Riddle me this, /sci/

Because it's bait

Same reason people didn't evolve against getting shot.

>>8838934
They have.

Fish in the North Atlantic is now smaller and that helps them not getting caught. I no longer have the source but there was an article dealing extensively in how human activity has put evolutionary pressure on a lot of species.

>>8838934
For the same reason why 4chan hasn't evolved against being baited.

>>8838934
If evolution is true, then why haven't you evolved resistance to bullets?

Hunting does effect natural selection though.

>Rattlesnake rodeos capture snakes in the wild, using the rattles to identify snakes for capture and thus consumption
>Rattlesnakes with quiter rattles, or who dont rattle at humans survive
>The population trends towards those snakes who rattle less.

File: 16513581743.png (553KB, 1598x865px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1598x865px

If we didn't evolve from monkeys, why do we have a common ancestor with them?
Darwin BTFO

>>8838934
Lots of them have spikes where when you grab them off the hook your hand says ouch and they go back in the water

Checking, atheists

File: clever girl.jpg (75KB, 388x295px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 388x295px

>>8838962

>>8838966
>Fish in the North Atlantic is now smaller and that helps them not getting caught

My understanding is that this has to do with fewer surviving long enough to reach full size rather than an evolutionary change -- if the fishing stopped removing adult fish, they'd go back to reaching full size.

>>8839434
Rattlesnake rattles are evolutionary fascinating.

Rattlesnakes are deaf, like all snakes -- the bastards do not even know they are making a noise when they vibrate their tale.

Of course, it does not matter if the snake can hear it -- still, that just seems so wild to me...

>>8839483
They apparently don't rattle much anymore where they have a history of being hunted, probably some natural selection at work there.

>>8838963
>he doesn't know
Lower tier hominid detected

Because we have started fishing "very recently", if you consider timescales on which evolution works.

It takes millions of years for creatures to evolve, but we have been fishing for only 10000 years or so.

>>8839515
I don't think some anti-fishing adaption would be too complicated to evolve in a relatively short time

>>8839523
evolution is NOT a guided process, you're looking at it the wrong way
fish aren't going to evolve anti-fishing phenotypes just because they are being fished, being fished means that if a fish happens to randomly get an anti-fishing phenotype, it can then propagate this throughout the population because the other fish are being fished

if that first anti-fishing fish doesn't happen then the species is not going to adapt to it.

>>8839539
An anti-fishing adaption could be just some mutation that happens to lower the fish's chance to get fished, that would be a considerable fitness advantage and the allele would spread quickly. Of course positive mutations are rare but with big population sizes and some time it is not impossible

>>8838934
Because evolution isn't 'need driven', it is driven by random mutation that is then 'tested' against evolutionary pressures that determine what mutation is successful (because that 'successful' organism is able to reproduce).

File: cat bane kitty.jpg (33KB, 232x346px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 232x346px

>>8838934
because we evolved as well to fish the unfishable fish

>>8839481
>fewer surviving long enough to reach full size rather than an evolutionary change
That would be an obvious thing to check. The article made it clear it was not about age but evolution and the smaller fish were better able to survive.