Am 15.09.2011 14:09, schrieb Invisible:

>> Baring in
>> mind that lots of fungi are not only edible but delicious.
>
> You have strange tastes. :-P

Not really. Unless your concept of fungi is limited to those small 
rubbery class-C champignons that come in jars or tins.

> Then again, there are snakes that deliberately produce toxic venom, and
> others that don't. That doesn't mean that venom is in any way "accidental".

Oh no, they don't. All of them. And yes, it does.

There are snakes that thrive - not by happenstance but due to having a 
competitive edge - because they /happen/ to "accidently" produce toxic 
venom.

There are other snakes that thrive - not by happenstance but due to 
having other competitive edges - despite them /happening/ to not produce 
toxic venom (or maybe even /because/ they happen to have ceased to 
produce toxic venom, using the required energy for other purposes; not 
sure of any such cases, but they're possible).

That's how evolution works: Each and every trait of any creature 
develops by happenstance, but the thriving of creatures with certain 
traits is not by happenstance but due to some competitive edge given by 
that trait.


Thus, instead of "by design", "due to giving a competitive edge" would 
be a much more fitting wording - and would also bear the answer to your 
question in itself:

Being poisonous to eat /always/ gives you /some/ degree of competitive 
edge in evolution, unless the poison also affects animals from which you 
benefit more if they stay alive (e.g. animals that carry your seeds to 
other places), or requires too much energy to produce.

>>> None of this is intended to imply /actual concious intent/. It's just a
>>> figure of speech. Sheesh...
>>
>> Then you should make your self properly understood and not use terms
>> that proponents of Intelligent Design use.
>
> Scientists use terms like these all the time, under the clear
> understanding that it's merely a shorthand for something more
> complicated. The scientists know that. The ID people latched onto it as
> an easy way to mislead people who don't understand evolution.

Scientists may indeed use terms like those, but this is not an 
evolutionaty scientists' forum, so don't expect readers to share the 
same vocabulary.

Post a reply to this message