• SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I mean, yes, but if you’re not a vegetable afterwards, you will have more chances to reproduce. Therefore passing on your genes more

    • Transtronaut@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        yes, that’s the point I’m trying to reinforce. There has to be “a reason” that getting stupider after mating is a succesful trait, otherwise it wouldn’t be there.

        The question that was asked was: what is the reason? So far I’ve only seen speculation in this thread

        • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          There doesn’t have to be reason for it to help, all that matters is that there isnt a sufficient enough of am evolutionary hinderance to prevent reproduction. The octopi reproduced, so their traits pass on.

        • Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          As was said before: The genes are already passed onto the next generation. It doesn’t matter if the parents become stupid now. There’s no evolutionary advantage to become more or less stupid at this point.

          It became like it is now by some random chance(s).

          • Mothra@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            SkaveRat is addressing my original question: I’m asking if there is an advantageous reason for this phenomenon. You seem to suggest it’s a spandrel at best, and fair enough, that could be the answer. It probably is a spandrel, I also believe that.

            However spandrels usually don’t reduce future chances or reproduction, and this one clearly does, so I was asking perhaps there is an advantage to this feature (not a spandrel then). Or at least an explanation for its existence from a genetic perspective, ie. the genes triggering the self destructing behavior are also the same ones responsible for a major survivability feature.

            The reason behind spandrels existing can sometimes be explained other than “random”, as it happens with the human chin for example - apparently someone figured out it’s physically impossible for a chin not to appear if you are deforming maxillary bones to flatten into a face.

            So far here nobody knows for sure about the octopus, and I gather it’s because science doesn’t yet have a consensus on the matter. But everyone has been quick to assure me it’s just random and that there isn’t anything else to it without any scientific backing.

            • Transtronaut@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 days ago

              I suspect the responses you’re getting stem from the original phrasing:

              what’s the point, evolutionarily, to self destruct after reproducing

              The question has an implicit claim that there IS a point, which people are rightly pointing out is not necessarily the case (as you have acknowledged). It certainly is an interesting question to wonder if there could be some benefit anyway, so it would probably have helped to frame it that way.

              Not saying anyone is required to meet any kind of bar in the level of discourse in a casual online forum, just an observation of cause and effect, for what it’s worth.

            • Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 days ago

              Tell that to all the animals that only have one shot. There are quite a lot of them and usually they all lay thousands of eggs.

              Probably the most well known of them is the salmon. Only about 5% of them survive the procreation after the salmon run (of those salmon species that actually do the run).

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      yeah but octopi are intensely successful hunters. this may be either a mechanism that helps prevent resource scarcity, or it could prevent parent/offspring mating