boggling about this is the work involved in making the measurement, not trying to figure out whether the question makes sense.
Also, this rather resembles what has been done—without proper monitoring, to be sure, and insufficient separation of the lichen components when it expands into new territories, and when either component expands into a new territory without the other no effort is made to bring the other along… but aside from those weaknesses, this is more or less what evolution has been doing. Trying everything and seeing what works best, as you say.
IF lichen dominates the performance of either component in any environment at all, then the statement that ‘the sum is greater than the parts’ is to some extent justifiable. The more such environments there are, the more it applies. If the two components do really badly except together, then it’s very reasonable!
Yes, of course, it is reasonable; I have just not read any report on this, whether positive or negative. Will have to repair that gap.
I thought the point of this post was the meta-level of whether such phrases ever make sense, not the more object-level of whether they make sense in this case.
The point was that using such phrases in front of the kids nurtures in them the habit of making highly incontestable statements requiring lots of disclaimers the kids can’t think of, because they don’t know enough stuff, and that’s OK for them. The point was that I, personally, learned names for some (biological) concepts long after I was presented with the ‘meat’ of them, and I don’t know if it is a good thing. But whatever, lichens are very interesting, too.