But that’s just moving the goalpost, so to speak. You’ve just built a different parenting framework that requires you to stick around. You’re still hunting the same goal: self sufficient offspring
I think the point the other guy is pointing out, is that good and bad evolutionary traits are often connected - or more helpfully stated, evolutionary traits can have both benefits and drawbacks which don’t immediately seem related to the same trait.
It’s quite possible that octopi sex dementia is just a drawback to another trait which is very beneficial, so the dementia was just a bad aspect of a good trait that propagated forward. This happens all the time in different animal biologies.
That is not how your comment reads. It reads like you think every trait exists as an advantage and propagates because it is a benefit. Plenty of traits propagate as side effects, which is how their comment read to me.
Not really, and I think it’s because any unnecessary trait is an extra cost. But you can have your belief or even think we were magiced by an all powerful entity
unnecessary traits might not always lead to extra cost, and even then, the extra cost might not always lead to extinction.
the extinction usually happens when a trait that represents a disadvantage in a sufficiently heavy competition for survival. If the competition is low enough, the trait may survive.
You may believe what you want or even reject evolution apparently, but you have now finally arrived at your statement and we can just agree to disagree as I will not forcefully teach people that doesn’t want
Everything about biology is a random effect. Even a mutation that’s selected for wasn’t planned; it just happened by chance. Like if you’re an aquatic species maybe you’ll end up being a strong swimmer over generations, but the water doesn’t pressure you towards that on its own. You have to coincidentally develop flukes that make you a stronger swimmer before those traits can be selected for.
Sometimes traits that get passed down aren’t beneficial at all because they don’t make an impact on reproduction. Think of an animal that comes in many colors like a house cat or certain fish species. In such cases it’s clear that the color of the animal doesn’t have any bearing on its ability to reproduce, so a variety of colors are passed down for no particular reason.
No, what we call random is when it’s unpredictable. The more unpredictable, the better “quality” of the random. Any generative process, and huge amounts of systems you use every day use random but systems emerge from the chaos. And no. Traits that aren’t beneficial are extremely rare and we think it’s because we are missing why it was useful.
Evolution doesn’t make deliberate, strategic choices. Random mutations result in new behaviors/properties that may or may not be beneficial, and selection removes those mutations that prevent reproduction from the gene pool. Not every mutation will be beneficial, but as long as it’s not harmful enough to stop reproduction, it can persist.
If there were two groups of octopuses, one with the self-destructive behavior and one without, then there would be pressure from competition. In that situation, your point would have more of an impact. But without that pressure, there’s nothing to drive the selection. And the mutation won’t occur just because it would be helpful for it to do so - it’s random.
At least, that’s how I understand it. I’m not a biologist or anything.
According to the article the females don’t fare any better either.
I didn’t know this about octopi, what’s the point, evolutionarily, to self destruct after reproducing?
There is no point, evolution is about successful reproduction and everything else is just random chance.
If a evolutionary tweak happens that gives your off spring better chances, but your arms fall off after sex then it’ll probably perpetuate.
nope, then you’d see some of same species showing the behaviour, others not.
Sorry I’m really struggling to parse what you are saying here 😄 my fault.
Can you explain further?
To my understanding:
Nope, then you’d see some animals of the same species showing the new behaviour while other animals, still of the same species, would not.
Also my comment: We absoluteky see this, just on small scale tho. :|
Unless your species is a K Strategist where taking care of your offspring/group is essential.
But that’s just moving the goalpost, so to speak. You’ve just built a different parenting framework that requires you to stick around. You’re still hunting the same goal: self sufficient offspring
(Not negging you)
No that’s absolutely not true, every part of evolution happens for a reason and those we don’t know, we research until we find out why
I think the point the other guy is pointing out, is that good and bad evolutionary traits are often connected - or more helpfully stated, evolutionary traits can have both benefits and drawbacks which don’t immediately seem related to the same trait.
It’s quite possible that octopi sex dementia is just a drawback to another trait which is very beneficial, so the dementia was just a bad aspect of a good trait that propagated forward. This happens all the time in different animal biologies.
No, that’s what I am saying. They are saying that it’s a random effect.
That is not how your comment reads. It reads like you think every trait exists as an advantage and propagates because it is a benefit. Plenty of traits propagate as side effects, which is how their comment read to me.
Not really, and I think it’s because any unnecessary trait is an extra cost. But you can have your belief or even think we were magiced by an all powerful entity
unnecessary traits might not always lead to extra cost, and even then, the extra cost might not always lead to extinction.
the extinction usually happens when a trait that represents a disadvantage in a sufficiently heavy competition for survival. If the competition is low enough, the trait may survive.
You may believe what you want or even reject evolution apparently, but you have now finally arrived at your statement and we can just agree to disagree as I will not forcefully teach people that doesn’t want
Everything about biology is a random effect. Even a mutation that’s selected for wasn’t planned; it just happened by chance. Like if you’re an aquatic species maybe you’ll end up being a strong swimmer over generations, but the water doesn’t pressure you towards that on its own. You have to coincidentally develop flukes that make you a stronger swimmer before those traits can be selected for.
Sometimes traits that get passed down aren’t beneficial at all because they don’t make an impact on reproduction. Think of an animal that comes in many colors like a house cat or certain fish species. In such cases it’s clear that the color of the animal doesn’t have any bearing on its ability to reproduce, so a variety of colors are passed down for no particular reason.
No, what we call random is when it’s unpredictable. The more unpredictable, the better “quality” of the random. Any generative process, and huge amounts of systems you use every day use random but systems emerge from the chaos. And no. Traits that aren’t beneficial are extremely rare and we think it’s because we are missing why it was useful.
To prevent decrepit politicians who already had their chance from usurping the resources of the next generation and pulling up the ladder behind them?
You know… Octopus politicians
Evolution doesn’t care what happens to you after reproduction because you’ve already passed on your genes at that point
I mean, yes, but if you’re not a vegetable afterwards, you will have more chances to reproduce. Therefore passing on your genes more
Evolution doesn’t make deliberate, strategic choices. Random mutations result in new behaviors/properties that may or may not be beneficial, and selection removes those mutations that prevent reproduction from the gene pool. Not every mutation will be beneficial, but as long as it’s not harmful enough to stop reproduction, it can persist.
If there were two groups of octopuses, one with the self-destructive behavior and one without, then there would be pressure from competition. In that situation, your point would have more of an impact. But without that pressure, there’s nothing to drive the selection. And the mutation won’t occur just because it would be helpful for it to do so - it’s random.
At least, that’s how I understand it. I’m not a biologist or anything.