9 ms·
Out of sight, 'dark fungi' run the world from the shadows
- mitchbob 2y agohttps://archive.ph/2024.06.21-130323/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-dark-fungi-are-lurking-everywhere/ https://archive.ph/2024.06.21-130323/https://www.scientifica...
- Molitor5901 2y agoThe land, water and air around us are chock-full of DNA fragments from fungi that mycologists can’t link to known organisms. These slippery beings are so widespread scientists are calling them “dark fungi.” It’s a comparison to the equally elusive dark matter and dark energy that permeates the universe. Like those invisible entities, dark fungi are hidden movers and shakers, prime examples of what E. O. Wilson called “the little things that run the world.”
- alluro2 2y agoWow...a very interesting read. It's always humbling when reminded of how many and how large are the pieces we are completely missing in the understanding of even the immediate world around us. We mostly behave like we have our basic every-day experience pretty much covered - yet, there are such vast areas - across basically all of sciences - that we just utterly don't understand, and who knows how much more additionally that we don't even know is there.
- mistermann 2y ago> across basically all of sciences Not to mention what is outside the domain of science. Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits so I expect it to remain as is in the short to medium term, perhaps forever.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoNothing is outside the domain of science. It's not about culture, but attitude - science makes everything its domain. Scientific method is generally applicable, it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify. Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random, but "completely random" is a pattern too, so it too lives in the domain of science.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- foolswisdom 2y agoI'm reminded of this response to the question "Is materialism essential to scientific progress?" <https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/110019 https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/110019>.
- eikenberry 2y agoIf you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) it is outside the realm of science, likewise if it is not falsifiable (testable) it is not science. Observe, theorize, predict, test. Science 101.
- airstrike 2y agothe science of finding ways to observe it is still science. we couldn't observe many phenomena before we developed the science to do so.
- eikenberry 2y agoNope. Science is a specific tool of thought with a definition that starts with observation. Science might help feed ideas for technological or other sorts of advancement that allows us to observer more than before, but just because it helps science doesn't make it science.
- eikenberry 2y agoSure, and once we can observe something we can science it. But not until then.
- analog31 2y ago>>> Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits Not in my experience. I just got back from a week of playing music in the woods with a bunch of folk musicians. Sometimes we talked about science, but music is for all intents and purposes an orthogonal way of exploring reality. Likewise for many areas of art, literature, etc. Disclosure: Scientist and musician.
- mistermann 2y agoMusic, and dancing, do seem to have transcendent powers.
- throwup238 2y agoI don't know why the article references "dark matter" but doesn't make the full connection to microbial dark matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_dark_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_dark_matter It's not just fungi that are difficult to culture. The (vast?) majority of bacteria, virus, and archae species are undocumented because we don't know how to grow them in a laboratory or even stain them so that they're visible on a microscope slide. Except for the occasional glimpse on an electron microscope slide, most of them are completely invisible to science.
- pollyturples 2y ago"You know about slime mold? Well, slime molds are so close to being both plant and animal that it's like they can't make up their minds. Some think that maybe it's these indecisive organisms who have been running the earth all this time. There’s more slime mold than any other form of protoplasm on the planet. If they wanted to, if they finally decided to commit to being either plant or animal, they could take us over just like that. [Interviewer: You talk about slime molds like I should know what these are]. I mean, they're everywhere. If you walk in an alleyway and slip a bit, twisting your ankle, maybe it wasn’t an accident. Maybe it was a slime mold attack." - David St Hubbins in a deleted scene from Spinal Tap (1984)
- rvba 2y agoWhy do the scientists velieve that using a "quick test" that checks only part of DNA is good? Wouldnt it be better to do full sequencing, instead of this ITS test? Especially if that part is mutating quickly. If they want to move forward shouldnt thry do boring full sequencing? Then they can make real comparisons, not estimates?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- im3w1l 2y agoI think it's simply a matter of cost.
- psilobalt 2y agoSlightly off-topic, but not really - cultivating mushrooms is really fascinating. And those that hold magic offer an additional element of very special satisfaction. If you're looking for a new hobby, give it a try! It's easy to start with a colonized growth kit - you can buy those online. If you like it, the next level is growing your own mycelium in liquid culture (basically in honey water). If that works out will, use it to colonize your own substrate. Then, you can produce your own (storable) spore prints from harvested mushrooms. Which you can use to create new mycelium liquid cultures. And the cycle can be repeated indefinitely, with tons of harvest!
- brokenmachine 2y agoDon't you need a HEPA shroud to make cultures?
- cthalupa 2y agoNo. A flow hood or air box helps but you can do it without. I'd recommend using mycellium to make a liquid culture vs. a spore solution, though. Less chance of contamination and faster colonization of your grain spawn.
- therobots927 2y agoTerence McKenna would have a field day with this article
- webnrrd2k 2y agoA morphogenetic field day, no doubt.
- xattt 2y agoI take this post with suspicion. I often see amateur mycologists that are very excited about their hobby. This kind of enthusiasm is exactly what I would expect from a fungus or at least someone who is under fungal control. I’m onto you, mushrooms!
- ThinkBeat 2y agoI thought this was an error: "" It’s a comparison to the equally elusive dark matter and dark energy that make up 95 percent of our universe and exert tremendous influence on, well, everything. "" Then in my ignorance I googled it, and it appears to be true. How in the world can the dominant theory for the universe be based on it being 95% filled with mystical shit that we cant prove, but makes our math happy. That sounds insane, like religion. Clearly examining models of the universe that dont depend upon 95% mystical stuff may be an avenue worth exploring.
- cthalupa 2y ago> Clearly examining models of the universe that dont depend upon 95% mystical stuff may be an avenue worth exploring. You're far from the first person to suggest such an idea. And far from it being a new idea. There have been a whole lot of people who have tried to come up with an alternative solution, and the problem is, they're all universally significantly worse. I don't mean to disparage you, but this is pretty much universally the reaction people have when they first learn about the scale of dark matter, and that has resulted in significant research efforts to put forward a different solution... but dark matter is still a superior answer to the question. One thing that isn't immediately obvious is that we have a wide variety of ways to estimate the mass of things. Just for galaxies, we can look at their radial velocities, x-ray spectrum and flux, and gravitational lensing. These approach the measurement from very different methods, yet all of them strongly align with dark matter. Modifying our theory of gravity to alternative explanations has yet to be able to account for just these three methods, and they're just a subset of the observations we have that support dark matter's existence. > How in the world can the dominant theory for the universe be based on it being 95% filled with mystical shit that we cant prove, but makes our math happy. We could write a library's worth of books about things that math has predicted before we could experimentally prove it or otherwise observe it. Dark matter makes a whole bunch of math in a whole bunch of places work, including in areas where MOND and its derivatives and other alternative solutions fall down. LIGO and gravitational waves have also blown big holes in alternative theories like TeVeS. Basically, the more data we get, the more it supports dark matter. Providing a viable alternative explanation that can answer the same questions and would match our observations would instantly shortlist you for the nobel prize in physics. A whole lot of incredibly intelligent people have tried and failed. And it's not like physicists "like" dark matter - no one is more frustrated by the fact that something so hugely important to the makeup of the universe is damn near invisible to us than the physicists who work in these areas.