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.



In a similar way, if I wanted somebody to go to an empty field and just 
*build* me a house, what would that cost? Obviously this one varies 
wildly depending on exactly what I want them to build, what 
infrastructure is already in place, etc. But let's take the astronomer's 
perspective: how many digits does the price tag have in it? (Assuming I 
want them to build a normal-sized house that isn't made of sure 
zirconium or anything weird like that.)



I once found out that for a mere £6,000 I can have a bespoke pipe organ 
installed in my house. Which, when you consider the amount of metal 
involved, to say nothing of the quantity of wood, the carpentry, the 
hand-made, hand-voiced, hand-tuned pipework, and the custom design... In 
short, considering the amount of materials, labour and specialist skills 
involved, six grand seems pretty darn /cheap/!

Obviously we're not talking about an organ to rival Westminster Abbey. 
Actually, something more on the scale of this:

http://tinyurl.com/684mhku

Even so, if you think about what it would even cost just to make a 
/cabinet/ like that...



Potato batteries. OK, how the /hell/ can that possibly work? I mean, 
seriously. Lemon batteries work because lemons are filled with lemon 
juice, one of the most acidic foodstuffs known to Man. But potatoes? 
They hardly contain any liquid at all, and (if taste is anything to go 
by) it's not even /slightly/ acidic. Any yet, apparently it can generate 
an electrical potential. How?!



Are fungi poisonous on purpose, or is it just a side-effect of their 
unusual body chemistry?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Potato batteries. OK, how the /hell/ can that possibly work? I mean, 
> seriously. Lemon batteries work because lemons are filled with lemon 
> juice, one of the most acidic foodstuffs known to Man. But potatoes? 
> They hardly contain any liquid at all, and (if taste is anything to go 
> by) it's not even /slightly/ acidic. Any yet, apparently it can generate 
> an electrical potential. How?!

  Ever heard of google? Or wikipedia?

  "The energy for the battery does not come from the lemon or potato,
  but rather the chemical change in the zinc (or other metal). The
  zinc is oxidized inside the lemon, exchanging some of its electrons
  in order to reach a lower energy state, and the energy released
  provides the power. The lemon or potato merely provides an environment
  where this can happen, but they are not used up in the process.

  In current practice, zinc is produced by electrowinning of zinc
  sulfate or pyrometallurgic reduction of zinc with carbon. The energy
  produced originates from this source."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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. 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.

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."

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?

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.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/09/2011 07:49 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Potato batteries. OK, how the /hell/ can that possibly work? I mean,
>> seriously. Lemon batteries work because lemons are filled with lemon
>> juice, one of the most acidic foodstuffs known to Man. But potatoes?
>> They hardly contain any liquid at all, and (if taste is anything to go
>> by) it's not even /slightly/ acidic. Any yet, apparently it can generate
>> an electrical potential. How?!
>
>    Ever heard of google? Or wikipedia?

What, you don't think I didn't try that already?

>    "The energy for the battery does not come from the lemon or potato,
>    but rather the chemical change in the zinc (or other metal).

>    The lemon or potato merely provides an environment
>    where this can happen, but they are not used up in the process.
>
>    In current practice, zinc is produced by electrowinning of zinc
>    sulfate or pyrometallurgic reduction of zinc with carbon. The energy
>    produced originates from this source."

 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?

More questions than answers...

Post a reply to this message

On 14/09/2011 02:24 PM, Invisible wrote:

> Potato batteries. OK, how the /hell/ can that possibly work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potato_museums

Yes, you read that correctly. Wikipedia has a list of "museums about 
potatoes". WTF?

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?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

Le 15/09/2011 11:09, Invisible a écrit :
> 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?
> 

Please go to a chemistry class about oxydo-reduction.


> 2. Why does the other electrode need to be copper? If the energy comes
> from the zinc, surely *any* metal will do?

Yep, as long as it has a different value for Redox-potential than zinc.
The tension will also be different. But using something not copper means
that you will also have more junctions to take into account (especially
if your lines are still made of copper).

> 
> 3. Why does using a potato work, but using a glass of water doesn't?

It might be related to the speed of oxydation of zinc: the surface get
quickly covered in a glass of water (if not already in the air) and it
isolate the core.
Inside a potato, the mechanical insertion might strips the surface of
its oxyd and then it may protect it from free oxygen.


> 
> More questions than answers...


-- 
Software is like dirt - it costs time and money to change it and move it
around.

Just because you can't see it, it doesn't weigh anything,
and you can't drill a hole in it and stick a rivet into it doesn't mean
it's free.

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.

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

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".

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

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

"Invisible"  a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion : 
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:
> "Invisible" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
> 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.

So somewhere around £1000?

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.
>

Not being a mycologist I can’t definitely say but I doubt it. Baring in 
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.
>>
>
> Not being a mycologist I can’t definitely say but I doubt it.

"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

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Evolution *is* *not* *design*.  Not even remotely.

  Evolution is emergence.

  OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> 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

Le 2011/09/15 04:24, Invisible a écrit :
> 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

Le 2011/09/15 05:32, 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?
>

In fact, not at all!

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/15 06:12, Invisible a écrit :
> 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

On 15/09/2011 9:14 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/09/15 05:32, 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?
>>
>
> In fact, not at all!

Nor do I.
But you did not ask if fungi deliberately manufacture substances for...

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9/15/2011 1:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
> 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?
>
> Point being, humans aren't the target. It just happens to work on them.
> Insects are the target.
>
Designed no. But if your a spider and you can't produce poison that 
effects insects, its not going to help you much. That some of them 
happen to accidentally effect other species, is not coincidence, in that 
you need the same chemical processes, on some level, in all animals. A 
poison doesn't have to do the same "identical" thing, hence the lack of 
some having an effect at all. In other cases, it may do some of same 
things, but because the poison isn't effecting the nervous system, but 
some other effect (spider venom also has necrotic effects, which kill 
tissue, regardless of *whose*, because it breaks down cells chemically, 
without needing to target specific characters "of" those).

A good example is snakes. Snakes have a very complex cocktail of organic 
chemicals. In most of them, those have been adapted to shut down pain, 
in most of the prey they go after. Since humans are not "prey", *none* 
of them should have a chemical for that. Yet, there is one in Africa, 
which does, and its not a python, or anything that might logically eat 
people. But... it might have eaten monkeys, of some sort or another, and 
a chemical that targets some nonspecific characteristics of pain 
receptors in monkeys "might" by sheer accident also effect humans, do to 
commonalities in the two nervous systems.

In any case, a "designed" venom wouldn't need 40+ different, often 
redundant, organic chemicals, instead of 3-4 very specific ones. They 
wouldn't need to contain things that have no effect on their prey, at 
all, but effect things, in some cases, that they would *never* come in 
contact with, etc. There are a lot of cases like that. Adaptations, 
which while they don't stress the animal enough to lose them, are nearly 
useless, because what they once affected is no extinct locally, and 
others where the effect of the adaptation actually is worse for other 
species, than the one it targets. Why? Because it works well enough for 
what its used for, and the coincidence that its much worse for something 
else is accident. Snakes don't "intend" to kill people, but some of them 
*will*, because we have the misfortune of happening to react **very 
badly** to their venom. It makes about as much sense to ask why this is 
the case, as though it was "designed", as to ask why some flowers 
produce pollen, which *happens* to make some percentage of people *very* 
allergic.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/15/2011 10:14 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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?
>
Since we don't eat all sorts of them, but just the larger ones, I would 
say, "probably". At the very least, wild pigs eat them, and probably 
others too. Besides which, that they have the characteristic, and its so 
heavily involved in their chemistry at this point, doesn't mean that the 
species that they *did* have a risk from is still present. After the 
trait exists, it merely needs to have "some" limited benefit, or not 
cost more than getting rid of it, to continue.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.09.2011 21:32, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

>> 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.

Note your use of the word "most" here, implying a significant number of 
toxic fungi in both cases, hence indicating that a) can be ruled out at 
any rate.

That aside, AFAIK c) is not true (only few fungi must be classified as 
"very, very fatal", at least in the sense of being frequently fatal even 
with good medical care), and neither is d) (I've never heard of any 
toxic fungi that need specialist /equipment/ to distinguish them from 
any edible species of fungi; AFAIK, the most that is required is a good 
deal of attention to visual details, and of course profound knowledge 
about the similarities and differences between edible fungi and their 
toxic look-alikes).


(Disclaimer: I Am Not A Fungi Expert, so don't rely on the above.)

Post a reply to this message

On 9/14/2011 6:24, Invisible wrote:
> In a similar way, if I wanted somebody to go to an empty field and just
> *build* me a house, what would that cost?

That's pretty easy. Look at your homeowner's replacement cost insurance.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:00:44 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Evolution *is* *not* *design*.  Not even remotely.
> 
>   Evolution is emergence.

Yes.

>   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".

The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not 
"emergence".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 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.
> 
> *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...

It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those 
proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches and 
say "see, see, there IS a creator!"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> 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...
>
> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those
> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches and
> say "see, see, there IS a creator!"

And I really don't care if those fools want to purposely misunderstand 
me. They aren't my intended audience.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/09/2011 03:23 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/14/2011 6:24, Invisible wrote:
>> In a similar way, if I wanted somebody to go to an empty field and just
>> *build* me a house, what would that cost?
>
> That's pretty easy. Look at your homeowner's replacement cost insurance.

Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a 
similar type?

Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be 
more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound 
on price...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".

> The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not 
> "emergence".

  Well, I think one could *colloquially* (iow. not scientifically) say
something like "evolution has designed birds to fly", even though the
"designing" process was not made be any conscious being, but was simply
a consequence of undirected natural phenomena. (Of course this may be a
bit of a poor way of phrasing it because "design" could be interpreted
so that there was a target towards which evolution aimed at, and directed
changes towards that target. Naturally this isn't the case, and the "design"
as a concept can only be applied retrospectively. However, attacking the
use of the word "design" may be seen as needlessly pedantic.)

  Now, if the argument is "we shouldn't be using the word 'design' in this
context because it easily gets associated with the ID movement", than that's
a completely different issue.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be 
> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound 
> on price...

  If that were true, then the builder would be losing money. It wouldn't
make sense. Why sell at less than the cost of building?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/09/2011 04:37 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be
>> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound
>> on price...
>
>    If that were true, then the builder would be losing money. It wouldn't
> make sense. Why sell at less than the cost of building?

Presumably building twenty identical houses is cheaper than building 
just one house. Cheaper per unit, anyway. And that's how commercial 
entities make their money.

Plus, the vast majority of all house purchases are for existing houses. 
It wouldn't surprise me if *new* houses are more expensive just because 
they're new.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/15/2011 3:12, Invisible wrote:
> (Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
> actually understands how evolution works.)

The problem is that the actual answer to your question is "mu", the answer 
that unasks the question. The very question you're asking is nonsensical, so 
no amount of disclaiming the phrasing of it is going to get you a reasonable 
answer. I.e., you're asking the wrong question, and people are picking on 
your wording to try to illustrate that the very concept behind the question 
is nonsensical.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/16/2011 1:03, Invisible wrote:
> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a similar
> type?

No. For one thing, you're no longer mass-producing the house.

> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be
> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound on
> price...

Buying a house costs whatever the seller is willing to sell it for. Plus, 
you're also buying the land, which at least around here is almost always far 
more expensive than the house itself.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/15 19:47, clipka a écrit :
> Am 15.09.2011 21:32, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Note your use of the word "most" here, implying a significant number of
> toxic fungi in both cases, hence indicating that a) can be ruled out at
> any rate.
>
> That aside, AFAIK c) is not true (only few fungi must be classified as
> "very, very fatal", at least in the sense of being frequently fatal even
> with good medical care), and neither is d) (I've never heard of any
> toxic fungi that need specialist /equipment/ to distinguish them from
> any edible species of fungi; AFAIK, the most that is required is a good
> deal of attention to visual details, and of course profound knowledge
> about the similarities and differences between edible fungi and their
> toxic look-alikes).
>
>
> (Disclaimer: I Am Not A Fungi Expert, so don't rely on the above.)

Some deadly mushrooms are indeed very dificult to distinguish from 
delicious and nutritive ones. It's to the point that, in some cases, 
even peoples who regularly collect them may pick the wrong one.

That's for macro mushrooms. For micro mushrooms, or fungi, you usualy 
need to observe them in a microscope or use sepcific reactants to make 
the difference.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:59:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> 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...
>>
>> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those
>> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches
>> and say "see, see, there IS a creator!"
> 
> And I really don't care if those fools want to purposely misunderstand
> me. They aren't my intended audience.

Propagating a misconception doesn't help all the same.  It's important to 
choose words with care.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:32:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".
> 
>> The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not
>> "emergence".
> 
>   Well, I think one could *colloquially* (iow. not scientifically) say
> something like "evolution has designed birds to fly", even though the
> "designing" process was not made be any conscious being, but was simply
> a consequence of undirected natural phenomena. (Of course this may be a
> bit of a poor way of phrasing it because "design" could be interpreted
> so that there was a target towards which evolution aimed at, and
> directed changes towards that target. Naturally this isn't the case, and
> the "design" as a concept can only be applied retrospectively. However,
> attacking the use of the word "design" may be seen as needlessly
> pedantic.)

Evolution doesn't design, though.  It selects advantageous features over 
an extended period of time.  That's entirely different than design.

>   Now, if the argument is "we shouldn't be using the word 'design' in
>   this
> context because it easily gets associated with the ID movement", than
> that's a completely different issue.

It's partially the same issue.  It's about being clear in what is said.

We already have a problem with a misunderstanding (intentional or not) 
over the meaning of the word "Theory" in "Theory of Evolution".  Let's 
not cloud the issue further by claiming that evolution "designs" things.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:03:16 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a
> similar type?

Not necessarily.  Replacement cost sometimes does include construction 
(ie, actual replacement).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those 
> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches and 
> say "see, see, there IS a creator!"

  If you want to have a fun evening, try searching for youtube videos
"disproving" evolution. You can start eg. with these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXVNJXu4R1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7kJP08fF9w

  Those are so bad that it's very hard to distinguish them from poes,
but AFAIK they are being serious.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message