Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2002, 08:22 PM
R.I. Mateles
 
Posts: n/a
Default potato was a mutated tomato some 1 m.y.a.

It's a very simple mutation: t mutates to p, and m mutates to t.




"Christopher Green" wrote in message
om...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message

...
17 Oct 2002 14:30:40 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message

...
Which leads to an interesting question. Suppose the potato was a

mutated
tomato some 1 million years ago that began living its life

underground.
The question is why would underground result in a more nutritious

food
than the above ground item? Another below ground item is the peanut
and I suppose one can live off of peanuts alone for quite a length

of time.

Don't think underground vs. above ground: think storage vs. tasty
treat. To oversimplify, the potato is storing energy that it can use
to make quick growth next season; it "wants" to store as much energy
in as efficient a package as possible. The tomato is bribing animals
to eat it and thus disperse its seeds; it "wants" to make itself as
attractive as possible to consumers.


My attention is not focused on underground versus above ground as per
energy. It is focused on this issue because there exists (I hypothesize)
many plant species that had fruit like a tomato and then some mutation

of
the tomato fruit gave rise to the existence of the first potato.

Similarly, there existed some millions of years ago some pea or bean

type
plant that had a similar mutation wherein its fruit began to be

underground
and the end result is the first creation of the peanut plant.

So my attention is not energy but rather my attention is focused on the

idea
that the tomato and pea existed long before the potato and peanut and

that
the fruits of the first two had a *mutation* some many millions of years

ago
before humans existed and that the mutated tomato would become the

potato
and likewise for the pea becoming the peanut.


But no mutated tomato fruit became a potato tuber. That is so
far-fetched, given what is known of plant physiology and natural
history, that nobody with the slightest bit of knowledge on the
subject would entertain it for a moment.

And it does not stop with the tomato to potato or pea to peanut but that
many plant species were created from a mutation of the fruit to become
that of a underground object.

So, for me, the debate as to whether the tomato is related to the potato

and
both in the same "family" is silly and stupid if it is true that the

potato was
a mutated tomato some millions of years ago.


Wasn't aware there was a debate. Both are nightshades and have been
known as such without dispute for many, many years.



Question: does the peanut have a related species that lives above

ground
and yields a fruit?

Sure, all the edible legumes: peas, beans, vetches, and the like. All
store considerable energy in their seeds to support next season's
growth. Peanuts differ from their cousins mainly in that they are
self-planting :-)

--
Chris Green


I suppose another question would be this: do we have a recent clearcut
example of where a plant species has fruit above ground and we are able
to mutate that plant species to get it to put the fruit below ground and

make a
new object such as a tuber or nut as in peanut.


Fruits and tubers are not homologous. Even if evolution delivered up a
tuber-looking kind of fruit, it would not be a tuber.

Peanuts are not a new kind of object. They are legume fruits, they
have a pod, and they have large seeds within the pod. Their being
underground may be what is misleading to you, but that is because they
have an unique way of planting themselves.

I have watched my strawberries for a long time and I suspect that a good
geneticist can arrange some of the strawberry genes such that the berry
is mutated and able to have a fruit underground.


Sure, but the only reason i can think of for so doing is to distract
the strawberry breeders from producing even more tough, tasteless
varieties.

Even if it had an underground fruit, it would not be a tuber, a
rhizome, a corm, or anything of that sort; it would still be a fruit,
just as the peanut is still a fruit.

Since strawberry plants propagate by offsets, and do so quite well,
they are under little selective pressure to evolve any kind of
underground fruit, tuber, or the like.

Presupposition: in the above I am presupposing that the tomato existed

before
the potato and was the cause of the creation of the potato. I presume

this because
of the fact that the energy of a tomato fruit is far less ordered than

is the energy
of the potato tuber. So to obey 2nd Law of Thermodynamics the tomato

existed
before the potato and the tomato caused the existence of the potato.


That presupposition is meaningless, the Second Law is irrelevant here,
and your notion of causality is remarkably far from anything sensible
or worth discussing.

--
Chris Green



  #2   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2003, 02:22 PM
R.I. Mateles
 
Posts: n/a
Default potato was a mutated tomato some 1 m.y.a.

It's a very simple mutation: t mutates to p, and m mutates to t.




"Christopher Green" wrote in message
om...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message

...
17 Oct 2002 14:30:40 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message

...
Which leads to an interesting question. Suppose the potato was a

mutated
tomato some 1 million years ago that began living its life

underground.
The question is why would underground result in a more nutritious

food
than the above ground item? Another below ground item is the peanut
and I suppose one can live off of peanuts alone for quite a length

of time.

Don't think underground vs. above ground: think storage vs. tasty
treat. To oversimplify, the potato is storing energy that it can use
to make quick growth next season; it "wants" to store as much energy
in as efficient a package as possible. The tomato is bribing animals
to eat it and thus disperse its seeds; it "wants" to make itself as
attractive as possible to consumers.


My attention is not focused on underground versus above ground as per
energy. It is focused on this issue because there exists (I hypothesize)
many plant species that had fruit like a tomato and then some mutation

of
the tomato fruit gave rise to the existence of the first potato.

Similarly, there existed some millions of years ago some pea or bean

type
plant that had a similar mutation wherein its fruit began to be

underground
and the end result is the first creation of the peanut plant.

So my attention is not energy but rather my attention is focused on the

idea
that the tomato and pea existed long before the potato and peanut and

that
the fruits of the first two had a *mutation* some many millions of years

ago
before humans existed and that the mutated tomato would become the

potato
and likewise for the pea becoming the peanut.


But no mutated tomato fruit became a potato tuber. That is so
far-fetched, given what is known of plant physiology and natural
history, that nobody with the slightest bit of knowledge on the
subject would entertain it for a moment.

And it does not stop with the tomato to potato or pea to peanut but that
many plant species were created from a mutation of the fruit to become
that of a underground object.

So, for me, the debate as to whether the tomato is related to the potato

and
both in the same "family" is silly and stupid if it is true that the

potato was
a mutated tomato some millions of years ago.


Wasn't aware there was a debate. Both are nightshades and have been
known as such without dispute for many, many years.



Question: does the peanut have a related species that lives above

ground
and yields a fruit?

Sure, all the edible legumes: peas, beans, vetches, and the like. All
store considerable energy in their seeds to support next season's
growth. Peanuts differ from their cousins mainly in that they are
self-planting :-)

--
Chris Green


I suppose another question would be this: do we have a recent clearcut
example of where a plant species has fruit above ground and we are able
to mutate that plant species to get it to put the fruit below ground and

make a
new object such as a tuber or nut as in peanut.


Fruits and tubers are not homologous. Even if evolution delivered up a
tuber-looking kind of fruit, it would not be a tuber.

Peanuts are not a new kind of object. They are legume fruits, they
have a pod, and they have large seeds within the pod. Their being
underground may be what is misleading to you, but that is because they
have an unique way of planting themselves.

I have watched my strawberries for a long time and I suspect that a good
geneticist can arrange some of the strawberry genes such that the berry
is mutated and able to have a fruit underground.


Sure, but the only reason i can think of for so doing is to distract
the strawberry breeders from producing even more tough, tasteless
varieties.

Even if it had an underground fruit, it would not be a tuber, a
rhizome, a corm, or anything of that sort; it would still be a fruit,
just as the peanut is still a fruit.

Since strawberry plants propagate by offsets, and do so quite well,
they are under little selective pressure to evolve any kind of
underground fruit, tuber, or the like.

Presupposition: in the above I am presupposing that the tomato existed

before
the potato and was the cause of the creation of the potato. I presume

this because
of the fact that the energy of a tomato fruit is far less ordered than

is the energy
of the potato tuber. So to obey 2nd Law of Thermodynamics the tomato

existed
before the potato and the tomato caused the existence of the potato.


That presupposition is meaningless, the Second Law is irrelevant here,
and your notion of causality is remarkably far from anything sensible
or worth discussing.

--
Chris Green



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
tomato existed before the potato tomato? Solanum or Lycopersicon potato was a mutated to Cereoid+10 Plant Science 0 26-04-2003 02:23 PM
tomato existed before the potato tomato? Solanum or Lycopersicon potato was a mutated to Cereoid+10 Plant Science 0 26-04-2003 02:23 PM
tomato existed before the potato tomato? Solanum or Lycopersicon potato was a mutated Sean Carroll Plant Science 0 26-04-2003 02:23 PM
tomato existed before the potato tomato? Solanum or Lycopersicon potato was a mutated to Darren Garrison Plant Science 0 26-04-2003 02:23 PM
tomato existed before the potato tomato? Solanum or Lycopersicon potato was a mutated to Cereoid+10 Plant Science 0 26-04-2003 02:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017