>> 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.

*sigh*

Yes, and when I say "Word 2003 doesn't understand files saved by Word 
2010", I do not for one minute intend imply that Word is actually a 
concious, thinking, comprehending entity. Of course I *know* that Word 
is merely a construction of op-codes, a sequence of instructions blindly 
executed by a mindless automaton, an inanimate machine. I know that 
there is no "thinking" or "understanding" involved. IT'S A FIGURE OF 
SPEACH!!!

Sheesh...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.09.2011 19:14, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> 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.)

You don't know the cats I owned :-)

> 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?

Is toxicity (mild or extreme) of fungi to mammals...

a) rare, found only in very few species, or
b) frequent, found in multiple - even very different - species?

Is it therefore...

a) probably a stray coincidence, or
b) probably an indication that it gives those fungi a systematic 
evolutionary edge?

Post a reply to this message

On 15/09/2011 07:41 PM, clipka wrote:

> Is toxicity (mild or extreme) of fungi to mammals...
>
> a) rare, found only in very few species, or
> b) frequent, found in multiple - even very different - species?
>
> Is it therefore...
>
> a) probably a stray coincidence, or
> b) probably an indication that it gives those fungi a systematic
> evolutionary edge?

Now you're asking relevant questions.

To the laboratory! Let us all eat fungi! For science!!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> IT'S A FIGURE OF SPEACH!!!

  Is that like a cross between a spinach and a peach?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.09.2011 20:43, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> On 15/09/2011 07:41 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>> Is toxicity (mild or extreme) of fungi to mammals...
>>
>> a) rare, found only in very few species, or
>> b) frequent, found in multiple - even very different - species?
>>
>> Is it therefore...
>>
>> a) probably a stray coincidence, or
>> b) probably an indication that it gives those fungi a systematic
>> evolutionary edge?
>
> Now you're asking relevant questions.
>
> To the laboratory! Let us all eat fungi! For science!!

Those questions were actually intended to be purely rhetoric. I'd have 
expected the answer to the first one to be common knowledge, and the 
answer to the second to be easily deductible from that.

Okay, let's add two other questions:

Are lay people warned to...

a) not eat self-collected fungi that have a certain well-known look, or
b) not eat /any/ self-collected fungi unless they're /absolutely/ sure 
of what they are?

Is this because...

a) the toxic species of fungi are so few that they can easily be 
described and remembered, or
b) the toxic species of fungi are too many to be easily described or 
remembered?

Post a reply to this message

On 15/09/2011 07:54 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> IT'S A FIGURE OF SPEACH!!!
>
>    Is that like a cross between a spinach and a peach?

More like a cross between Finnish and Meech, but anyway...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Now you're asking relevant questions.
>>
>> To the laboratory! Let us all eat fungi! For science!!
>
> Those questions were actually intended to be purely rhetoric. I'd have
> expected the answer to the first one to be common knowledge, and the
> answer to the second to be easily deductible from that.
>
> Okay, let's add two other questions:
>
> Are lay people warned to...
>
> a) not eat self-collected fungi that have a certain well-known look, or
> b) not eat /any/ self-collected fungi unless they're /absolutely/ sure
> of what they are?
>
> Is this because...
>
> a) the toxic species of fungi are so few that they can easily be
> described and remembered, or
> b) the toxic species of fungi are too many to be easily described or
> remembered?

How about

c) Most of the toxic species have no known antidote and are usually 
very, very fatal.

People are also advised to drive at 30 MPH in areas where people live, 
even if there are no people there.

Alternatively,

d) Most fungi actually look pretty similar to each other, and you need 
specialist equipment to tell them apart.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> On 15/09/2011 03:38 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 9/14/2011 6:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Are fungi poisonous on purpose, or is it just a side-effect of their
>>> unusual body chemistry?
>>
>> Nothing is "poisonous on purpose", everything is a side-effect of
>> different body chemistry. It just happens that, in some cases, those
>> side effects make them a lot bloody harder for other things to eat.
>
> OK, but consider this: The venom of the Black Widow spider is "designed"
> to be lethal to insects - and indeed it is. To mammals, it's harmless.
> It has no effect on dogs, cats, mice... oh, but by freak coincidence, it
> happens to be deadly to humans. How unlikely is that?

The production of that venom is beneficial to the spider as it make it 
easier for it to get it's food. So, it's a survival advantage.

>
> Point being, humans aren't the target. It just happens to work on them.
> Insects are the target.
>
>> In
>> the case of Fungi, however, it may also lend itself to death near the
>> fungi, and this more nutrients, or it might have a similar effect on
>> other fungi, which are in competition, and just, by coincidence, happen
>> to effect humans, and animals. Most often, the effected species are
>> insects. Thus, anything that, for example, has a nervous system, is
>> likely to have the unfortunate coincidence of also being harmed by
>> something that originally only was lethal to insects.
>
> You're aware that insects have an utterly different nervous system to
> mammals, right?
>
> For example, permethrin is a lethal fast-acting nerve toxin... to
> insects. To mammals it's almost completely harmless. (Except cats,
> randomly.)
>
>> As Darwin said, "No adaptation is ever for the explicit benefit, or
>> harm, of another species. It can only benefit the species that has it,
>> any effect it has on other species is happenstance."
>
> 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.

Here also, it makes it much easier for the snake to capture it's food. A 
quick bite and let go. Leisurely follow the poisoned prey untill it dies 
= easy meal.
It also a defencive side effect: A predator comes up, a quick bite and 
that predator is no longer a treat, even if it survive the poison. The 
pain and sickness will teach it no to try again, protecting other snakes 
in the future.

As for the poisonous fungi, the toxine is prety usefull to cull down 
competition = more room for it's devlopment, and fend off nasties bent 
on eating the fungi, increased survival chances.

Post a reply to this message

> 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?
>

In fact, not at all!

Post a reply to this message

> 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'm just wondering whether the fact that many fungi are poisonous to
> large mammals is positively selected for, or a neutral trait.

In some cases, it's a survival advantage.
In other cases, it's neutral and offers no real advantage. There may 
have been a time when it WAS an advantage to protect it from some, now 
disapeared, harmfull organism.

>
> (Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
> actually understands how evolution works.)

Yes, over very long time periods and countless individuals. Advantagous 
traits leads to higher survival rate and more offsprings. Disadvantagous 
traits leads to earlier death and less offsprings.

>
> 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".

Nothing deliberate here.
A pland had a slight random mutation and started making caffeine. By 
chance, it killed some insects that where eating the plant, and some 
times killed it. Maybe those insects also eated the seeds of flowers, 
reducing the number of offsprings.
That plant chances of survival thus increased, leading it to have more 
decendents.

Similar to the production of vitamin C by plants. It protect them from 
some infections. It's actualy toxic to some fungi and bacterias.

>
> Other substances, however, are manufactured as part of an organism's
> internal metabolic processes. As hormones, as intermediate compounds, as
> storage, whatever. A few of these just happen to be toxic to other
> species. This is "accidental toxicity".
>
> None of this is intended to imply /actual concious intent/. It's just a
> figure of speech. Sheesh...

Post a reply to this message