| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Chad wrote: | | Then these secretions would be addictive as well as tasty? |
Could be. Could very well be. It is likely in fact that the chemicals are addictive -- as are most "toxins" (right?).
That will be important too.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
It is at this point that the leader of our xenothropological team asks the following question.
"Can we conclude that nature has evolved a mechanism, in this sugary secretion, for moving a number of toxic chemical agents from one individual to an entire community? The sugar serves to attract companions who eat the substance and unknowingly ingest the chemicals. Is this at least a reasonable hypothesis?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | It is at this point that the leader of our xenothropological team asks the following question.
"Can we conclude that nature has evolved a mechanism, in this sugary secretion, for moving a number of toxic chemical agents from one individual to an entire community? The sugar serves to attract companions who eat the substance and unknowingly ingest the chemicals. Is this at least a reasonable hypothesis?" |
Yes, a sort of toxin-share scheme. But if this were the 'purpose' why not produce the substance all the time, rather than only when a single individual is 'excited'?
Relevant question: Have the scientists ascertained whether the toxin is chemically present in the animal and simply exuded at the appropriate time, or is manufactured as part of the exuding process? (one is a toxin sharing scheme, the other is a poisoning scheme)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Is this at least a reasonable hypothesis |
Yes... but since....
| It is likely in fact that the chemicals are addictive |
....unless we introduce counter-measures, gangs of adolescent xeno-apes will seek out vulnerable individuals and intimidate them into producing secretions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Chad, you must not advance such arguments unless you know of a society in which this has happened. The first adolescent that tried it would produce a counter-measure, surely? How long did nicking mobile phones last?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | Relevant question: Have the scientists ascertained whether the toxin is chemically present in the animal and simply exuded at the appropriate time, or is manufactured as part of the exuding process? (one is a toxin sharing scheme, the other is a poisoning scheme) |
The toxin is manufactured in the body just immediately prior to its release via the facial pores. The manufacturing time coincides with the period of high-anxiety. Moreover, this release of the secretion appears to produce a measurable drop in the amount of toxin in the body of the secreting organism -- so it is thought at this time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | ...why not produce the substance all the time, rather than only when a single individual is 'excited'? |
Take a shot at answering your own question. You might hit on something.
What is the purpose of the toxin (the secretion actually contains a number of chemicals -- not just one)? Is there a clue in the close association between the chemical release and the moments of heightened experience with which it is associated? What does one have to do with the other?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | ...unless we introduce counter-measures, gangs of adolescent xeno-apes will seek out vulnerable individuals and intimidate them into producing secretions. |
Whoah. Tuck that one behind your ear. This is really getting interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Encouraged by the initial positive reaction to his statements concerning the purpose of the secretion (to spread the chemicals it contains from one individual to others), our xenothropologist leader continues.
"If nature has designed such an unique, ingenious and novel method to faciliate the transfer of these chemicals, is it reasonable to conclude that the transfer of these chemicals is of vital importance?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| "If nature has designed such an unique, ingenious and novel method to faciliate the transfer of these chemicals, is it reasonable to conclude that the transfer of these chemicals is of vital importance?" |
Not according to the Darwinists. The apes may be competing to show how much poison they can ingest, demonstrating their sexual fitness. The exact nature of the poison may be irrelevant.
So why produce the secretion? The creature producing the secretion wants to show that it's still useful. And if it can provide some sweet-tasting poison for the others, so much the better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| What is the purpose of the toxin? |
It would appear that by poisoning your peers you reduce their chances of survival, or, assuming they are competitors, you increase your own chances of survival.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Which means getting excited is good for you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | The apes may be competing to show how much poison they can ingest, demonstrating their sexual fitness. |
Wouldn't this require that all participants were aware of the toxicity of the secretions?... There's nothing big about licking your pal's sickly sweet mush.
And we have already established:
| The sugar serves to attract companions who eat the substance and unknowingly ingest the chemicals. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | It would appear that by poisoning your peers you reduce their chances of survival, or, assuming they are competitors, you increase your own chances of survival. |
This would have been true when the characteristic first appeared. But once it became established homogenously throughout the population (as, I assume, is now the case) it would no longer proffer a reproductive advantage.
And since all individuals are more or less equally affected by the toxin, we must presume (by its absence) that immunity to the toxin would proffer a reproductive disadvantage.
The chemicals must, in some way, be beneficial to the recipients.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Do not forget, the toxins exist in minute quantities. These are not powerful enough to kill or do any apparent damage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
