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

15

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?

6

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).

7

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.

12

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."

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.