/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7592551]

How do living things such as plants and animals develop genetic defenses against dangers e.g. pic related? It's not like they can just think of a defense and then grow it, so how does a plant that keeps getting eaten develop thorns?

[Anonymous No.7592557]

>>7592551
The plants that are more rigid, maybe bumpier, get eaten less. They have a higher chance of passing on genes. Over time, the average bumpiness increases. Then when all the plants are bumpy, you imagine some of the ones with sharper bumps are being eaten less. Thus the average sharpness increases. Etc.

[Anonymous No.7592560]

>>7592557

This is a guess.

[Anonymous No.7592562]

Some mutate and grow spikes whick keep dangers away to a degree. Some don't mutate and go extinct because they can't overcome those dangers. So the ones that evolve those defense mechanism get to carry on living.

[Anonymous No.7592566]

"For all things which have life are moulded by Awen. The fox, shivering in the coldlands, longs for warmth and so its cubs have warmer coats. The owl, clumsy in the dark, longs to see its prey more clearly, and in generations of longing the desire is granted. Awen makes everything what it is, for all things change under its law."

http://www.incapabledesetaire.com/edito2/Kolbrinm.htm

[Anonymous No.7592569]

>>7592560
What do you mean? Part of the reason I can't take any opposition to natural selection seriously, even more so than opposition to climate change etc., is that the process of natural selection is essentially an axiomatic consequence of "things that are more suited to not die have a better chance of passing on their genes" which is universally recognized as valid. It isn't a guess. It isn't even a theory that has insurmountable mountains of evidence over hundreds of years and hundreds of controlled experiments(that's right, not just observing nature, but literally evolving creatures over generations inside labs), because while the preceding is true, it is also a logical consequence of something you would be an idiot to disagree with.

[Anonymous No.7592588]

>>7592551
Your not the same anon who made the airplane thread, the flat earth thread, and the anti big bang thread are you? Are you working on a /sci/ trolling collection or something? Screen capping all this to post on r/4chan later for massive upboats?

[Anonymous No.7592590]

>>7592588
you're

[Anonymous No.7592599]

>>7592566
Fuck off Lamarck.

[Anonymous No.7592604]

>>7592551
Short answer: Natural Selection
Long Answer: Your perception on how organisms and species are related is a little incorrect, so I'll just tell you.
Organisms do not evolve. By some minor mutations occurring due to natural causes yes, but in the larger image they do not evolve. An organism has nearly the same DNA composition at the point of reproduction as it did when it was conceived, so the organism itself has no impact on the future of the species.
A species can evolve. It is because the organisms that survive procreate and generate offspring that can further procreate and determine the best traits that can be developed to survive as a species in their environment.

[Anonymous No.7592610]

>>7592599
>wheeee I'm a Darwinist; I'm not really sure why though. But watch me be act like a tough guy on teh internet.

Ignorant faggot.

[Anonymous No.7592619]

>>7592560
>explains natural selection, a concept that has been widely accepted by the scientific community for decades
fuckin guesswork, man

[Anonymous No.7593909]

>>7592551
Pseudothorns/actual thorns formed first, the birds ate them less, so then the next generation had a higher portion of thorny plants. What works survives.

[Anonymous No.7595452]

>>7593909
This is right. It's why those organic molecules had to become simple organisms, because if they didn't then technically they'd be dead, a.k.a not surviving.

[Anonymous No.7595464]

>>7595452

[Anonymous No.7595475]

Heres an idea my father came up with to disprove evolution. Snakes do pretty well with venom sacks and venom delivery. Its an excellent way to deter predators and kill prey.

So why dont seagulls have venom delivery systems? Imagine seagulls flocking at anything, bears, early humans, dogs, nothing would stand in their way. They would seriously be a swarm of apex predators.

So choice is not an option. Natural selection is the only determining factor.

[Anonymous No.7595521]

>Humans are scared of unreasonably high heights because they might die if they fall.
>This trait is inherited from all the humans that fell off a cliff and died but then passed on their genes.

You're pretty much a fucking retard if you believe evolution is the answer to everything.

[Anonymous No.7595535]

It's pretty astounding how plants can survive the infections they encounter.
Consider that plants by their nature must stay in place. They also have a tendency of forming dead and semi-dead tissue rife with potential nutrient sources. Coupled with the fact that by their nature they have survived to carve out a suitable niche makes them excellent targets for infection

And still they stand. How do they do it?

Cellular effectors like defensins, pore forming toxins, NOD/NLRs and sn/siRNAs form a cellular response to infection
By the very fact that most potential pathogens are very morphologically distinct allows the plants to produce chemicals extremely detrimental to non-self cells, but benign to host cells
Finally, the compartmentalized structure of a plant (consider, individual leaves on a tree, individual petals on a flower or inidvidual blades of grass) allows these organisms to destroy infected tissue readily without suffering harm to the system as a whole
A human body severing its own liver to spare itself hepatitis, for example, would kill itself in the process

[Anonymous No.7595540]

>>7595521
On the flip side, organisms that aren't innately averse to potentially deadly heights may not survive long enough to pass their genes

All that remains is a population of people who know to avoid such spots due to an increased risk of death
Evolution is a force that pushes in both directions, anon

[Anonymous No.7595543]

>>7595535
Are you
>axiomatic

From before?

So you don'tunderstand evolution

[Anonymous No.7595566]

>>7595543

I'm not sure where your anger is coming from, anon?
Are you suggesting that an organism would needlessly devote resources to developing a defense that is at the time unnecessary?
Of course these defenses are adopted as a mechanism of external influence.

I'm not the person you think I am, but I think you might suffer from the mistaken belief that evolution only exists within an individual
Evolution is more like a vector in physics; the sum of all genetic flow and modification within a large sum of individuals is what directs the flow of evolution

A pathogen clears all evolutionary "forces" that cannot overcome or resist the infection.
What remains is a larger, directed evolutionary force in response to the external stimulus given

There's nothing magical about evolution, it's applied chemistry more than anything

[Anonymous No.7595570]

>>7595566
You ignore so many ideas that have be anyway proven.I'm not freaking with you

[Anonymous No.7595573]

>>7595566

sometimes it sounds like you actually understand evolution but then you say stupid ass shit like

>Are you suggesting that an organism would needlessly devote resources to developing a defense that is at the time unnecessary?

yes

[Anonymous No.7595575]

>>7595570
K, I see you're not a native english speaker, so I can sympathize for the lack of adequate textbooks in your native language

Consider international editions; I know Pearson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" has an international copy that will prove plenty sufficient to fill the gaps in your knowledge

[Anonymous No.7595584]

>>7595573
Sustainably, anon.
In the scheme of time that a population exists, a mutation that does not confer a benefit to the organism will eventually disappear from the population

Sure, the presence of a defense would persist if an evolutionary force existed that caused it to persist. If the mutation is "unnecessary" it will likely represent little more than a transient, unobserved blip on the evolutionary timeline of a population

[Anonymous No.7595585]

>>7595575
your autistic ass way of trying to appearing smart by using big words and mixing your bullshit in with nice-sounding things is what makes it sometimes look like you know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.7595604]

god tells them to

[Anonymous No.7596713]

>>7592551
Dumb luck.

I'm no expert but I think the best way to explain it is...
>one day, a plant is born with a genetic defect that causes him to have prickles/ proto-prickles.
>gets bullied in plant school because genetic freak.
>moa-nalo shows up.
>freak plant doesn't get eaten because of dem prickles.
>Smooth plants and their non prickly offspring get eaten, prickly bro and his prickly kids don't.
>Eventually all the smooth plants are killed off by predation and competition with prickly plants, or the 2 types of plants diverge so much they become separate species.
>And now you have it. A species of prickly plant with a genetic defense against dangers.

Evolution doesn't have a "goal". It just stirs the gene pool through sexual reproduction until something that survives way better than it's neighbors appears and takes over.