4 ms·
It renders predation on you maladaptive, because the predator doesn't get back the energy expended in hunting, so over time it does actually make you less likel
by aaronem 12y ago
It renders predation on you maladaptive, because the predator doesn't get back the energy expended in hunting, so over time it does actually make you less likely to get killed.
- delecti 12y agoAnd then something evolves that can eat you, because there's an unfilled niche.
- bduerst 12y agoThis is a common misconception. Evolution is directionless and unguided. It's not like a startup, under the guidance of humans, pivoting for a niche market.
- delecti 12y agoYou're correct, and I didn't mean to make it seem as though it was an intentional process. But historically, when one aspect of the ecosystem goes unchecked, something usually comes along to take advantage of plentiful biomass, one notable exception being humans.
- eru 12y agoWe have lots of rats and roaches. Not directly feeding off our bodies, but on our extended phenotype.
- electromagnetic 12y agoYes, except even herbivores occasionally show evidence of eating meat. Deers are occasionally seen eating birds, similar has been seen in Cows (IIRC Lal the cow was documented eating its owners chickens from the coop) and in fact all Bovid species occasionally show eating birds. If there's a world of untapped food, this exceptionally rare behaviour would rapidly become advantageous, especially when the prey isn't adapted to the unusual predator. Evolution has no guide, but all evidence shows it evolves into almost every available niche and quite specifically that any large available resource will be tapped.
- bduerst 12y agoSo what if some herbivores will occasionally eat meat? You're assuming that the organism should look, act, and behave strictly within the boundaries of an English description. Again, evolution is still unguided and to assume that something will evolve into an open niche is a gambler's fallacy.
- electromagnetic 12y agoI'm not even going to attempt to argue this, because I sense I'm simply going to be banging my head against the wall because you're going to be locked into semantics and obsessing over "unguided". Convergent evolution, and history argue against you. C4 photosynthesis evolved independently 60 times. There's no guarantee it will, and I'm not arguing it will. However, the weight of evidence argues that if there's a readily available niche it is a matter of time. If you argue I won't win the jackpot, you're likely right - in fact I'd put money on my probability of losing. However, if you argue no one will win the jackpot in the next 100 years you're an idiot.
- bduerst 12y agoYou're the one trying to use the semantics of "herbivores" to make a point in biology. By assuming that there is even a "jackpot" to inevitably be won is making the gambler's fallacy. There is no "jackpot". Quit projecting and just stop already, electromagnetic. You can't even bow out and admit you're wrong gracefully, so you skip straight to name calling. Bravo.