Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|