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).
It is more advantageous to have more than 1 shot at spreading your genes than having only a single one.
Yes, your genes will be spread with just reproducing once, but they will be even more spread if you have a long and productive live with even more offspring
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).
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.
It is definitely more successful than the previous strategy in one of the ancestors was (or else it wouldn’t have been selected for), and mutations that reduce the dementia and allow for more reproductive cycles seen to negatively influence reproduction in either fitness or number of the offspring or chance of successful reproduction, so the trait persists.
Since this is a numbers game, even miniscule differences in reproductive success (which isn’t clearly measurable in the wild) have a large impact on genetic drift.
Since the origin of the current behavior lies in the past, it might not be possible to see what evolutionary pressure induced the behavior in the first place.
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.
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).
that’s not how it works.
It is more advantageous to have more than 1 shot at spreading your genes than having only a single one.
Yes, your genes will be spread with just reproducing once, but they will be even more spread if you have a long and productive live with even more offspring
The YT channel primer actually made a video about rougjly this topic recently
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).
yes, and that is in disagreement with my post how?
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.
It is definitely more successful than the previous strategy in one of the ancestors was (or else it wouldn’t have been selected for), and mutations that reduce the dementia and allow for more reproductive cycles seen to negatively influence reproduction in either fitness or number of the offspring or chance of successful reproduction, so the trait persists.
Since this is a numbers game, even miniscule differences in reproductive success (which isn’t clearly measurable in the wild) have a large impact on genetic drift.
Since the origin of the current behavior lies in the past, it might not be possible to see what evolutionary pressure induced the behavior in the first place.
I suspect the responses you’re getting stem from the original phrasing:
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.
Fair enough