/sci/ - Science & Math

They evolved to be poisonous due to random reasons. If the poison would have a highly negative impact to the survivability of the plant, the plant would go extinct. I can only see benefits to that, though.

Remember that things poisonous to some organisms aren't necessarily poisonous to all organisms.

>>6675369
>Does evolution, as a theory, have some holes in it?
No, but your understanding of evolution, as a theory, has some holes in it.

evolution is just a series of random mutations
only the strongest survives, but the mutations are not for a specific purpose

>>6675374
>They evolved to be poisonous due to random reasons.

Almost nothing in Evolution or this universe is 'random'. This myth needs to go.

It's worse than that idea we only use 10% of brains

>>6675380
Intelligent Designfag pls

>>6675380
What was the reason? God works in mysterious ways? Mutation due to completely not-random reasons?
I know everything in the universe is deterministic, but please, don't argue about semantics.

>>6675395
>Mutation due to completely not-random reasons?
>I know everything in the universe is deterministic, but please
>It's random
>It's deterministic

well which is it now?

>>6675404
>but please, don't argue about semantics.
There are things called "random", even though they are deterministic. They haven't taught this at high school, or you haven't graduated yet?

>>6675409

Agreed. "Random" is simply how we perceive it because we don't have perfect physics and we don't know the initial state of the universe. To computer the actual "randomness" would take more power than the universe has ever had.

>>6675409
>There are things called "random", even though they are deterministic

/sci/
lol

>>6675409
I'm going to jump in here. Mutations in genes which lead to possible advantageous or harmful traits are, for purposes of any meaningful discussion about natural selection, random. Some win, most lose. There is no genetic adaptation to environment (Lamarckism) handed down. Genes sometimes get mutated. That's it. That's evolution.

>>6675420
What's funny about this?

>>6675422

the entirety of it.

>>6675369
>berries evolved to be eaten
WAT

>>6675423
Brilliant.

>>6675423
Seriously though, break that down for me because I don't see the humor.

>>6675430
He's an autist with good scientific knowledge but really poor language/conversation skills.
I could explain what he think is funny, but I'll let him do it.

>>6675424
This. Not all berries were meant to be eaten as it requires the seeds to have specific properties. Poison berries simply found a niche they could exploit in being poisonous. Animals recognized the berries were poisonous and avoided eating them, allowing the plant to live
You should take at comparing poisonousness of berries vs. the spread of their progeny from the parent.

Animal eats poisonous berries.
Animal wanders around for a few hours and dies.
Plant has dead animal as fertilizer.

>>6675443
lol
This board

>>6675439
>Animals recognized the berries were poisonous

how? which?

>>6675445
This board is retarded and evolution is more complicated than natural selection.
But to answer your question, one indication is bitterness.

>>6675449

tons of bitter berries are not poisonous...

>>6675451
I did say one, though I think the more obvious answer would be trial and error.

Fatality by poisoning is a function of body mass.

Salt is poisonous, if you eat a whole kilogram of it ay once. But to a mice, it may take just 10 grams at once.

Poisonous berries effect large animals less, compared to small animals. Large animals are also known.to scatter seeds further than small animals.

Tl;dr poisonous berries select which animal gets to propagate its seeds

The durian, a large spiky fruit, chooses its animal by being large and spiky. only large animals can open and eat the fruit, and curry its seeds.

When you look at the poison berry, it doesn't need to waste additional enrgy making its fruit large and spiky, yet it gets the job done.

its an evolutionary advantage, getting the job done with less investment.

>>6675445


Your sense of thiols and sulfur containing compounds is a great example of evolutionary learning.

You yourself, at young, may not know rotting meat is bad for health, but your body has such high sensitivity for hydogen sulfide producted during rotting, the overwhelming activation of smell receptors.in your nose tells you something is wrong.

I don't see why its not possible to do the same for sight.

why is there cannabis ? what's the evolutionary advantage of getting animals that eat it high.
If it want to be eaten why not having a sweet taste?
If it want not to be eaten why not poisonous ?

>>6675369
>>6675375
peppers evolved to be spicy so that birds (who don't sense spicy) would eat them but mammals wouldn't. Birds don't digest the seeds all the way, mammals do. I bet it's something like that.

>>6675432
He didn't, so, if you could, please.

>>6675421
slightly off thread, what about telomeres and the whole epigenetic changes that occur in grandparents effecting grandchildren thing?

>>6675635
>the whole epigenetic changes that occur in grandparents effecting grandchildren thing?

absolute balderdash from start to finish

http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-1.html
http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-2.html
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/epigenetics/

>>6675639

I'm not arguing for Lamarkianism, I should have made that clear. I just wanted more info and saw an opportunity.

You said epigenetics is balderdash, but the second article says that sometimes epigenetic markers aren't always reset. Are you just saying Lamarkianism is bs? because yeah I agree.

It's my understanding that telomeres lengthen as the organism ages and that this is passed on to the next generation, is this true?

>>6675664
(just to clarify, I posted >>6675639 but not >>6675421 )

"Epigenetics" is perfectly fine when you use the term correctly - meaning either in Waddington's sense, or in the sense of methylation of genes etc. during an organism's life. There ARE also a few circumscribed corner cases where you can get quasi-Lamarckian inheritance in animals, that goes under the umbrella of epigenetics.

Then there's ~epigenetics~, that tries to explain things like human personality traits and life outcomes from non-genetic inherited factors. This comprises >90% of the popsci discussions of the concept, and is almost certainly a bogus fad.

>It's my understanding that telomeres lengthen as the organism ages and that this is passed on to the next generation, is this true?

Telomeres get reset with each generation. There might be cases where they don't, but by definition those can only be rare abnormalities. If they weren't - if telomeres monotonically lengthened with each passing generation - well, you can see the implications. They'd have to be pretty long by now.

>>6675670
>Telomeres get reset with each generation. There might be cases where they don't, but by definition those can only be rare abnormalities. If they weren't - if telomeres monotonically lengthened with each passing generation - well, you can see the implications. They'd have to be pretty long by now.

this is why I shouldn't post under the influence

telomeres shorten over time they don't lengthen

whatever

>>6675672
ok great. because it SEEMED crazy. Thank you.

The word "random" is sometimes used in our deterministic universe to signify the result of a chaotic process which, while completely deterministic, is impossible for us to analyse in any meaningful way.

>>6675767
>in our deterministic universe to signify...while completely deterministic

This isn't established fact or scientific. Whether the universe as a whole is deterministic or whether a particular process within the universe is deterministic can't be established empirically.

Go figure

>>6676003
Actually the only way to know the universe is deterministic is to take empirical evidence which is subjective in a basic level.

Please kill yourself

>>6675445
Animals that eat those berries die, animals that don't live. Evolution.

>>6675369
>evolved to be eaten

About that.

If mice evolved to be eaten by snakes, why did they get legs so that they run away?

/b/ - Deterministic

>>6676147
lol.
>berry gets eaten
>berry is digested
>seed is not
>animal shits seeds
>reproduction. evolution.
>mouse gets eaten
>mouse dies
>snake does not lay mouse egg
>nothing beneficial

Berries did not evolve to be eaten.....

I DON' NOW! Bloody berries not fitting perfectly the role we gave them. Sometimes it feels like evolution is just a blind process and not nature slowly figuring out how to help us.

>>6676176
Not every seed is spread that way. Asexually they can send runners and to develop that they have to stay alive.

>>6676195
lol sorry
*DON'T. My "t" apologises profusely.

>Determinism vs Free will threads will never come back
;__;

>>6676147
>If Mice Evolved To Be Eaten By Snakes, Why Did They Get Legs So That They Run Away?

>>6675404
Welcome, this is the surface. I know great to meet you to.

Now here's the deal, the mutation is randomly mutating 'till it's in a mutated state that favors the survival for the organism in it's environment.

Random - such that we can't even come colse to predict whether or not the mutation will even take place and more so in what fashion it will be.

Deterministic - such that it's striving towards fitting it's environment no matter when the mutation takes place.

>>6675380
Ella?

>>6675591
>If it want to be eaten why not having a sweet taste?
>If it want not to be eaten why not poisonous ?

The plant doesn't choose anything. That's not how evolution works. Jesus, has anyone on this board set foot in a bio class?

>>6675409
>durr durr Newtonian mechanics is best mechanics

Fuck off, pleb.

>>6675639
>some asshole's blog about a topic that's extensively debated and heavily researched at the moment