Metanet Forums

This is really cool.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_ne ... 135844.stm

I suppose it's in Debate so we can discuss the impacts of it or something...just thought it was awesome.

Night all.

First off, that's frickin' amazing.

I think the important question here is, in light of the fact that many animals don't recognize their own reflection in the mirror, whether or not that spider knows what it looks like.
It could be that this is an evolved behavior -- spiders had an advantage when leaving large clumps in their webs, and the ones that built clumps that looked like themselves survived better, and after a long time the spiders were building lumps that looked like themselves without any understanding of that fact. This would be a solid case for behavior being genetic, crediting the nature side over nurture and all that jazz.

Or the alternative: spiders are a lot smarter than a lot of other creatures with more advanced brains.

That these spiders are cool at all, warranting of a lengthy duuuuuuuudeing, is a subject of no small Debate.

blue_tetris wrote:That these spiders are cool at all, warranting of a lengthy duuuuuuuudeing, is a subject of no small Debate.

If you lock this...

*pulls threatening face*

Tsukatu wrote:It could be that this is an evolved behavior -- spiders had an advantage when leaving large clumps in their webs, and the ones that built clumps that looked like themselves survived better, and after a long time the spiders were building lumps that looked like themselves without any understanding of that fact.

I find that very unlikely, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

flagmyidol wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:It could be that this is an evolved behavior -- spiders had an advantage when leaving large clumps in their webs, and the ones that built clumps that looked like themselves survived better, and after a long time the spiders were building lumps that looked like themselves without any understanding of that fact.

I find that very unlikely, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I find that to be the only answer, really. Take this scaled-down process:

There are 32 spider species. Half make clumps. Those who didn't make clumps get eaten more, so the 16 who do make clumps survive to the next generation.

Of those 16, 8 make clumps that are similar in size to themselves. Those who didn't make properly-sized clumps get eaten more, so the 8 who do make properly-sized clumps survive to the next generation.

There are 8 spider species really thriving now. 4 of them make clumps that are the same shape as themselves. The 4 who don't are slightly more easily spotted, so the others survive better. They make it to the next generation. Then 2 of those make clumps with a similar pattern. Then 1 from that group makes a clump that looks frighteningly similar to itself.

Only consider this example with millions more spiders. Holy fuck, that's a scary example!



Modern animals typically don't survive by being extremely cunning. They survive because they survived before. If the animals weren't adaptable and didn't possess the correct means by which to survive, then we simply wouldn't see them at all today. That's why dodos are dead and that's why some condors are on the way out. They're not good survivors and our species just happens to be alive today to watch them get the boot.

And we've just now found this because we haven't been looking hard enough, or because it's just become a noticeable phenomenon?

Because it wasn't common enough. Other spiders were surviving better. Then, eventually, those other spiders stopped surviving and these ones had room to procreate more and become a larger portion of the spider population.

Or maybe we we've not been looking hard enough. It's difficult to tell. I don't know much about how this particular species was discovered.

blue_tetris wrote:There are 32 spider species. Half make clumps. Those who didn't make clumps get eaten more, so the 16 who do make clumps survive to the next generation.

Of those 16, 8 make clumps that are similar in size to themselves. Those who didn't make properly-sized clumps get eaten more, so the 8 who do make properly-sized clumps survive to the next generation.

There are 8 spider species really thriving now. 4 of them make clumps that are the same shape as themselves. The 4 who don't are slightly more easily spotted, so the others survive better. They make it to the next generation. Then 2 of those make clumps with a similar pattern. Then 1 from that group makes a clump that looks frighteningly similar to itself.

Only consider this example with millions more spiders. Holy fuck, that's a scary example!

Wiht the trend you provided, it would not be, say, 8,000,000 spiders, it would be 8,388,608, or 2^23.

Also, this is pretty cool. Now lets wait until beavers erect statues of themselves out of wood.

BionicCryonic wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:There are 32 spider species. Half make clumps. Those who didn't make clumps get eaten more, so the 16 who do make clumps survive to the next generation.

Of those 16, 8 make clumps that are similar in size to themselves. Those who didn't make properly-sized clumps get eaten more, so the 8 who do make properly-sized clumps survive to the next generation.

There are 8 spider species really thriving now. 4 of them make clumps that are the same shape as themselves. The 4 who don't are slightly more easily spotted, so the others survive better. They make it to the next generation. Then 2 of those make clumps with a similar pattern. Then 1 from that group makes a clump that looks frighteningly similar to itself.

Only consider this example with millions more spiders. Holy fuck, that's a scary example!

Wiht the trend you provided, it would not be, say, 8,000,000 spiders, it would be 8,388,608, or 2^23.

Also, this is pretty cool. Now lets wait until beavers erect statues of themselves out of wood.

Keep in mind that the reduction in species (halving in B_T's example) doesn't occur so quickly, or in some course at all. Biology provides a means for variation through mutation and, as some modern research suggests, learned traits. This is particularly true with behaviors, as we know they can be learned and passed down to children in some cases.

AWESOME, thats f'in sweet.

blue_tetris wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:It could be that this is an evolved behavior -- spiders had an advantage when leaving large clumps in their webs, and the ones that built clumps that looked like themselves survived better, and after a long time the spiders were building lumps that looked like themselves without any understanding of that fact.

I find that very unlikely, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I find that to be the only answer, really. Take this scaled-down process:

There are 32 spider species. Half make clumps. Those who didn't make clumps get eaten more, so the 16 who do make clumps survive to the next generation.

Of those 16, 8 make clumps that are similar in size to themselves. Those who didn't make properly-sized clumps get eaten more, so the 8 who do make properly-sized clumps survive to the next generation.

There are 8 spider species really thriving now. 4 of them make clumps that are the same shape as themselves. The 4 who don't are slightly more easily spotted, so the others survive better. They make it to the next generation. Then 2 of those make clumps with a similar pattern. Then 1 from that group makes a clump that looks frighteningly similar to itself.

Only consider this example with millions more spiders. Holy fuck, that's a scary example!



Modern animals typically don't survive by being extremely cunning. They survive because they survived before. If the animals weren't adaptable and didn't possess the correct means by which to survive, then we simply wouldn't see them at all today. That's why dodos are dead and that's why some condors are on the way out. They're not good survivors and our species just happens to be alive today to watch them get the boot.

This still doesn't address the phenomenon of what might prompt spiders to form clumps in their own image in the first place. Your explanation tackles why the spiders are what they are right now but neglects how the spiders did what they did t begin with. It would seem to me that forming such a close copy wouldn't occur by chance.

under_pressure wrote:This still doesn't address the phenomenon of what might prompt spiders to form clumps in their own image in the first place. Your explanation tackles why the spiders are what they are right now but neglects how the spiders did what they did t begin with. It would seem to me that forming such a close copy wouldn't occur by chance.

Er. Evolution through natural selection. Did you read the article? It was actually quite fascinating, for the BBC.

under_pressure wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:I find that very unlikely, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I find that to be the only answer, really. Take this scaled-down process:

There are 32 spider species. Half make clumps. Those who didn't make clumps get eaten more, so the 16 who do make clumps survive to the next generation.

Of those 16, 8 make clumps that are similar in size to themselves. Those who didn't make properly-sized clumps get eaten more, so the 8 who do make properly-sized clumps survive to the next generation.

There are 8 spider species really thriving now. 4 of them make clumps that are the same shape as themselves. The 4 who don't are slightly more easily spotted, so the others survive better. They make it to the next generation. Then 2 of those make clumps with a similar pattern. Then 1 from that group makes a clump that looks frighteningly similar to itself.

Only consider this example with millions more spiders. Holy fuck, that's a scary example!



Modern animals typically don't survive by being extremely cunning. They survive because they survived before. If the animals weren't adaptable and didn't possess the correct means by which to survive, then we simply wouldn't see them at all today. That's why dodos are dead and that's why some condors are on the way out. They're not good survivors and our species just happens to be alive today to watch them get the boot.

This still doesn't address the phenomenon of what might prompt spiders to form clumps in their own image in the first place. Your explanation tackles why the spiders are what they are right now but neglects how the spiders did what they did t begin with. It would seem to me that forming such a close copy wouldn't occur by chance.

You're right. It wouldn't occur very often by chance. It would occur very very rarely by chance. The example I gave actually starts with trillions upon trillions of possible spider behaviors. Nearly limitless, even. The very, very small portion who did exhibit this behavior were a lucky few (at first!) and soon were able to out-last and out-reproduce the other spiders that died off. You know, there's tons of spiders that don't even survive past childhood because they can't walk at all. "Walking" is a pretty rare quality in most animals--however, the species that survived to today are the ones who did walk, because those who didn't died off.

Again, a pretty broad example. Some ancestral species who couldn't walk started getting better at doing other things, like swimming or flying or snaking around like a friggin' snake.

I don't think we should discount

Tsukatu wrote: spiders are a lot smarter than a lot of other creatures with more advanced brains.

But I would have to change that to --- Spiders are a lot smarter than us, with more advanced brains. There going to take over the fuckin world!

Pet Peeve #61: people crediting animals with greater intelligence than humans
Where's your fucking wheel, huh? I'm looking at you, dolphins.

Tsukatu wrote:Pet Peeve #61: people crediting animals with greater intelligence than humans
Where's your fucking wheel, huh? I'm looking at you, dolphins.

Agreed.

"OMG! People have to be some of the stupidest creatures on earth! I met a guy who can't even fill out his check by himself at the bank, while I was working today, omg! People are so stupid!!!"

Have you ever met a turtle? A goddamn turtle? That's a fucktard if I ever saw one. Even the chimpanzee is a veritable Andy Dick of the primates, compared to mankind's David Duchovny. Humans are pretty fuggin' topnotch. Take a look at a stupid fucking turtle next time you hyperbolize about the simplicity of the human species. They're so stupid, they keep a stupid shell around in case they fuck up royally and require a shell to bail out their skeleton. Humans are made of soft meat that they manage, day to day, to keep safe from the elements.

Fuck you, turtle.

blue_tetris wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:Pet Peeve #61: people crediting animals with greater intelligence than humans
Where's your fucking wheel, huh? I'm looking at you, dolphins.

Agreed.

"OMG! People have to be some of the stupidest creatures on earth! I met a guy who can't even fill out his check by himself at the bank, while I was working today, omg! People are so stupid!!!"

Have you ever met a turtle? A goddamn turtle? That's a fucktard if I ever saw one. Even the chimpanzee is a veritable Andy Dick of the primates, compared to mankind's David Duchovny. Humans are pretty fuggin' topnotch. Take a look at a stupid fucking turtle next time you hyperbolize about the simplicity of the human species. They're so stupid, they keep a stupid shell around in case they fuck up royally and require a shell to bail out their skeleton. Humans are made of soft meat that they manage, day to day, to keep safe from the elements.

Fuck you, turtle.

Jon Lovitz could kick a turtle's ass.

Fish are the worse.

Spiders are smart!!!