Do Quokkas Actually Throw Their Babies At Predators?
This question started as an online joke, and as time went on, people started taking it seriously. The answer to the question isn’t that simple, however. Firstly, it should be noted that no, quokkas don’t throw their babies at predators. That is a joke, but it is somewhat based on reality. Quokkas keep their young in their pouches, and while fleeing from predators, babies are known to fall out and are then left there by their parents.
The thing that is interesting here is that the part where they fall out of the pouch may be done on purpose by the mothers. Research shows that this may be an actual anti-predator characteristic of quokkas. They normally have very strong control over the muscles in their pouches, so their response to the threat of predators may be to release those muscles. The babies are left there to attract the attention of the predator, and the parents can safely escape. Mothers want to save themselves because they have proven that they are fertile, while the young might not be.
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.
If you’re not ready to die, don’t have children.
*Quokkas scribbling notes*
That this is a controversial opinion explains so much about human society. You’re a bunch of self deluding quokkas.
Not to mention detached from reality. Every mother risks her life to give birth.
You’re talking about mammals only, right?
E.g. fish disagree by and large.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.
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
How nice of science to demand the motivation of the mother for ditching her kid.
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
but that’s an analysis a human scientist is making. not the quokka
This is an important distinction to make in general regarding science communication about evolution. Far too often, the evolutionary process is anthropomorphized, adding confusion to the scientifically illiterate. I watched a documentary once where some biologists were in the Amazon, noticed a brightly colored fish, and opined to the camera “why would evolution do this?” That is a terrible way to communicate a scientific curiosity.
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.
More where that came from lol!
-Momma Quokka
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.
While this may have happened accidentally at times, there is no way the potential for an accident like that would not be either selected and incorporated, or selected against and rejected as a survival trait.
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.
Do you know this from reading it somewhere or are you just making shit up because it makes you feel better?
Just theorizing based on the information in the body of the post. You ok dude? Must be exhausting to be mad all the time.
So, making shit up.
God forbid someone can make guesses and think of possibilities in a meme community.
English mother quokka, do you speak it!?
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.
