Bye Cyanobacteria!

[sixty_reefer]

Cool photo, whatever it is!

Thank you. It only took me about five minutes after getting home to find this one. There are plenty more similar examples in the samples.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Of course confirmation bias is possible. That’s why I’m sharing observations rather than claiming I’ve scientifically identified everything. I’ve watched these amoeba like organisms engulf what appears to be filamentous cyanobacteria and found similar material inside them. “Having a feast” is hardly intended as a scientific conclusion. Maybe “eating spaghetti” would have been the more scientific description.

This looks like the same pattern that opened the prior microscopy thread. Hedged language wrapped around claims that stretch beyond observation. "Matches what I am reading" can't support anything if the ID itself is still open.

Directly: if the ID is genuinely open, "amoeba like" and not "amoeba," then literature on amoeba grazing behavior can't be used to support what these organisms are doing. That exposes everything that follows as unsupported explanations (claims) beyond observation.

Post #1 hedges the ID "amoeba looking organisms" and then builds on that hedge: "I've seen cyanobacteria inside most of them," backed by "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria."

Post #7 treats that as settled and adds "trying to eat massive Cyanobacteria filaments, literally trying to eat way more that they can manage." You used "literally trying to eat..." and want to pivot to spaghetti, as if the issue was just what was being acted on?

Post #11 builds on that and adds a species level ID, "having a feast on a fragment of Oscillatoria"

Post #14 adds "at least three different types of cyanobacteria in the screenshot above."

Each post cites the last one's claim as ground to build the next, giving the whole stack the impression of being settled. These are stacked claims, not observations. You can't support them and just admitted you both don't have an ID (or IDs) and are likely practicing confirmation bias, but haven't retracted anything after the admission, and instead used both as a hedge. Supporting them isn't claiming you didn't make a "scientific conclusion" and adding in more hedge language, which is what your answer is.

You don't have IDs. You can't determine gut content. You can't differentiate eating from proximity. You can't determine if something is too full to eat. All of it rests on a hedge, and on a literature match that can't hold, because the ID it depends on was never established.

 

[sixty_reefer]

This looks like the same pattern that opened the prior microscopy thread. Hedged language wrapped around claims that stretch beyond observation. "Matches what I am reading" can't support anything if the ID itself is still open.

Directly: if the ID is genuinely open, "amoeba like" and not "amoeba," then literature on amoeba grazing behavior can't be used to support what these organisms are doing. That exposes everything that follows as unsupported explanations (claims) beyond observation.

Post #1 hedges the ID "amoeba looking organisms" and then builds on that hedge: "I've seen cyanobacteria inside most of them," backed by "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria."

Post #7 treats that as settled and adds "trying to eat massive Cyanobacteria filaments, literally trying to eat way more that they can manage." You used "literally trying to eat..." and want to pivot to spaghetti, as if the issue was just what was being acted on?

Post #11 builds on that and adds a species level ID, "having a feast on a fragment of Oscillatoria"

Post #14 adds "at least three different types of cyanobacteria in the screenshot above."

Each post cites the last one's claim as ground to build the next, giving the whole stack the impression of being settled. These are stacked claims, not observations. You can't support them and just admitted you both don't have an ID (or IDs) and are likely practicing confirmation bias, but haven't retracted anything after the admission, and instead used both as a hedge. Supporting them isn't claiming you didn't make a "scientific conclusion" and adding in more hedge language, which is what your answer is.

You don't have IDs. You can't determine gut content. You can't differentiate eating from proximity. You can't determine if one is too full to eat, etc, and back by a hedge and mentioning it matches literature that can't match because the ID doesn't match.

Are you performing crowd corrections or crowd reinforcement? So that we are on the same page.

FYI I’m actually claiming that they are eating the Cyanobacteria. So what?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Are you performing crowd corrections or crowd reinforcement? So that we are on the same page.

Please don't change the subject. I laid out a series of claims that you extended from observation. Your words, quoted, your direct context. Support them or retract them.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Please don't change the subject. I laid out a series of claims that you extended from observation. Your words, quoted, your direct context. Support them or retract them.

I’m making a claim that this organism is consuming the Cyanobacteria, what’s the problem?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’m making a claim that this organism is consuming the Cyanobacteria, what’s the problem?

The problem is that you made a series of specific claims and are now trying to move away from them to something less specific.

Post #1 hedges the ID "amoeba looking organisms" and then builds on that hedge: "I've seen cyanobacteria inside most of them," backed by "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria."

Post #7 treats that as settled and adds "trying to eat massive Cyanobacteria filaments, literally trying to eat way more that they can manage." You used "literally trying to eat..." and want to pivot to spaghetti, as if the issue was just what was being acted on?

Post #11 builds on that and adds a species level ID, "having a feast on a fragment of Oscillatoria"

Post #14 adds "at least three different types of cyanobacteria in the screenshot above."

Your words, quoted, your direct context. Support them or retract them.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The problem is that you made a series of specific claims and are now trying to move away from them to something less specific.

Post #1 hedges the ID "amoeba looking organisms" and then builds on that hedge: "I've seen cyanobacteria inside most of them," backed by "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria."

Post #7 treats that as settled and adds "trying to eat massive Cyanobacteria filaments, literally trying to eat way more that they can manage." You used "literally trying to eat..." and want to pivot to spaghetti, as if the issue was just what was being acted on?

Post #11 builds on that and adds a species level ID, "having a feast on a fragment of Oscillatoria"

Post #14 adds "at least three different types of cyanobacteria in the screenshot above."

Your words, quoted, your direct context. Support them or retract them.

So, still don’t see the problem Bean. What exactly are you getting at?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I have sta

So, still don’t see the problem . What exactly are you getting at?

I stated above, with quotes in context. I am asking you to support the chain of claims or retract them.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I have sta


I stated above, with quotes in context. I am asking you to support the chain of claims or retract them.

lol, why should i retract them? They are up there with images and videos to support them.

 

[BeanAnimal]

lol, why should i retract them?

Images and video aren't automatically support, it's the verifiable interpretation that goes with them, which you haven't provided.

You've already said the ID is unresolved:
"that's why I've been calling them amoeba like, the exact ID would be nice to know"

And you admitted openly that:
"confirmation bias is possible."

The footage isn't evidence for the specific claims. It's the thing being interpreted, possibly through bias by your own admission, and the claims are stacked on an ID you effectively conceded when EnterName challenged it.

Please, either support the stack of claims or retract them so that we can keep your thread moving.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Images and video aren't automatically support, it's the verifiable interpretation that goes with them, which you haven't provided.

You've already said the ID is unresolved:
"that's why I've been calling them amoeba like, the exact ID would be nice to know"

And you admitted openly that:
"confirmation bias is possible."

The footage isn't evidence for the specific claims. It's the thing being interpreted, possibly through bias by your own admission, and the claims are stacked on an ID you effectively conceded when EnterName challenged it.

Please, either support the stack of claims or retract them so that we can keep your thread moving.

Did you ever heard that an image is worth 1000 words, I was being nice to EnterName. My claim stands. Should I ask the boss if there is a problem or can you handle it?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Did you ever heard that an image is worth 1000 words, I was being nice to EnterName. My claim stands. Should I ask the boss if there is a problem or can you handle it?

Being nice to EnterName doesn't undo it, and excusing it as politeness doesn't retract it. You said the ID would be nice to know. You can't retract that now to argue something different.

Are you standing by your words that you don't have an ID? Or is your claim now that your ID is correct? Because that's what's required to support the other claims stacked on it, and to match what you said in post #1: "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria".

An image is only worth 1000 words if the words back the claim. You haven't given the words, just the claims.

I am asking you to support that stack of claims.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Being nice to EnterName doesn't undo it, and excusing it as politeness doesn't retract it. You said the ID would be nice to know. You can't retract that now to argue something different.

Are you standing by your words that you don't have an ID? Or is your claim now that your ID is correct? Because that's what's required to support the other claims stacked on it, and to match what you said in post #1: "there's actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria".

An image is only worth 1000 words if the words back the claim. You haven't given the words, just the claims.

I am asking you to support that stack of claims.

Is that the best come back you can think of Bean?

 

[Jimbo327]

I like the video, pretty cool. Have no idea what it is, but we should bottle it and make a fortune.

 

[RobertK]

I’ve been finding thousands of amoeba looking organisms around the edges of the disappearing cyanobacteria mats and now I’m pretty sure I’ve seen cyanobacteria inside most of them under the microscope. Turns out there’s actually literature showing amoebas grazing on cyanobacteria.

I am not a biologist and have no expertise in this field but I did a quick Google Scholar search and easily found several published references that appear to support OP's original claim that some amoebas graze on cyanobacteria (in freshwater at least). I only read the abstracts linked below and not the full references.

Feeding characteristics of an amoeba (Lobosea: Naegleria) grazing upon cyanobacteria
Interactions amoeba-cyanobacteria: From grazing to organelle endosymbiosis
Strong effects of amoebae grazing on the biomass and genetic structure of a Microcystis bloom (Cyanobacteria)
Isolation of diverse amoebal grazers of freshwater cyanobacteria for the development of model systems to study predator–prey interactions
The diversity and ecological impact of amoebae grazing on the bloom-forming cyanobacterium Microcystis

I know Bean had some major problems with some of the things OP has said in other posts (and have no further comments about that) but I think OP has made an interesting observation and taken some cool photos, and honestly don't see what's wrong with OP's original statement in the first post of this thread.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am not a biologist and have no expertise in this field but I did a quick Google Scholar search and easily found several published references that appear to support OP's original claim that some amoebas graze on cyanobacteria (in freshwater at least).

Hi Robert:

There is no dispute that there are amoebas that graze on marine cyanobacteria. However, citing that as an answer to his claim mischaracterizes his claims.

There is no dispute that there may even be amoebas grazing on algae in the OPs tank. The observations extend to explanations resting on one another is part of the issue.

Interesting note, the research that I have seen shows most to be tiny heterotrophic species that you wouldn't be able to identify at 1000x, let alone see their gut load. There may be larger species also. But that is beside the point for now.

I think OP has made an interesting observation and taken some cool photos, and honestly don't see what's wrong with OP's original statement in the first post of this thread.

Observations and cool photos are fine. The problem occurs when those observations are turned into a stack of conclusions (claims) the poster will not substantiate or retract when challenged, and escalates when deflection and reframing are used to avoid accountability.

In this thread the claims rest on two amoebas that are more than likely not amoebas. This was kindly pointed out by EnterName, and the OP carefully worded a partial concession, then reframed it as being polite, not a concession when it was used to challenge him. Same pattern as above, a deflection instead of accountability.

So it's binary: the OP stands by the original stack of claims, even though the image shows they're likely not amoebas and can't support the claims, or he admits the ID was wrong and retracts the claims it supported.

The bottom line: we have moved from claims he refuses to support to claims that can't be supported, but refuses to retract.

These are science centered threads yet the OP refuses to be held to the most basic standards of evidence, let alone peer review.

The real damage is to information. People are ready to bottle something, joking or not, that was never confirmed to exist, based on claims that the poster made and will not retract or defend.

 

[RobertK]

Hi Robert:

There is no dispute that there are amoebas that graze on marine cyanobacteria. However, citing that as an answer to his claim mischaracterizes his claims.

There is no dispute that there may even be amoebas grazing on algae in the OPs tank. The observations extend to explanations resting on one another is part of the issue.

Interesting note, the research that I have seen shows most to be tiny heterotrophic species that you wouldn't be able to identify at 1000x, let alone see their gut load. There may be larger species also. But that is beside the point for now.


Observations and cool photos are fine. The problem occurs when those observations are turned into a stack of conclusions (claims) the poster will not substantiate or retract when challenged, and escalates when deflection and reframing are used to avoid accountability.

In this thread the claims rest on two amoebas that are more than likely not amoebas. This was kindly pointed out by EnterName, and the OP carefully worded a partial concession, then reframed it as being polite, not a concession when it was used to challenge him. Same pattern as above, a deflection instead of accountability.

So it's binary: the OP stands by the original stack of claims, even though the image shows they're likely not amoebas and can't support the claims, or he admits the ID was wrong and retracts the claims it supported.

The bottom line: we have moved from claims he refuses to support to claims that can't be supported, but refuses to retract.

These are science centered threads yet the OP refuses to be held to the most basic standards of evidence, let alone peer review.

The real damage is to information. People are ready to bottle something, joking or not, that was never confirmed to exist, based on claims that the poster made and will not retract or defend.

Thanks Bean, appreciate your perspective as always. I have no interest in getting caught up in any dispute you might have with OP!

I do own a microscope but don't know how to tell an amoeba from another microorganism. I still think that is a cool photo of whatever that thing on the left is is and whatever it is eating! I just wish someone could tell us what it really is so we could have a more productive discussion about it.

 

[BeanAnimal]

...and whatever it is eating!
I just wish someone could tell us what it really is so we could have a more productive discussion about it.

Given this is marine biology and the shapes and visible features, I would lean toward two different types of ciliates. I spent a little while looking for specific IDs but moved on to a different project. It is kind of pointless here.

I don't see any evidence of anything "eating".

 

[sixty_reefer]

Hi Robert:

There is no dispute that there are amoebas that graze on marine cyanobacteria. However, citing that as an answer to his claim mischaracterizes his claims.

There is no dispute that there may even be amoebas grazing on algae in the OPs tank. The observations extend to explanations resting on one another is part of the issue.

Interesting note, the research that I have seen shows most to be tiny heterotrophic species that you wouldn't be able to identify at 1000x, let alone see their gut load. There may be larger species also. But that is beside the point for now.


Observations and cool photos are fine. The problem occurs when those observations are turned into a stack of conclusions (claims) the poster will not substantiate or retract when challenged, and escalates when deflection and reframing are used to avoid accountability.

In this thread the claims rest on two amoebas that are more than likely not amoebas. This was kindly pointed out by EnterName, and the OP carefully worded a partial concession, then reframed it as being polite, not a concession when it was used to challenge him. Same pattern as above, a deflection instead of accountability.

So it's binary: the OP stands by the original stack of claims, even though the image shows they're likely not amoebas and can't support the claims, or he admits the ID was wrong and retracts the claims it supported.

The bottom line: we have moved from claims he refuses to support to claims that can't be supported, but refuses to retract.

These are science centered threads yet the OP refuses to be held to the most basic standards of evidence, let alone peer review.

The real damage is to information. People are ready to bottle something, joking or not, that was never confirmed to exist, based on claims that the poster made and will not retract or defend.

Are you serious right now? How many times have you looked down my microscope mate? It’s not an amoeba? Ask @EnterName if you can identify one without seeing it move!

 

[sixty_reefer]

Thanks Bean, appreciate your perspective as always. I have no interest in getting caught up in any dispute you might have with OP!

I do own a microscope but don't know how to tell an amoeba from another microorganism. I still think that is a cool photo of whatever that thing on the left is is and whatever it is eating! I just wish someone could tell us what it really is so we could have a more productive discussion about it.

Hi, Robert this thread is not going to be as informative as I wished, any member that agrees or thinks in a similar manner to me, will receive a harsh comment from BeanAnimal. Unfortunately this is the reality now.