Re: A China-Sumer connection
From: Alaca (P.Alaca_at_is.invalid)
Date: 02/21/05
- Next message: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: Vineland"
- Previous message: hhc314_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Cell-Phone Jamming = Liberal Terrorism!"
- In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:01:59 +0100
Peter T. Daniels wrote in: 4219EDBD.7BC@worldnet.att.net,
> Alaca wrote:
>>
>> Harlan Messinger wrote in: 37s3r4F5f2tgeU1@individual.net,
>>> Alaca wrote:
>>>> phippsmartin in:
>>>>> Well, except that animals, so the argument goes, rely more on
>>>>> instinct that is passed down by artificial selection. An animal
>>>>> eats an edible plant not because the animal _knows_ it is safe
>>>>> but because its ancester _didn't_ die from eating it.
>>>>
>>>> But how does he know his ancestor didn't die,
>>>> or how does he know his ancestor did die from
>>>> eating another plant?
>>>> More important: Is there any sense of ancestors
>>>> among animals?
>>>
>>> That was the point of mentioning instinct--that for animals it has
>>> nothing to do with knowledge. The earlier animals in a species
>>> that had an instinct to eat--or lacked an instinct to
>>> avoid--certain things that were poisonous died out. Later
>>> generations represented the earlier ones that *did* have an
>>> instinct to avoid the poisonous foods, and they carried on that
>>> instinct.
>>>
>>>>> You're right though: people should have known already what was
>>>>> safe to eat and that it another argument against this legend
>>>>> being literally true.
>>>>
>>>> What is the difference between man and beast in this?
>>>
>>> I repeat: knowledge versus instinct. Are you not familiar with
>>> these concepts?
>>
>> Yes I am, but it seems I'm not able to express myself adequate.
>> Another attempt in a difficult matter and a foreign language:
>> Of course there is selection through e.g. poisoning, but I don't
>> think the resulting "knowledge" is stored in the genes.
>> I think your view on "instinct" makes such storage necessary.
>> If that was the case there must be a gene for every possible
>> plant, berrie etc. Is there any?
>
> There is a "gene" (if you want to put it that way) that makes the
> brain interpret stimulation of the "bitter" taste bud as
> 'unpleasant', and that "gene" came into being because critters that
> spit out bitter-tasting things had more progeny than ones that
> didn't. They presumably represented a mutation with, among its
> effects, a correlation of "bitter" with "unpleasant."
>
> Of course chefs and cuisines incorporate stimulation of "bitter"
> into their repertoire -- chocolate, for instance.
Not all poison is bitter en not all bitter food is poisonous!
Roe deer e.g. are thriving on a diet with a high content of
bitter tannines. Animals with unpleasant smelling of tasting
secretions like shrews, bugs and many beetles, are never-
theless edible and eaten. And the danger of collecting
mushrooms is that some tasty ones are very poisonous
or deadly /and/ are look-alikes of harmless species.
-- - Peter Alaca -
- Next message: Tedd Jacobs: "Re: Vineland"
- Previous message: hhc314_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Cell-Phone Jamming = Liberal Terrorism!"
- In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: A China-Sumer connection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|