this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
1049 points (99.6% liked)

Science Memes

14155 readers
1135 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 26 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Wouldn't a mutation in the deer sight to see orange be vastly evolutionary beneficial?

[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 8 points 20 hours ago

It could, but it might also lead to something harmful for the deer at the same time. I'm not sure if the gene affecting the deer's eyesight is known, but it could be a pleiotropic gene (a gene that influences multiple traits at once).

If that's the case, and the other effect is negative and somehow spreads through the population, it could become a future issue for the deer. Think about humansβ€”we lost the ability to produce our own vitamin C. Almost every other mammal can produce their own (except for hamsters). When this happened, it didn’t harm us right away, so it spread through the population. But over time, it led to issues that weren’t a problem before, like scurvy.

Same could happen to the deer.

[–] superniceperson@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Only in areas with tigers, and then it would only express itself enough if there were enough evolutionary pressure exclusively on that survival tactic.

As long as other causes of death happen to deer in tiger territories and as long as speed remains a good survival strategy, minor mutations that would only provide an advantage in extreme specific scenarios like a tiger stalking them wouldn't have a chance to be spread.

There's also a whole host of additional brain power that needs to be dedicated to more complex colour blending and processing, and that may add enough delay to offset any potential gain in recognizing a threat.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

minor mutations that would only provide an advantage in extreme specific scenarios … wouldn't have a chance to be spread.

Most north europeans can digest lactose.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

North Europe is a frozen wasteland where nothing grows for like a third of the year, being able to digest lactose in those months is hugely advantageous. I don't think "winter" counts as an "extreme specific scenario"

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago

Hey northern europe is not all Iceland.

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Black death IIRC. Milk was one of few easily availabke foods when farmers died off. So, extremely specific scenario.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 11 points 1 day ago

Presumably yes, but its still down to a roll of the dice whether a mutation like that happens in the first place, and whether the individuals who have that mutation live long enough to breed, and whether that mutation actually gets passed down, etc

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 1 points 14 hours ago

Competitive advantage over their deer peers.

[–] meliaesc@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

It's been far more important, evolution wise, to be agile and quick enough to avoid predators. Like a security camera can only tell you how someone was murdered.

[–] hexabs@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And then soon we'd have green tigers.

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There are no green mammals because of some biology reason I can't remember.

[–] hexabs@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Yeah I think it was a balance patch, because mammals that could photosynthesize were too OP.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Also, the vast majority of mammals don't see green either.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Basically all mammalian pigmentation is just melanin, so mammal colorings are mostly just different amounts of brown combined with different amounts of red, and some animals don't even have the red.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Some birds and insects are green.

[–] colourlessidea@sopuli.xyz 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

True, but they aren’t mammals.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

No, why is it so hard for mammals to make green? Even green eyes are just a reflection/interferrence trick.

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It's hard to do with fur, I believe. Birds and bugs also don't have green pigment, I believe. But they also don't have fur.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Right, i just remembered that green and blue in feathers is also just a interferrence trick. Same in bug shell.