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.
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.
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.
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.
Just goon forever
Gooners win again
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)
True, I’m just being pedantic and pointing out that “reproduce and that’s it” isn’t the case for some species.
Some species carry it on to “reproduce and ensure your offspring reproduces too.”
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. :|
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn’t it make them easier to he hunted by prey or just die from not being careful
People with dementia can end up getting themselves fatally injured so I don’t see an octopus can’t
So I don’t see how it’s beneficial to help them survive
It’s not but, the evolutionary goal is compete.
There’s no way for the octopus to pick a mate with out the side effect, so the lack of post-nut clarity continues through the generations.