Dumb mother quokka.
post
Quokkas look like an unused Disney character.
me and the wife saw a documentary on capybaras, and one of the mother's kids got eaten by a crocodile. The capybara gave 0 fucks.
Edit : we even joke about "Caiman ate ma baybee!"
The mother infamous for that was eventually cleared and dingos did likely actually eat her baby. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo_ate_my_baby
And when it comes to humans: "Almost all neonaticides are committed by mothers." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2174580/
I mean, if men would have to carry the baby for nearly 10 months within their own body and after giving birth having to do all the care work like lots of women had and have to do, they would be baby killers more often as well.
Oh boy do I have bad news for you:
It is not exactly the situation you mentioned, but I think it is at least highly related?
My head cannon says this behavior is approximated by step-parents being shitty to their step kids so that their own kids get preferential treatment. But I have no proof, just life experiences.
If the mother gets eaten, the offspring in her pouch will be too. Sacrificing one to save the others and maintain the opportunity to reproduce again in the future works out from an evolutionary standpoint.
Remember, you only get to live once. You can also have more children.
People often read agendas where they may not be in simple but definitive phrase like that, especially if they seem similar to things people with agendas say.
For instance, someone might think you're making a strong anti-abortion statement, including blaming women for wanting to have sex, but your statement doesn't mention any of that. I could see a "pro-life"anti-abortion person saying that statement as a way of saying a woman should choose to die giving birth rather than getting an abortion, but I could also see it being the exact opposite argument in that if you don't want to risk your life, get an abortion instead of having the kid.
In either case, people with opposing opinions may read what they dislike in your comment and downvote it. So it might explain something completely different about human society.
You're talking about mammals only, right?
E.g. fish disagree by and large.
How nice of science to demand the motivation of the mother for ditching her kid.
yep, there's this weird trend to demonise cute animals.
you can't even fucking mention koalas on reddit without some arsehole telling us they all have chlamydia every 53 seconds.
according to them, all dolphins suck, all ducks are shit, and all cute little marsupials who never harmed a fly are secretly evil incarnate.
what if all humans were judged by the actions of some humans? that's a frying pan i'd rather not be in...
Maybe their flight response causes them to lose control of their pouch muscles (because that’s not a priority to survive), therefore accidentally dropping their babies.
Not necessarily. Evolution doesn't optimize trait by trait.
If the flight response leads to overall more reproduction it would naturally pass on regardless of any effect of the loss of pouch control.
The dropping of the baby wouldn't necessarily be a trait itself, but a side effect of the flight response.
If the relaxation of the pouch is directly tied to the stress/adrenaline response diverting resources elsewhere, which aids in escape, then it's not so easy to optimize to not loose the pouch. Pouch relaxation wouldn't be the genetic trait being selected for or against, flight response would be.
It can be more harmful for the pouch to be relaxed than not on an isolated level, but if that's counteracted by the increased ability to escape due to resource allocation then it would pass on as a "by product" regardless of its individual effect.
There may not be an existing genetic variation which maintains the pouch control during the flight response without compromise on the degree of speed or intensity dedicated to the escape. Evolution can't select for mutations that don't yet exist in the gene pool.
If the drop response was paired against retaining the offspring, and if the drop response coded genetically, more survivors would result potentially for several reasons: predator would be distracted by the discarded offspring and less likely, but the reduced weight burden.
The last few memes have been bullshit about the kind of day I've been having to spend around my mother in law and thank you y'all for helping
correction on that last sentence. mother's want to save themselves because they don't want to die. they are not making any calculations about their own fertility.
this strategy doesn't prove to be a major evolutionary disadvantage because the mothers are proven to be fertile so there is no evolutionary pressure to remove this trait but that's an analysis a human scientist is making. not the quokka
The individual Quokka isn't making that analysis, but evolutionary selection is
Evolution doesn't work that way. It's not picking and choosing traits. It's not making analysis.
The quokka just survives to pass on that trait so it persists.
Semantics, but I would say evolution is indeed picking and choosing traits, in the sense that an algorithm picks a result. It's not some conscious being though.
semantics are important when talking about evolutionary science. especially when a large segment of the population dismisses evolution as a "theory" with little understanding of what the term "theory" means in the context of science.
What natural predators do quokkas even have??
Is this post text written by AI? It seems very, "no, but yes, but maybe". It's like it's written by an LLM trained on clickbait.

top 14 comments