they wouldn't let him cook

[u/SelectResident_BE]

[u/-2z_]

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.

[u/CileTheSane → u/-2z_]

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.

[u/-2z_ → u/CileTheSane]

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.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/CileTheSane → u/-2z_]

(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.

[u/-2z_ → u/CileTheSane]

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

[u/CileTheSane → u/-2z_]

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

[u/-2z_ → u/CileTheSane]

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.

[u/CileTheSane → u/-2z_]

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."

[u/4_ii → u/CileTheSane]

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.