 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/09/2011 10:45 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 15/09/2011 11:32, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 15/09/2011 9:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances for
>>> no other reason than to prevent them being eaten,
>>
>> Do you believe in a god?
>>
> Yes. Mamma always told me to believe in me.
>
LOL
"To believe in myself" would have read better. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4e70ab19$1@news.povray.org...
>Sometimes I find myself wondering the strangest things. For example... How
>much is a live dairy cow actually worth? As far as I'm aware, there's no
>easy way of actually answering such obscure questions.
From Google, about 1000-1300 euros depending on age, breed, location etc.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/09/2011 12:22 PM, Gilles Tran wrote:
> 4e70ab19$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Sometimes I find myself wondering the strangest things. For example...
>> How much is a live dairy cow actually worth? As far as I'm aware,
>> there's no easy way of actually answering such obscure questions.
>
> From Google, about 1000-1300 euros depending on age, breed, location etc.
That's interesting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/09/2011 11:12 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 15/09/2011 10:32 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 15/09/2011 9:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances for
>>> no other reason than to prevent them being eaten,
>>
>> Do you believe in a god?
>
> *sigh*
>
> OK, well if you want to split hairs...
>
I generally only do that with an axe. ;-)
> I'm just wondering whether the fact that many fungi are poisonous to
> large mammals is positively selected for, or a neutral trait.
>
mind that lots of fungi are not only edible but delicious.
> (Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
> actually understands how evolution works.)
>
It is not! In fact it shows that *you* do not understands Evolution
> The tea tree manufactures caffeine for no reason other than to control
> pests. It is of no "use" to the plant itself, it's just poisonous to
> certain insects that try to eat the plant. If there were no insects, the
> tree wouldn't need to make caffeine at all. This is "deliberate toxicity".
>
You think that plants can make decisions?
>
> 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.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm just wondering whether the fact that many fungi are poisonous to
>> large mammals is positively selected for, or a neutral trait.
>>
>
"Is the situation X or is it Y?"
"No, definitely not."
> Baring in
> mind that lots of fungi are not only edible but delicious.
You have strange tastes. :-P
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".
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.09.2011 10:24, schrieb Invisible:
>
> Well, yes, to a degree that's true. It's also clear that, for example,
> snake venom is "obviously" designed to kill the things that snakes eat.
> I'm just wondering whether fungi deliberately manufacture substances for
> no other reason than to prevent them being eaten, or whether the stuff
> that makes them so poisonous is just a normal part of their internal
> chemistry.
There is no doubt that it originated as a "normal" (or, actually, back
then abnormal) part of their internal chemistry. How would a
non-sentient fungus develop a poison, if not by happenstance?
But obviously, accumulating substances in your body that kill animals if
they eat part of you happens to be beneficial for your kin. So the fact
that by now there exist various fungi which are poisonous is /not/
happenstance at all, but a logical consequence of evolution.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Invisible:
> From that description, it sounds like zinc itself contains energy.
> Which raises a few questions:
>
> 1. Why do you need a fruit at all? Why can't you just extract the energy
> from the zinc?
>
> 2. Why does the other electrode need to be copper? If the energy comes
> from the zinc, surely *any* metal will do?
>
> 3. Why does using a potato work, but using a glass of water doesn't?
2. In layman's terms, the other electrode needs to be some metal that
"contains less energy" than zinc (and should be a good conductor,
comparatively inexpensive, and maybe meet a few less obvious constraints
of the experiment)
1. + 3. You need a medium between the two electrodes that is a poor
conductor for electrons (otherwise they would just migrate via that
medium rather than the wire and load), but easily provides for free ions
(otherwise the electron flow through the wire would quickly cease due to
buildup of an electrostatic potential). Lemons and potatoes are quite
good at this, while plain water isn't. (Battery acid is even better, but
poorly suited to let children toy around with.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/09/2011 03:01 PM, clipka wrote:
> 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.
Consider another example.
The Black Widow's venom is very toxic to insects. Which isn't
surprising, considering that this is what spiders usually eat. The venom
is completely non-toxic to, say, cats. Which makes sense, since spiders
don't eat cats. (And cats don't usually eat spiders.)
And yet, Black Widow venom /just happens/ to be lethal to humans. Not
because there's any advantage to that, but just be coincidence.
And that's what I'm asking. Is mammal predation on fungi significant
enough that it's worth developing defences against it? Or is the extreme
toxicity of some fungi merely an unrelated accident?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:12:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
> actually understands how evolution works.
When you start throwing around the word 'design', you start demonstrating
a lack of understanding of how evolution works or even what it is.
Evolution *is* *not* *design*. Not even remotely.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
