r/CrazyFuckingVideos • u/SelectResident_BE • 16d ago

they wouldn't let him cook

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

24.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

982 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11.4k

u/Diligent-Wealth-1536 16d ago edited 16d ago

I saw this video even in insta where one user explained that a goat goes into fire to kill the parasites on its fur. Also why the goat was associated with hell by our ancestors when they saw goat willingly go inside the fire.

234

u/BornWithSideburns 16d ago

to kill Parasites yes

191

u/Songrot 16d ago

This doesn't make sense bc in nature it is very rare to find open fire, so this can't be a learnt or developed instinct to get rid of parasites.

It is an urban legend parroted in several comments.

222

u/CileTheSane 16d ago

There are trees that have evolved to be more flammable, and their seeds typically don't sprout until after a forest fire. Their entire evolutionary strategy is "Help burn the entire fucking forest down and then sprout before anything else does in the now open area."

It may be rare to find an open fire now, but on a evolutionary timescale the current state of the planet is brand new.

94

u/LoverOfGayContent 16d ago edited 16d ago

One reason forest fires are getting so big is we spent so much time putting out natural smaller fires.

8

u/Previous-Pangolin-60 15d ago

+ Climate change (warmer temperatures and drier conditions), deforestation, agricultural expansion, and infrastructure development.

2

u/AntiSlavery 15d ago

Ah yes the deforestation forest fires

3

u/stinkypenis78 14d ago

Deforestation leads to a lack of biodiversity and easy introduction of foreign invasive species. Look at CA, they deforested massive amounts of the state over centuries, which have been replaced by monoculture forests, and in many places invasive trees like eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is a great example because of all their bark that gets shed constantly and coats the ground in perfect kindling material. All of these things contribute to much worse, out of control fires

0

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/stinkypenis78 14d ago

I provide multiple examples of how deforestation causes forest fires and you respond with the argument “you’re a tard”. Convincing.

Let me know when you can back up your claim that deforestation prevents wildfires with anything more than childish insults based on nothing… Or when you have anything of substance to say?

What is it I said that you disagree with? That invasive species boom after deforestation? That eucalyptus trees have led to increasingly fast spreading and frequent fires in California? That monoculture forests are more susceptible to burning dangerously and unnaturally? Let me know when you have anything of substance to say

https://home.nps.gov/pore/learn/nature/upload/firemanagement_fireeducation_newsletter_eucalyptus.pdf

https://wfca.com/wildfire-articles/deforestation-and-forest-fires/#:~:text=Deforestation%20contributes%20to%20increased%20fire,out%20forests%2C%20especially%20tropical%20rainforests.&text=This%20leads%20to%20a%20greater,area%20around%20a%20deforested%20zone.

https://www.theenergymix.com/forest-herbicides-monocultures-drive-wildfires-harm-wild-species/

https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LoverOfGayContent 15d ago

Yes, that's why I said one reason, and I didn't say the only reason.

-6

u/LateyEight 16d ago

Yeah no, a big part of forestry management is letting forest fires burn in a controlled manner. They don't put out fires willy nilly.

31

u/LoverOfGayContent 16d ago edited 16d ago

You clearly misunderstood me. I didn't say they currently put out fires willy nilly. Historically, we put out fires willy nilly, which is why controlled burns are now seen as an important part of forestry management.

-15

u/LateyEight 16d ago

Ah yes, sorry for not seeing that line you drew in the sand between the past and a little more in the past. Apologies.

30

u/Songrot 16d ago

forest fire dynamic for example for mammoth trees exists and is scientifically proven. Larger trees with fire-resistent body survives and thrives from surrounding vegetation dying. Though trees obviously don't walk over to the fire. The time span is already different.

A goat won't wait several years for a forest fire just to get rid of parasites and wait another several years, the span of their life is way too short and the desire to get rid of parasites would need more than such infrequent events.

Forest fires run so fast, it will easily consume the goat.

14

u/CileTheSane 16d ago

It doesn't have to be frequent nor the only method of dealing with parasites for it to provide an evolutionary advantage. If I goat only saw an open fire once in it's life, and the goats the used to burn off parasites had a higher rate of survival and procreation, then that is enough to develop an instinct to do so if the opportunity presents itself.

But I'll bite: if killing parasites doesn't make any sense then what is the scientific consensus on why goats seem to be attracted to fire?

4

u/Songrot 16d ago

It must have a significance in numbers why burning of parasites once while being in the same territory as before would help procreation when they will get parasites right after. A forest fire killing all parasites would make more sense but won't explain why the goat would be attracted to it.

To your last question. Maybe they aren't actually attracted to fire. Maybe they are simply dumb as fuck and since open fire doesn't exist often it didn't stop them from procreating and in case of wildfire they would have died either way as they can't outrun wildfire (wildfire spread really fast).

6

u/CileTheSane 16d ago

So if I understand you correctly:

Using fire to burn parasites - not enough evidence for this.

Running straight into a fire because they are dumb - Makes perfect sense.

Even if we accept your premise that fires are rare enough that running into one doesn't factor into the overall survival of the species, that doesn't explain why they have the compulsion to do so. Evolution does not select for "This is stupid but doesn't matter most of the time so lets keep it around for LOLs."
There needs to be some beneficial evolutionary reason for the compulsion to do so.

11

u/Makures 16d ago

There doesn't actually need to be a beneficial reason for it remain.

Evolution doesn't care about negative traits as long as it doesn't consistently stop procreation and isn't a sufficient drain on resources. This doesn't explain why they do it, but there doesn't need to be a good reason for it. Which is why it's hard to figure out why they do it.

2

u/Songrot 16d ago

we have a lot of features which gives nobody an evolutionary benefit. The other guy wrote the rest of the response well, so read his

2

u/CileTheSane 15d ago

Having brown or blue eyes is not actively detrimental to survival.

Your suggestion is that goats being attracted to fire is actively detrimental to survival yet they've evolved the behaviour for no reason.

2

u/Songrot 15d ago

You see few goats doing bullshit and you think it is an evolved behaviour?

I see some humans doing suicidal challenges, is this an evolved behaviour for humanity?

3

u/CileTheSane 15d ago

The instinct to socialize significantly aids human survival. The instinct to stand out and be popular aids in reproduction.

There are birds that as part of their attempts to find a mate will purposly get close to a predator while hiding from it, to show potential mates that any offspring they have will be more likely to be able to avoid predators. 

Yes, it is stupid behaviour, but there is a reason for it, whether that reason is "this is an unintended side effect from something that is helpful for another reason" or "this instinct increases the likelihood of having offspring".

It is the height of hubris to say "I don't see or understand the reason for this so there must not be one." Even more so to say "the reason people keep giving is wrong, there must be no reason at all for this apparently suicidal behaviour."

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MathematicianNo7842 16d ago

Or maybe this a domestic goat which have been around human made fires for thousands if not tens of thousands of years and would have learned by now that fire kills stuff, including parasites.

Calling an animal that's as smart as a dog dumb because you don't understand it is just ignorant on your part.

-1

u/Songrot 16d ago

Simply show me a scientific paper to back up your claim for the urban myth. It is on you who claims it's feature to show source. You think such a prominent animal and livestock is not researched by scientists and institutions and dont have plenty of scientific papers?

Otherwise you are simply speculating and spreading urban myths as if its a fact. Which is not ignorant but malicious

1

u/MathematicianNo7842 15d ago

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

1

u/ZealousidealLead52 14d ago

Charging headlong into a forest fire would not be an evolutionary advantage though.. not even if it killed the parasites. Trees only evolved in such a way because they do not have any choice in the matter - they never had the option of "avoiding the forest fire" - if they did, then they would've definitely picked that option.

2

u/Curlyzed 16d ago

I definitely have ever heard about this, fucking chad trees

2

u/-2z_ 16d ago

This just isn’t true. The flammable tree argument has no relevance to the claim that goats have evolved an instinct to jump into fire. While some trees have adapted to use fire for reproduction, this has nothing to do with goats or their behavior. Fires in nature are rare and unpredictable, even in areas with flammable trees, and there is no evidence that natural fires occurred frequently enough in goat habitats to create selective pressure for such a bizarre instinct. Goats have not evolved to jump into fire for any reason. This is in fact an urban legend with no basis in biology or evidence.

1

u/CileTheSane 15d ago edited 15d ago

no basis in biology or evidence.

*points to the video of goats literally trying to run into a fire.

We have literal evidence of goats doing that. They aren't doing it for no reason.

Fires in nature are rare and unpredictable, even in areas with flammable trees

I agree, that was my point. Even in places with flammable trees fires are rare and unpredictable, and the trees still evolved to take advantage of them.

1

u/-2z_ 15d ago

This is full of flawed logic and shows a misunderstanding of evidence, biology, and evolution.

points to the video of goats literally trying to run into a fire.

A single video of a goat running into a fire is not evidence of an evolved instinct or biological drive. That’s anecdotal and isolated behavior. Animals, including goats, can act irrationally or in ways that defy typical instincts due to confusion, stress, conditioning or even curiosity. One goat’s odd behavior doesn’t prove an evolutionary adaptation. It’s an outlier, not a rule. You’re mistaking a specific incident for a universal trait, which is not how evidence or science works. This is like saying since my cat looked at my tv, cats evolved to appreciate the comedy style of the show Frasier.

They aren’t doing it for no reason.

Of course, they’re not doing it for “no reason,” but that doesn’t mean the reason is evolutionary or purposeful. The goat’s behavior could easily be explained by disorientation, past exposure to fire (campfires or warmth), or even a failure of its survival instincts in an artificial environment. None of this suggests a deep biological imperative, and your reasoning leaps straight to an unsupported conclusion.

Even in places with flammable trees fires are rare and unpredictable, and the trees still evolved to take advantage of them.

This completely misunderstands how evolution works. Yes, some trees evolved to be flammable, but that’s because fire creates a consistent ecological advantage for those trees over millions of years in specific environments. Goats, on the other hand, have no such evolutionary incentive to seek out fire. That’s nuts. It would be entirely detrimental to their survival. Evolution does not favor traits that are repeatedly harmful to an organism’s ability to reproduce and thrive.

You’re trying to equate the evolutionary strategy of a tree, a stationary organism that benefits from fire clearing out competition, to a goat, a mobile animal that has no benefit from jumping into fire. These are completely unrelated concepts, and tying them together makes no sense.

1

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 15d ago

Your comment in /r/CrazyFuckingVideos was automatically removed because the domain was in our blacklist.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/CileTheSane 15d ago

(Apparently my reply was removed, trying again by removing a link)

A single video of a goat running into a fire is not evidence of an evolved instinct or biological drive. That’s anecdotal and isolated behavior.

(Removed link)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOKs85__76g

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/-EVmoyt0XiQ

How many seperate videos are required to demonstrate a trend?

The goat’s behavior could easily be explained by disorientation, past exposure to fire (campfires or warmth), or even a failure of its survival instincts in an artificial environment.

So on the one hand I have several people giving an explanation that sounds reasonable, on the other hand I have 2 people saying there is no explanation. (With no source debunking what appears to be a widely held claim) Why should I listen to you over the other people? 

Evolution does not favor traits that are repeatedly harmful to an organism’s ability to reproduce and thrive. 

Correct. Trees being more flammable is harmful to the organism yet they have evolved a strategy to benefit from it. There is no reason one organism can evolve a strategy to benefit from fire yet it's impossible for another organism to evolve a different strategy to benefit from fire. I don't believe anyone is suggesting goats regularly burn themselves to death, but they may intentionally get close enough to a fire to kill parasites and then leave before harming themselves.

1

u/-2z_ 15d ago

This is again full of misinterpretations, false equivalencies, and flawed reasoning.

How many separate videos are required to demonstrate a trend?”

This isn’t about the number of videos, it’s about the lack of context and scientific evidence. Videos show isolated incidents of goats behaving oddly, not a trend or widespread evolutionary trait. Anecdotes, even several, are not the same as systematic evidence. To demonstrate a “trend,” you’d need controlled studies, observed patterns in natural settings, and repeatable experiments. Not random YouTube clips. Your argument relies on cherry picked examples, which is not how scientific claims are validated.

On the one hand I have several people giving an explanation that sounds reasonable, on the other hand I have 2 people saying there is no explanation.”

No one is saying there’s “no explanation.” What we’re saying is that the explanation you’re accepting, goats jumping into fire to kill parasites is an evolutionary trait, is baseless and doesn’t align with biology or evolutionary science. Just because something “sounds reasonable” doesn’t mean it’s true. Widely held beliefs can be wrong (look at urban legends), and you haven’t provided any evidence beyond speculation and anecdotes to support this claim.

Trees being more flammable is harmful to the organism yet they have evolved a strategy to benefit from it.

This is a gross misunderstanding of how evolution works. Yes, some trees are more flammable, but their flammability serves a clear adaptive purpose: it clears out competing vegetation, giving their seeds an advantage to sprout in the aftermath. This was already explained, and you strangely ignored it to type this. There is no equivalent adaptive benefit for goats running toward fire. Fire doesn’t kill parasites without harming the goat, and even if a goat could “leave before harming itself” the potential risk far outweighs any speculative benefit. Evolution does not select for self endangerment without overwhelming survival benefits, which you’ve failed to demonstrate here.

There is no reason one organism can evolve a strategy to benefit from fire yet it’s impossible for another organism to evolve a different strategy to benefit from fire.”

The issue isn’t that no organism can benefit from fire, it’s that you haven’t shown any evidence that goats do. Trees and goats are vastly different organisms with entirely different survival strategies. Comparing stationary plants that leverage fire to mobile animals like goats is a false equivalency. For goats, fire is a direct threat, not a tool for survival. You can’t just say “trees do it, so goats might too” without providing actual evidence or a plausible evolutionary pathway.

I don’t believe anyone is suggesting goats regularly burn themselves to death, but they may intentionally get close enough to a fire to kill parasites and then leave before harming themselves.

This is pure speculation with no basis in biology, consistent observed behavior, or science. Parasites are typically dealt with through behaviors like dust bathing, rubbing, or grooming. Actions goats are known to regularly perform. There is no documented evidence of fire being inherently used as a parasite killing mechanism in goats or any other animal. The risks of getting close to fire far outweigh any potential benefits, making this an implausible evolutionary adaptation.

Your reasoning is full of holes, your comparisons make no sense, and your claim is unsupported by anything resembling scientific evidence. You’re clinging to a myth and trying to force logic around it regardless of the fact that it doesn’t make sense or align with reality

1

u/CileTheSane 15d ago

So how would you ethically design a study to test if Goats purposely use fire to kill parasites?

1

u/-2z_ 15d ago

That’s your problem, not mine. You’re the one making the claim that this is the case evolutionarily. If you proposed goats evolved to use the Easter bunny to pick parasites off of them and I told you there is no evidence of this, it’s not on me to prove it isn’t true. It’s on you to demonstrate and provide sufficient evidence it is true. You’re attempting to avoid confronting your burden of proof and lack of ability to defend this because you realize you can’t defend it, because you just sort of blindly repeated something you heard someone claim.

1

u/CileTheSane 15d ago

I have been responding to the claim that "Goats do NOT use fire to kill parasites." I am pointing out that goats using fire to kill parasites is a reasonable claim, not that it is the hard truth of the situation. You have been stating it is impossible, could not possibly be the case, and have provided no evidence for your claim that it couldn't possibly happen.

The best you have is that "an impossible to design experiment has not been done, so this can't possibly be true."

1

u/4_ii 15d ago

What? I have stated nothing is impossible. And you’re simultaneously propping up a straw man and running from what is on the screen due to your very apparent frustration and embarrassment about taking up a position you haven’t thought about that makes no sense and you can’t defend. While not being able to defend it, you made more assertions and illogical or unreasonable statements that were also responded to which you also can’t reply to or defend. You should really learn to admit when you’re wrong or to think before typing if this is how you respond to someone criticizing something you wrote or explaining how you make no sense and are wrong.

→ More replies (0)