874
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 months 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

[-] Krik@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months 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 4 points 2 months 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 7 points 2 months 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.

[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
874 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14500 readers
787 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.



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.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



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 2 years ago
MODERATORS