Bye Cyanobacteria!

[sixty_reefer]

Seriously?

There is a world of difference between a joke that does not attack anyone, and one that implies another member has a brain defect.

It wasn’t intended as an attack or an implication that anyone has a brain defect. It was comic relief and a callback to your earlier brain eating amoeba joke. If you feel it crosses the line, you can use the moderation tools and have it removed.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It wasn’t intended as an attack or an implication that anyone has a brain defect. It was comic relief and a callback to your earlier brain eating amoeba joke. If you feel it crosses the line, you can use the moderation tools and have it removed.

FWIW, I try to not moderate discussions I am involved with to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. There are others that will evaluate such situations.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

we would still believe in magic and dragons.

Wait,,, what? Are you saying magic and dragons aren’t real? Pfft, next you’ll be telling me that Bigfoot and Nessie aren’t real either!

 

[EnterName]

“Have the amoebas got to your brain?” isn’t much different from “Make sure you are not culturing brain eating amoebas. lol” in post #8 by Randy. Both were clearly intended as comic relief. If you have a problem with mine but not Randy’s, isn’t that a bit of a double standard?

Randy already responded so I will just say that I agree with him.

As for the rest, I’ve provided evidence for the observations and interpretations I’ve made.

And I’ll ask you the same question: if someone challenges another person’s claim by making a counterclaim of their own, shouldn’t they also be expected to provide evidence for that counterclaim? Do you agree? Or are the double standards expanding?

No, because pointing out that a claim lacks support is not a counterclaim. You have provided photos and videos and claimed they are showing amoebas feeding on cyanobacteria. Setting aside the partially unresolved ID and feeding-vs-proximity questions, here is the actual issue:

From the very beginning of this thread, you have been postulating that these organisms are the reason why the cyano mats are receiding. Your sample size is n = 1 tank , with no controls, and no repeatable isolated tests. Your tank doesn't necessarily represent the average reef tank considering what's currently in it. On top of that:

• you don't know if these organisms are capable of reproducing sufficiently to outpace cyano growth,
• you don't know if something else is limiting the cyano growth which even allows the organisms to make a dent into their population in the first place,
• you don't know if other factors like bacteriophages and viruses are involved that were actually causing cyano mats to disappear while the organisms are just obligatory predators or something like "secondary pathogens",
• you don't know if these organisms will be even more harmful than the cyanos in the long run or starve and then let the cyanos regrow.

Therefore: Your photos and videos are insufficient to support your interpretation. The burden of proof remains on your side. You haven't proven causality, and the criticism remains valid. Even with a definite ID, DNA-based or otherwise, the interpretation still wouldn't follow logically from the provided photos and videos.

Can I also remind you that we’re on a reefing forum, not submitting a paper for peer review, despite how some discussions here sometimes seem to be treated.

You're posting publicly, so you will get feedback. Not calling something scientific doesn't make it immune to being wrong/corrected, or harmless when someone reads it without seeing the gaps.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Randy already responded so I will just say that I agree with him.




No, because pointing out that a claim lacks support is not a counterclaim. You have provided photos and videos and claimed they are showing amoebas feeding on cyanobacteria. Setting aside the partially unresolved ID and feeding-vs-proximity questions, here is the actual issue:

From the very beginning of this thread, you have been postulating that these organisms are the reason why the cyano mats are receiding. Your sample size is n = 1 tank , with no controls, and no repeatable isolated tests. Your tank doesn't necessarily represent the average reef tank considering what's currently in it. On top of that:

• you don't know if these organisms are capable of reproducing sufficiently to outpace cyano growth,
• you don't know if something else is limiting the cyano growth which even allows the organisms to make a dent into their population in the first place,
• you don't know if other factors like bacteriophages and viruses are involved that were actually causing cyano mats to disappear while the organisms are just obligatory predators or something like "secondary pathogens",
• you don't know if these organisms will be even more harmful than the cyanos in the long run or starve and then let the cyanos regrow.

Therefore: Your photos and videos are insufficient to support your interpretation. The burden of proof remains on your side. You haven't proven causality, and the criticism remains valid. Even with a definite ID, DNA-based or otherwise, the interpretation still wouldn't follow logically from the provided photos and videos.


You're posting publicly, so you will get feedback. Not calling something scientific doesn't make it immune to being wrong/corrected, or harmless when someone reads it without seeing the gaps.

You still haven’t answered the question I actually asked. BeanAnimal has made several claims in this thread and others without providing evidence to support them. I’m not talking about someone simply pointing out that a claim lacks evidence. I’m asking specifically about someone who challenges a claim by making a counterclaim of their own.

So the question still stands, if someone makes a counterclaim, should they also be responsible for providing evidence to support that claim?

It’s a simple yes or no question. So far you’ve avoided answering it.