10 Evolution Is A Lie: Theory of Evolution Implies Death And Evil Are Good

[cloudsrider]

Doh! I just took the very first picture I got with googling "squirrel". So it's not my fault.

But it is of "squirrel kind". It is so characteristic of the psychopathology of creIDism that they require superhyper evolution since the flud, but cannot stand ordinary evolution.

 

[keith99]

Ramping up squirrel cuteness.

Yea, cute now. Wait until he sees you from across the room, covers hte whole room in 2 hops and then runs up your leg all the way to your shoulder without regard to what (or how little) you are wearing!

This is not prophecy speaking, it is experience.

 

[Chalnoth]

My cutometer just blew. Damned you. Hmmm there must be a evolutionary mechanism controlling "cuteness" right?

Well, there's obviously very good reason as to why we find members of our own species to be "cute", but I often wonder why it is that we find the juveniles of many other species to also be cute. Mammals most so, of course, but many other juvenile species are quite cute as well. I find the relative universality of this perceived trait to be quite interesting...

 

[Bombila]

Keith, I've had kittens do that. Yikes!

Definition of cute baby animal can be stretched at times:

 

[Tomk80]

Keith, I've had kittens do that. Yikes!

Definition of cute baby animal can be stretched at times:

Gizmo!

 

[Naraoia]

Well, there's obviously very good reason as to why we find members of our own species to be "cute", but I often wonder why it is that we find the juveniles of many other species to also be cute. Mammals most so, of course, but many other juvenile species are quite cute as well. I find the relative universality of this perceived trait to be quite interesting...

I gather it has something to do with the big-eyed, stumpy-nosed juvenile features that you find in baby amniotes. Why anything from a baby croc (little crocs, oww!

) to a baby mammal has them, I'm not sure.

By the way, speaking of big-eyed baby faces and weird primates,

I find tarsiers disturbing. (Image from Wikipedia)

 

[pgp_protector]

Not as cute.

But an attack from a polar bear caught on camera

Spoiler: graphic polar bear attack

The Victim was expected to make a full recovery.

 

[Tomk80]

Hey! This thread is about squirrels. If you want to talk about cuteness, go make your own thread! Unless you want to talk about squirrel-related cuteness of course, that's okay for this thread.

 

[Naraoia]

Hey! This thread is about squirrels. If you want to talk about cuteness, go make your own thread! Unless you want to talk about squirrel-related cuteness of course, that's okay for this thread.

Ok, ok, squirrels. Do aye-ayes eat squirrels?

 

[Chalnoth]

I gather it has something to do with the big-eyed, stumpy-nosed juvenile features that you find in baby amniotes. Why anything from a baby croc (little crocs, oww!

) to a baby mammal has them, I'm not sure.

Well, yeah, but I'm curious as to why it's non-specific to our species. Perhaps it was just easier for evolution to build in a general "cuteness detector" than to make one species-specific?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, yeah, but I'm curious as to why it's non-specific to our species. Perhaps it was just easier for evolution to build in a general "cuteness detector" than to make one species-specific?

Surely it points to its inception in a common ancestor? I mean, we don't (usually) find fish or amphibian infants to be particularly endearing, but when it comes to our fellow mammals...

 

[Naraoia]

Surely it points to its inception in a common ancestor? I mean, we don't (usually) find fish or amphibian infants to be particularly endearing, but when it comes to our fellow mammals...

I personally find baby crocs/alligators cute too. Not sure what everyone else thinks about them, but if that's a widespread thing then it's hardly because our common ancestor had a cuteness detector

(But then I also find trochophores cute. I'm weird.)

 

[MorkandMindy]

Well, yeah, but I'm curious as to why it's non-specific to our species. Perhaps it was just easier for evolution to build in a general "cuteness detector" than to make one species-specific?

I think it works the other way around, infant animals have to have a more or less complete set of neurons at birth hence a big head, and being fed by milk the mouth and teeth can develop later reducing the risk of the snout being broken in birth.


Human infants follow the same development path therefore human adults find all infant animals cute, and any big headed round eyed animal come to that.


Humans have coexisted long enough with cats, dogs, and various domesticated animals to have selected the humans that like those when young too, I guess the animals have selected us as much as we selected them.

This red panda is cute because it is small but the body proportions look to me more like a ten year old than an infant. Teddy bears started with these proportions but soon evolved into big round-headed small body animals.

The eyes are round (like squirrels) and spaced about right for an infant human; cute.

 

[Chalnoth]

Humans have coexisted long enough with cats, dogs, and various domesticated animals to have selected the humans that like those when young too, I guess the animals have selected us as much as we selected them.

Perhaps this is it. Perhaps we came to see other species as "cute" just because it causes us to want to nurture them as well, which in turn makes us want to domesticate them. And if domestication has led to a significant positive selective pressure for our ancestors, well, that could explain it. Or domestication could just have been a result of this rather general 'cuteness detector' that was already there.

But I am slightly disturbed that the body proportions thing keeps being brought up. Sure, this is how our 'cuteness detector' works, but it doesn't explain why it's there in the first place. Just to put in a bit of contrast, we have another built-in aesthetic that is almost exclusively tied to our species alone: sexual attraction. Cuteness, being about nurturing, would for most animals provide about equal waste of time and resources as pursuing a sexual partner of another species. But we have this massive taboo against choosing a sexual partner of another species (and given that animals don't do it either, by and large, we can conclude they probably don't have that either). There is no similar taboo against taking care of the young of another species.

 

[Naraoia]

But I am slightly disturbed that the body proportions thing keeps being brought up. Sure, this is how our 'cuteness detector' works, but it doesn't explain why it's there in the first place. Just to put in a bit of contrast, we have another built-in aesthetic that is almost exclusively tied to our species alone: sexual attraction. Cuteness, being about nurturing, would for most animals provide about equal waste of time and resources as pursuing a sexual partner of another species. But we have this massive taboo against choosing a sexual partner of another species (and given that animals don't do it either, by and large, we can conclude they probably don't have that either). There is no similar taboo against taking care of the young of another species.

Can't it be that an animal is just less likely to meet the young of another species than the adults, so less selection against misplaced care than misplaced love? I can also imagine that it's riskier trying to court an adult someone (who might just bite you) than cuddle a young someone (who is more likely to nag you for food than do anything more harmful?).

Anyway, that's what I could come up with in two minutes

 

[Chalnoth]

Can't it be that an animal is just less likely to meet the young of another species than the adults, so less selection against misplaced care than misplaced love? I can also imagine that it's riskier trying to court an adult someone (who might just bite you) than cuddle a young someone (who is more likely to nag you for food than do anything more harmful?).

Anyway, that's what I could come up with in two minutes

It's possible. But that could make the selective pressure even worse for those that take care of the young of some other species: if it's easier, after all, they are more likely to waste time doing it.

 

[Naraoia]

It's possible. But that could make the selective pressure even worse for those that take care of the young of some other species: if it's easier, after all, they are more likely to waste time doing it.

Yes. But if you rarely even see the young of other species, I don't think it's likely enough to happen to be under strong selection.

N.B. I have no idea how common that kind of encounter is when you're not actively looking for baby animals.

(Though, if you're actively looking for them you probably want to eat them, not cuddle them - which also raises the question of how "cuteness" interacts with other things like hunger, being in "hunt mode" or in the middle of the breeding season...)

Hehe, this is completely unfamiliar territory for me.

 

[TheGnome]

It's possible. But that could make the selective pressure even worse for those that take care of the young of some other species: if it's easier, after all, they are more likely to waste time doing it.

That's unlikely, because how many abandoned offspring of other species are likely to be found in the wild just ready to be taken care of? You're not going to put yourself at risk to steal a young offspring from another species just like you're not going to put yourself at risk of stealing offspring from your own species, although there are instances of female apes who have done so. There may also be a graded system put in place. Adopting offspring from dead siblings is probably not uncommon in social animals, but more energy is going to be put in offspring with a larger r--a female knows that just by giving birth.

While one could adopt offspring and rear one's own, costing energy but not eliminating fitness, mating with others of a different species is a huge waste of energy that could eliminate fitness altogether if no matings take place within a species, therefore producing no offspring. One is easily going to win out over another.

There may also be other rewards in the cuteness factor, not just from raising the offspring of dead siblings, therefore enhancing your own fitness, but also potential collaborations cross-species. The use of dogs in hunting provided a great benefit to humans as well as to the dogs.

I hope that ramble made sense. I just wanted to get back to playing Chrono Trigger on my DS, but I wanted to join in the fun.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, I honestly don't know what the answer is. I just want it to be clear that the answer to why we find non-human animals cute cannot be as simple as just facial proportions or behavior. Sure, this is clearly how our "cuteness detector" works, but it doesn't explain why it's there in the first place, or why it's not specific to our own species.

Of course, understanding why our "cuteness detector" is there in the first place is easy, it's understanding why it's not unique to our species that's not quite so simple. And I honestly don't think that idle speculation can get us to the answer here, but I'm not quite interested enough to really delve into it deeply. I would, however, be grateful if anybody else is interested or knowledgeable enough to really go at it.

 

[TheGnome]

Well, I honestly don't know what the answer is. I just want it to be clear that the answer to why we find non-human animals cute cannot be as simple as just facial proportions or behavior. Sure, this is clearly how our "cuteness detector" works, but it doesn't explain why it's there in the first place, or why it's not specific to our own species.

I don't have any data, but it could be that simple. The reason why might be because of the reasons I postulated. That, and the alternative could have been much worse.