this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
405 points (99.0% liked)

Science Memes

20710 readers
449 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Meta Post Tags



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.

Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged, but keep it in good faith and never punch down.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RandomStickman@fedia.io 40 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I think it means we don't know what the ancestors of those plants are/what they evolved from. They just kinda showed up in the fossil record.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which, tbf, it's a miracle enough of the fossil record exists as is. I'm sure there was a LOT that was lost to the sands of time

[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Iirc it's reckoned most species likely aren't known about because most places weren't conducive to fossilisation

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

ehh, modern biology doesn't construct evolutionary history from fossil records, but from genetic similarities.

[–] RandomStickman@fedia.io 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's impossible to compare genetics from fossils and we can't study ancient long dead species besides fossil records for the most part.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

yeah that's not what i meant. phylogenetic trees are constructed by considering the genetics of recent (living) species, not from fossils.

[–] RandomStickman@fedia.io 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And this post is about ancestors of ferns which are unknown so I'm not sure what are you suggesting

[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] RandomStickman@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago
[–] F_State@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Relatively few lifeforms end up fossilizing and then some of those fossils later get eroded. The percentage that make it to the present is low.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago

I'm no paleontologist but it seems like our total knowledge of certain eras comes from a few river banks collapsing on whatever lived there. That's not going to be a great representation of all life at that time.