Timeline for How large can a water bear become before it loses its abilities?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2017 at 14:00 | vote | accept | mkinson | ||
| Feb 4, 2017 at 10:48 | comment | added | nigel222 | @AngelPray it doesn't matter to a predator if the creature it has found is candified or merely in the stupor of hibernation. It becomes lunch either way, and can do nothing to escape that fate. In both cases it needs to hide itself so well that the predators can't find it. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 22:48 | comment | added | AngelPray | @TheBlackCat That's great and all, but the tardigrade doesn't go into simple hibernation. It ceases essentially all metabolic activity so that it can survive decades without sufficient nutrients. I assure you, these giant tardigrades will certainly be found within a few years. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 21:25 | comment | added | TheBlackCat | There are lots of animals that go into hibernation when the environment becomes difficult. They have a simple way to deal with predators: they hide (usually underground or at the bottom of a body of watre). | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 20:02 | comment | added | mid | Make the oxygen bigger! :D | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 18:25 | comment | added | AngelPray | @SPavel No. The problem is the distance oxygen has to travel from the exterior cells to the interior cells. In addition enormous cells of that size would be exceedingly fragile. Simple cell division would constantly destabilize the body. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 17:46 | comment | added | SPavel | @AngelPray Can we solve the problem by making their cells bigger, rather than by having more cells? | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 15:51 | history | edited | AngelPray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 12:03 | comment | added | Mermaker | @Catalyst I think that by any definition of adorable, they would still be better than Ronald McDonald. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 11:58 | comment | added | Mermaker | Giant Tardigrade-based candy seems like a super awesome element to throw in into sci-fi work, however. Or into a weird sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 11:08 | comment | added | Catalyst | Adorable? Perhaps for certain values of 'adorable!' | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 10:49 | comment | added | Criticize SE actions means ban | diffuse* not defuse | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 23:31 | comment | added | Zxyrra | @AngelPray I know haha | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 22:59 | comment | added | AngelPray | @Zxyrra Haha! Good catch, but it was an answer to their definite question "Could there be a cat-sized water bear that maintains its impressive indestructibility?". | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 22:51 | comment | added | Zxyrra |
How large can they be? "no"
|
|
| Feb 2, 2017 at 19:43 | comment | added | DonyorM | So it doesn't work with normal biology...time for the unexplained cryogenics organ! | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 19:24 | history | answered | AngelPray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
