this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
1046 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

11081 readers
2657 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pinkystew@reddthat.com 18 points 1 week ago (4 children)

No living thing has a feature "to" do anything. That implies decision making, which is intelligent design.

Tigers have spots on their ears, which can confuse attackers.

Tigers did not develop those spots "to" confuse attackers.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I hear what you're saying, and you're 100% correct, but I think most people will realize it's a figure of speech, and easier to say than "Via the process of gene mutation trial and error over many, many generations of tigers, spots have developed on their ears that look like eyes, resulting in predation from behind being discourged."

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

One way of thinking of it could be that since all of our intention and decision making originates in such a process, the line between them isn't that clear.

[–] homura1650@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago

All models are wrong, but some are useful. Thinking of evolved features as having a purpose is wrong, but it is also incredibly useful.

Why do we have eyes? In some sense, there is no reason, just a sequence of random coincidences, combined with a slightly non-randon bias refered to as "survival of the fittest" (itself an incorrect model).

However, saying that we have eyes to see has incredible explanatory power, which makes it a useful model. Just like Newton's law of Universal gravity. We've known it that is wrong for a century at this point, but most of the time still talk as if it's true, because it is useful.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yes, they did though. That's the purpose of this evolutionary trait. I see what you're getting at, but you seem to be implying this was a concidence

[–] pinkystew@reddthat.com -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Every evolutionary trait is coincidence. If it was adaptation we'd be able to regrow vital organs.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 6 points 1 week ago

that's not how that works, we cant regrow (most) vital organs (liver says hi) because of "engineering problems" not because evolution is random. we personify adaptations to understand them, it can lead to issues but yours is a massive overcorrection.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Adaptation is bullshit? Well that's a new one...

The spots might be helpful for baby tigers?