Sick young ants release a smell to tell worker ants to destroy them to protect the colony from infection, scientists said Tuesday, adding that queens do not seem to commit this act of self-sacrifice.
"Our data suggest the evolution of a finely-tuned signalling
system in which it is not the induction of an individual’s immune response, but
rather its failure to overcome the infection, that triggers pupal signalling for
sacrifice. "
And as for sciencealert, their goal is to make science accessible to anyone. I think there is nothing wrong with also engaging it in an entertaining way. They also link the sources, so they are much better than other clickbaiters and you can read through original article to verify their writings.
The article, as it is, is unscientific bullshit. Period.
The words of Dr. Watson, as reported in the article, are unscientific bullshit. Period.
You don’t have to “entertain” when talking about science, you have to inform, because when you make science accessible to everyone in this way, you are spreading ignorance and creating the substratum of pseudoscience, since common people won’t read the paper, or even click on the link. Maybe not even go past the title (which IS clickbait).
No, this article is not “unscientific bullshit” as you say. It is actually pretty accurate. Let me just repeat the main scientific and accurate aspects for you:
The producing of smell was already known. Dr. Dawson used this finding to research behavior. And she found out, the smell is the cause of this killing behavior: They put the smell onto a non-infected pupae, but workers still killed it. Another funding is, isolated pupae do not produce this smell. They produce it only when workers are nearby, making the assumption it is costly to b produce and most effective when workers are near.
So you could say “young ants beg for death when sick”
Nothing wrong for me.
The only pseudoscience I see here, is your unproven assumptions your comment.
“Young Ants Beg For Death” No, they don’t and saying it is just projecting human behavior on them.
“queens do not seem to commit this act of self-sacrifice” There is no self-sacrifice since they don’t know what will happen to them, until proven otherwise.
“similar to how infected cells in our bodies send out a “find-me and eat-me”” Again, until proven otherwise, cells don’t have such knowledge, it is just a biological mechanism.
"the scientists wanted to figure out whether the pupae “were actively saying: ‘hey, come and kill me’” They don’t, we are just projecting human reasoning to ant pupae, two very different animals.
“Altruistic act” LMAO, I won’t elaborate further.
“While it is a sacrifice – an altruistic act – it’s also in their own interest, because it means that their genes are going to survive and be passed on to the next generation” Sacrifice, altruism, interest, have nothing to do with what is happening here, which is just a biological mechanism, as far as we can tell, naturally selected without the ants even remotely knowing about it, until proven otherwise.
“Are they cheating the system?” Huh… No? They are fucking pupae, they just exist and don’t even know what is this supposed system.
“queen pupae have much better immune systems than the worker pupae, and so they were able to fight off the infection – and that’s why we think that they weren’t signalling” Or… Being a different kind of pupae they also differ in not having that self-destruction mechanism.
This is MOST (I decided to be kind and ignore some things pretending they were just “funnily phrased”) of the unscientific bullshit added to make it more appealing (I guess?) to the average human reader, while also creating a lot of specist misconceptions regarding ants (and animals in general in my opinion) and the already mentioned substrate for pseudoscience and all those funny things we have to endure in today’s internet.
Well, all your arguments can be summarized in “projection of human behavior” onto those ants and pupae.
Okay, let’s go down this rabbit hole.
Do you really think anyone would express her/himself by avoiding this “projectionism”? I don’t think it is even possible. You see this projection in every aspect of our life.
“Time/Computer/etc. is running”
“The train is coming”
“The wind is blowing”
“The storm is raging”
“The city never sleeps”
“The phone died”
“Time flies”
“The night wrapped its arms”
And many, many more. You find those projections everywhere. And you know why? Yes, exactly! They help you understand the situation better. So what’s wrong with using then here too?
I mean I agree with the sentiment, but that’s just scientists vying for eyes on their project and hopefully in turn the money to continue research. That’s literally just the way things are done. Don’t hate the player dawg.
Did you read the source? I guess no.
"Our data suggest the evolution of a finely-tuned signalling system in which it is not the induction of an individual’s immune response, but rather its failure to overcome the infection, that triggers pupal signalling for sacrifice. "
And as for sciencealert, their goal is to make science accessible to anyone. I think there is nothing wrong with also engaging it in an entertaining way. They also link the sources, so they are much better than other clickbaiters and you can read through original article to verify their writings.
The article, as it is, is unscientific bullshit. Period.
The words of Dr. Watson, as reported in the article, are unscientific bullshit. Period.
You don’t have to “entertain” when talking about science, you have to inform, because when you make science accessible to everyone in this way, you are spreading ignorance and creating the substratum of pseudoscience, since common people won’t read the paper, or even click on the link. Maybe not even go past the title (which IS clickbait).
No, this article is not “unscientific bullshit” as you say. It is actually pretty accurate. Let me just repeat the main scientific and accurate aspects for you: The producing of smell was already known. Dr. Dawson used this finding to research behavior. And she found out, the smell is the cause of this killing behavior: They put the smell onto a non-infected pupae, but workers still killed it. Another funding is, isolated pupae do not produce this smell. They produce it only when workers are nearby, making the assumption it is costly to b produce and most effective when workers are near. So you could say “young ants beg for death when sick”
Nothing wrong for me.
The only pseudoscience I see here, is your unproven assumptions your comment.
LOL ok, let’s do this, I have time to waste:
“Young Ants Beg For Death” No, they don’t and saying it is just projecting human behavior on them.
“queens do not seem to commit this act of self-sacrifice” There is no self-sacrifice since they don’t know what will happen to them, until proven otherwise.
“similar to how infected cells in our bodies send out a “find-me and eat-me”” Again, until proven otherwise, cells don’t have such knowledge, it is just a biological mechanism.
"the scientists wanted to figure out whether the pupae “were actively saying: ‘hey, come and kill me’” They don’t, we are just projecting human reasoning to ant pupae, two very different animals.
“Altruistic act” LMAO, I won’t elaborate further.
“While it is a sacrifice – an altruistic act – it’s also in their own interest, because it means that their genes are going to survive and be passed on to the next generation” Sacrifice, altruism, interest, have nothing to do with what is happening here, which is just a biological mechanism, as far as we can tell, naturally selected without the ants even remotely knowing about it, until proven otherwise.
“Are they cheating the system?” Huh… No? They are fucking pupae, they just exist and don’t even know what is this supposed system.
“queen pupae have much better immune systems than the worker pupae, and so they were able to fight off the infection – and that’s why we think that they weren’t signalling” Or… Being a different kind of pupae they also differ in not having that self-destruction mechanism.
This is MOST (I decided to be kind and ignore some things pretending they were just “funnily phrased”) of the unscientific bullshit added to make it more appealing (I guess?) to the average human reader, while also creating a lot of specist misconceptions regarding ants (and animals in general in my opinion) and the already mentioned substrate for pseudoscience and all those funny things we have to endure in today’s internet.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
mic drop
Well, all your arguments can be summarized in “projection of human behavior” onto those ants and pupae.
Okay, let’s go down this rabbit hole.
Do you really think anyone would express her/himself by avoiding this “projectionism”? I don’t think it is even possible. You see this projection in every aspect of our life.
“Time/Computer/etc. is running” “The train is coming” “The wind is blowing” “The storm is raging” “The city never sleeps” “The phone died” “Time flies” “The night wrapped its arms”
And many, many more. You find those projections everywhere. And you know why? Yes, exactly! They help you understand the situation better. So what’s wrong with using then here too?
I mean I agree with the sentiment, but that’s just scientists vying for eyes on their project and hopefully in turn the money to continue research. That’s literally just the way things are done. Don’t hate the player dawg.