Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by birch, Nov 11, 2017.

  1. birch Valued Senior Member


    what a bizarre universe. that is a good question because the extent of toxicity isn't even logical. why does such a plant need an absurdly powerful venom?

    the only answer was that it's likened to a runaway trait. it still doesn't answer why some plants are more or less toxic than others when it's not anymore preyed upon than other plants or anymore special/rare, attractive, life-giving, succulent in fruit etc than other plant life.

    nature really isn't logical. i keep trying to make that point because that evidence is also all around us as well yet so many people think, especially on forums such as this, that everything especially nature is based on logic, sensibility and reason but it's not.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Who says it is "absurdly powerful", though? You, apparently. But why?

    The article points out that, while it is very powerful towards man and horses, plenty of local animals can happily eat it. So it is only "absurdly powerful" towards a number of species, which would probably not have been around when this plant evolved. In all likelihood the defence mechanism grew up to deter a particular class of animals that ate it. There is no reason to suppose it was anything to do with horses or man.

    So there you are: application of scientific reason puts this thing in perspective and allows you to start thinking of an answer to your question.
    river and Dr_Toad like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. birch Valued Senior Member

    No, i am not the only one because i got that from the comments section too. what makes you so clueless to think i would be the only one?

    and no, your point is NOT scientific really at all. HERE IS WHY: there are MANY plants that do not produce toxin even though they are preyed upon and have evolved right alongside.

    you are just making up rationales and narratives that seem to fit just as well which i could easily do the same to dismiss it to consider any further

    your reason doesn't make you think, it makes you dismiss actually. this is what actually pisses me off is LOGIC is confused with the facts or truth on this forum often by amateurs who believe they know what reality and the real truth is.

    you don't actually really know why some plants decide to produce toxin and others don't just as you have absolutely have NO FUKING CLUE why from the same soil, a carrot and celery root can spring up to evolve seemingly randomly.

    you don't have all the fuking answers so stop pretending you do. stop conflating logic and rationales with actual knowledge.

    like no one else can't easily dismiss it all. uh yeah, it evolved a toxin as a defense mechanism but somehow it's legitimate because it's not poisonous to ALL. we've all heard that theory and rationale. AND YOUR MOOT POINT?? CONSIDERING THERE ARE PLANTS AND ANIMALS WHOSE TOXINS ARE POISONOUS TO ALL AS WELL THOSE THAT DON'T.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Blimey, who rattled your cage? Can't handle a scientific approach to this, for some reason?

    Suit yourself then. But I certainly do have a fucking clue about how different plants evolved. As you also would if you read a few books about it.
  8. birch Valued Senior Member

    No, you don't. that's why you can't even answer the question emphatically. all you have is 'more than likely'. very confident there. if it's a fact, why aren't you stating it as such?

    also, how do you account for plants that are preyed upon yet do not produce toxins? different plant personalities? LMFAO!
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Well although not a (fucking) expert on botany I found this in abut 2 mins of web searching: This is actual evidence that the (fucking) density of stinging hairs of nettles increases in environments where there are a lot deer to eat them. So there is little doubt as to their evolutionary (fucking) function.

    That's what I mean about reading. I don't claim to know all the answers in fields other than my own but by having a look at the scientific literature I can often find answers or indications of where the answers may be found. So yes, I do have a (fucking) clue. And it comes from science.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    There are no such plants. Every known species of plant produces defensive chemicals that reduce predation. Most, if not all, also manufacture physical barriers and defenses - structures such as spines and shells and bark and hairs.
    river likes this.
  11. river

  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Because they do PERIOD

    As you say no rhyme or reason no logic. Nature is not a entity let alone a sentinent entity

    There is no end in sight, no goal to strive for
    Any life form which goes down a pathway which is non advantageous will die out
    Some life forms reproduce fast enough not to die out without evolving (unless you count fast reproduction as a evolution trait)
    Some life forms will as noted produce defence mechanisms

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page