A Question Whose Time Has Come

ScienceMarch 2009 • Views: 10,450

An evolution-based understanding of Hot Peppers - Why Are They Hot?

Back in 1960s, Dan Johnson had an interesting proposal he dubbed “directed deterrence” which suggested that some plants may make choices as to exactly which herbivores to attract and which to deter. Hot peppers are prime candidates for such a phenomenon. What is hot in peppers is capsaicin, a chemical that elicits a sensation of pain when it bind the vanilloid receptors in the nerve endings (usually inside the mouth) of the trigeminal nerve. As it happens, all mammals have capsaicin receptors, but it was found, relatively recently, that birds do not.

To test that hypothesis, Josh Tewksbury used two variants of hot peppers - one very hot (Capsicum annuum) and the other with a mutation that made it not hot at all (Capsicum chacoense) - and offered both as meals to rodents (packrats and cactus mice) and to birds (curve-billed thrashers).

Jump to bottom

122 comments

Chicago Blonde Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:45:50pm

So men can show off by eating them?

JCM Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:46:28pm

Evolution is so HOT!

debutaunt Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:46:30pm

So-called animal testing - behold!

Captain Amercia Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:46:33pm

Was this study conducted in Tierra del Fuego?

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:46:35pm

I like peppers.

Not too hot. Hurts me.

Cognito Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:47:45pm

Also, there is this: They taste delicious on burrrrrrritos.

Ojoe Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:48:08pm

Arrrrrrrrrrrrriba!

Muy Caliente!

(that is why)

Soona' Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:49:37pm

Is this sort of like feeding a dog horseradish?

Ojoe Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:49:43pm

Hot sauces on line.

JCM Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:49:46pm

re: #6 Cognito

Also, there is this: They taste delicious on burrrrrrritos.

A good chili with just a hint of habanero.

LGoPs Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:49:47pm

A better question is, 'What is it that makes me avoid the deterrent effects and still love hot peppers.....?'

MandyManners Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:50:23pm

Why are they so hot?

Youtube Video

Shr_Nfr Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:50:34pm

"Death Rain" forever. [Link: www.hotsauceworld.com...]

Mostly sane, most of the time. Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:50:49pm

I'm taking comment 23 for the first allusion to Adriana Lim, Bar Rafaeli, or better yet, Sarah Palin.

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:51:09pm

Oh. This is about evolution?

screaming_eagle Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:51:14pm

Cause God has a sense of humor. Here take a bit of this Habenaro

opnion Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:51:18pm

re: #1 Chicago Blonde

So men can show off by eating them?

No, that's the worm on Cinco de Mayo.

Maximu§ Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:51:22pm

Their only hot if your a Gringo.

[deleted] Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:51:38pm

Ojoe Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:51:40pm

re: #15 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Not a chance anymore.

bulwrk Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:51:58pm

No data on how birds feel about hot peppers coming out.

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:52:06pm

HEY! BUSTER!

Captain Amercia Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:52:33pm

re: #14 EmmmieG

I'm taking comment 23 for the first allusion to Adriana Lim, Bar Rafaeli, or better yet, Sarah Palin.

Sarah palin is comprised of 85% of capsaicin.

Ojoe Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:52:36pm

This pepper almost killed me:

(I Habanaro escape).

Mostly sane, most of the time. Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:52:36pm

re: #21 bulwrk

No data on how birds feel about hot peppers coming out.

Data's on your car.

opnion Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:52:58pm

Hasta luego, lizards.

Lincolntf Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:53:26pm

Common sense.
Has this study never been done before? I could swear I learned this same exact lesson in high school (caustic peppers/birds able to deal with it in order to spread the seeds,etc.).
I assume I'm missing something in this article, please feel free to educate me.

Captain Amercia Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:53:32pm

Finally, a post tailor-made for the honcos!

Rancher Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:53:50pm

Mammals won't eat them but birds will (and New Mexicans). Didn't know that.

godfrey Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:55:01pm

Plants make choices.

LOL

That should be rephrased unless you're SMS sort of inoffensive but wack animist.

IslandLibertarian Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:55:17pm

Cauliflower, sliced carrots, broccoli, green-beans, (and if you're daring) boiled eggs, vinegar, and THE HOTTEST PEPPERS YOU CAN FIND.
Combine in a canning jar with a sealed lid, refrigerate for 3 weeks.

Lee Coller Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:55:25pm

Wait -- doesn't this show that man is not a mammal and therefore could not have evolved from apes?

//ducks and runs

Cognito Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:55:27pm

re: #15 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh. This is about evolution?

Isn't everything, these days?

I wish I could remember the topic, but a few weeks ago I heard two perfectly intelligent people talk their way into a decision that evolution was behind (insert topic), even though it required vast leaps of something not unlike ye olde faithe.

screaming_eagle Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:55:44pm

Results of a study ,funded by a Goverment grant.
Next up:
Why is the sky blue?
price:$24,623,989.05
Earmarked by Charlie Rangel.

Soona' Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:55:55pm

re: #30 godfrey

Plants make choices.

LOL

That should be rephrased unless you're SMS sort of inoffensive but wack animist.

Huh?

Langley Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:56:09pm

The above article states:

"Back in 1960s, Dan Johnson had an interesting proposal he dubbed “directed deterrence” which suggested that some plants may make choices as to exactly which herbivores to attract and which to deter."

To suggest that plants make choices is an example of anthropomorphism. This is similar to suggesting that Democrats make choices.

albusteve Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:56:18pm

the ultimate question....

Green or Red?

vagabond trader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:56:36pm

Charles,this morning lgf had a mention on the ABC website under Around the Blogs.

Captain Amercia Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:56:40pm

re: #36 Langley

The above article states:

"Back in 1960s, Dan Johnson had an interesting proposal he dubbed “directed deterrence” which suggested that some plants may make choices as to exactly which herbivores to attract and which to deter."

To suggest that plants make choices is an example of anthropomorphism. This is similar to suggesting that Democrats make choices.

Who knew Sonny Crockett was so scientifically inclined?

[deleted] Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:56:55pm

godfrey Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:57:28pm

"some" sort

iPhone autocorrect nausea

Ringo the Gringo Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:57:28pm

My cockatoo loves hot peppers, now I know why.

Lynn B. Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:57:32pm

This is why putting hot pepper flakes in your bird food is supposed to keep the squirrels away from the feeder.

I think the squirrels in my neighborhood have evolved a fancy for hot peppers. Or a way to suppress their capsaicin receptors.

Cognito Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:57:37pm

re: #40 buzzsawmonkey

We are all born into a state of capsaicinfulness, from which we can be redeemed by the sacramental consumption of margaritas.

Milk. It's milk, for your original pain.

godfrey Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:58:25pm

re: #40 buzzsawmonkey

True, but ciabatta works better.

Soona' Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:58:27pm

re: #36 Langley

The above article states:

"Back in 1960s, Dan Johnson had an interesting proposal he dubbed “directed deterrence” which suggested that some plants may make choices as to exactly which herbivores to attract and which to deter."

To suggest that plants make choices is an example of anthropomorphism. This is similar to suggesting that Democrats make choices.

Would this be, perhaps, like an Ent conference?

albusteve Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:59:02pm

re: #39 Captain Amercia

Who knew Sonny Crockett was so scientifically inclined?

his great great great uncle was an expert in ballistics...

Chicago Blonde Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:59:10pm

Good night all. I'll see you tomorrow.

Muadib Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:59:24pm

Because some like it hot. [Link: www.eskimo.com...]

Russkilitlover Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:00:10pm

re: #10 JCM

A good chili with just a hint of habanero.

I use chipotle chiles in Adobo sauce as an additive to soups/stews/chili. Adds a rich, smokey sweet/hot flavor that you can't duplicate with raw chilies alone.

godfrey Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:00:13pm

re: #44 Cognito

Practical joker. Milk has fat, which serves to distribute capsaicin more widely in the mouth. I speak from experience.

Kailen Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:00:33pm

It's all part of God's grand design, that synergistic relationships form through evolution.

Russkilitlover Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:01:06pm

re: #44 Cognito

Milk. It's milk, for your original pain.

That's why sour cream is such a popular garnish. Also a spritz of lime/lemon will cut down the heat.

saberry0530 Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:01:58pm

Peppers..... goooooooodddddddddd

96RoadKing Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:03:36pm

re: #43 Lynn B.

This is why putting hot pepper flakes in your bird food is supposed to keep the squirrels away from the feeder.

I think the squirrels in my neighborhood have evolved a fancy for hot peppers. Or a way to suppress their capsaicin receptors.

I tried doing that too. Now the little bastards run around under my feeders wearing sarapes and little sombraroes!

96RoadKing Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:04:30pm

re: #53 Russkilitlover

That's why sour cream is such a popular garnish. Also a spritz of lime/lemon will cut down the heat.

A little sugar directly onto the tongue does wonders to remove the pain.

buckykat Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:06:45pm

re: #12 MandyManners

still hot

Dragonwolf Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:07:22pm

Isn't this 100% pure natural selection (evolution)? Those 'friendly' plants get eaten, end of the family line. Those 'armed' plants survive to pass on their genes.

Maybe that's where the founding fathers got evidence to support their adding of the second amendment.

Summersong Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:12:13pm

I love grilled jalapeño ...ditch the seeds, though.

irish rose Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:12:38pm

A spicy hot red one for the ladies!

Mmmm, tasty.

Viva evolucion!

(these are the real deal and not a photoshop, btw)

Lincolntf Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:12:47pm

re: #58 Dragonwolf

I just checked out the source site. The dude who posted this is a little bit off-beat, to say the least. I think he's trying to make some larger (almost Gaia-esque) point in his observations of the peppers.

But, yeah, it's pretty straight-forward natural selection and symbiosis as far as I can tell.
I don't get the "new" part.

Gort Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:14:39pm

Anthony Kiedis is Homo (Los)Angelisis?

Salamantis Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:15:15pm

re: #58 Dragonwolf

Isn't this 100% pure natural selection (evolution)? Those 'friendly' plants get eaten, end of the family line. Those 'armed' plants survive to pass on their genes.

Maybe that's where the founding fathers got evidence to support their adding of the second amendment.

Yeah; rodents eat the less hot pods, destroying their seeds in the process, and they never make it to the birds, which spread the seeds without destroying them. Natural selection in action.

itellu3times Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:23:51pm

So, you're saying an intelligent designer could not have come up with the same deal?
/

Caboose Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:25:25pm

Always make sure you have ice cream after eating hot peppers, so that when you are eliminating them the next day, your bunghole can have the ice cream to look forward to. "C'mon, ice cream!"

calcajun Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:26:47pm

I like to think of them as God's version of the exploding cigar for his creation.

PS--I have a Jalapeno, a Serrano and two Habenero bushes/trees in my back yard. The rats ate my tomatoes--but didn't touch the peppers.

Might I suggest some diced Habeneroes over vanilla ice cream with a bit of cinnamon. Tasty.

calcajun Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:29:08pm

re: #65 Caboose

Always make sure you have ice cream after eating hot peppers, so that when you are eliminating them the next day, your bunghole can have the ice cream to look forward to. "C'mon, ice cream!"

Rather ironic for someone with your moniker to be talking about bungholes.//

Yes, peppers with the seeds are not for people with diverticulitis or (gasp) anal fissures--think of the paper cut from hell that never heals.

zombie Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:29:22pm

The mechanism behind the evolution of hot peppers has long been known, but this blogger used some unfortunate terminology in describing it:

"Back in 1960s, Dan Johnson had an interesting proposal he dubbed “directed deterrence” which suggested that some plants may make choices as to exactly which herbivores to attract and which to deter. "

Plants don't have brains. They can't "make choices." It's actually much simpler than that, and a beautiful example of how natural selection works.

Say a sweet pepper grows in an area. Rodents eat the pepper, as do the birds. When (as the article correctly states) the rodents eat, they chew up the seeds and destroy them, so that no seeds are transplanted or germinated by the rodents. But the birds, lacking teeth, don't chew the seeds, so that when the birds poop out the seeds in some new locale, they tend to germinate (the poop is build-in fertilizer!).

Now, let's just say that a mild mutation in one pepper plant causes it to be a little bit hot (i.e. has capsaicin). As the study proves, the rodents will tend to avoid it, but the birds will eat it as readily as the sweet peppers. But since the rodents now can only eat some of the peppers (i.e. the sweet ones), the birds end up eating most if not all of the slightly hot peppers. And so that mutation will tend to spread to new areas in the bird poop.

Well, the cycle can keep happening. Next time, the mutation will make the peppers even hotter, which means more will be eaten by birds (since the rodents are now hogging the less-hot peppers), and once again the hotter strain spreads.

Multiply this by, say, ten or twenty million generations, and, bingo, hot peppers have evolved. And the key is: The plant didn't "make any choices" for this to happen. Instead, it happened through natural selection.

Charles Darwin, you sweet genius!

irish rose Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:30:12pm

First I start posting pics of perverted peppers, then Caboose starts talking about bungholes.

You need to change the rating on this thread, Charles.

Sharmuta Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:31:16pm

Wait- evolutionary theory produced a testable hypothesis? Has the DI proposed one?

zombie Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:31:17pm

re: #63 Salamantis

Yeah; rodents eat the less hot pods, destroying their seeds in the process, and they never make it to the birds, which spread the seeds without destroying them. Natural selection in action.

Exactly.

Cicero05 Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:51:28pm

Peppers?

Charlize Theron. Why is she hot?

Achilles Tang Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:52:06pm

re: #68 zombie

The mechanism behind the evolution of hot peppers has long been known, but this blogger used some unfortunate terminology in describing it:

Exactly. I was looking for someone to pounce on that as proof of why the whole idea is rubbish.

Still, the night is young yet.....

Bob Dillon Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:10:32pm

re: #9 Ojoe

Hot sauces on line.

Buddy of mine is a hot sauce nut. Gave him a bottle of this 2 years ago - there is still some left. ;-)

[Link: www.hotsauceworld.com...]

VioletTiger Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:11:00pm

re: #60 irish rose

A spicy hot red one for the ladies!

Mmmm, tasty.

Viva evolucion!

(these are the real deal and not a photoshop, btw)

Hey, I just ordered some of those seeds! Peter peppers.

Irish Rose Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:39:16pm

re: #75 VioletTiger

Hey, I just ordered some of those seeds! Peter peppers.

Yep, I grow a big pot of these on my patio every summer.

My fiance tells me that as soon as he laid eyes on 'em, he that knew I was the girl for him :).

mardukhai Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:45:48pm

The pepper's close relative, the tomato, has an opposite strategy -- it's seeds are very small and tough, but inside very large and sweet fruit. The fruit is designed so that large mammals will eat the fruit, and deposit the seeds later.

If you've ever harvested tomato seeds by means of the "fermentation method" (I do that every year), your bottle is doing what a deer's gut does, it frees the seeds from their gelatin-like coating.

(Aren't I a know-it-all?)

scott in east bay Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:55:09pm

MMMmmmmmmmmm! Peppers. The hotter the better. My dad's family is from New Mexico and they all have scarred mouths from the things.

Red sauce? Green sauce? In New Mexico, this is a critical question.

yochanan Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:10:16pm

re: #37 albusteve

the ultimate question....

Green or Red?

dried or fresh

CHARIFE

yochanan Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:14:17pm

[Link: www6.ivenue.com...]

ISRAELI HOT SAUCE

Alberta Oil Peon Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:22:09pm

re: #75 VioletTiger

Hey, I just ordered some of those seeds! Peter peppers.

Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peter peppers.

Or something like that.

Gearhead Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:26:29pm

Capsaicin - nature's original decongestant

pat Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:30:51pm

I have known my whole life that chile peppers do not bother birds. Watch them eat them all time. That is where the peppers come from. The birds don't digest the seed either.

offensive_username Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:34:56pm

I motion to retitle this thread "This is why I'm hot"

find your violent jihadi on ebay! Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:41:50pm

A fascinating topic I've been studying for a while.

The bird-versus-rodent capsaicin theory's been around for a while. I've been working on a subset of this question: why some peppers have more capsaicin content than others. A typical habanero has 30-80 times the capsaicin content of a japaleno, and a bhut jolokia (Indian pepper) can be 300 time stronger (and about as strong as police pepper spray). WHY? Did habaneros evolve in more predator-rich environments, whereas jals or sweet peppers were more or less left alone? This is a very neat and tidy area of evolution in action, complete with observable phenomena backed by numbers (scoville units, the measure of how much capsaicin content is in the pepper) for the amateur Darwin enthusiast.

Perplexed Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:17:15pm

Likewise castor seeds are eaten by birds but are very toxic to humans.

cybermonk Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:18:45pm

my cockatoo loves hot peppers, anahiem or harbenero, she doesn't hesitate, first she eats the stem (don't ask me why) then she eats the seeds and some of the skin. eats two or three a day.

BLBfootballs Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:29:04pm

Very interesting article! And the study is fascinating -- it makes a very convincing case (at least to this dilettante biologist). Even so, the beautiful thing about science is... there's always more.

I was going to comment on the article... but then realized it's from 2006! :-{ Couldn't find his promised Part II on peppers there. If someone does, kindly post the link.

BLBfootballs Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:29:52pm

re: #76 Irish Rose

Yep, I grow a big pot of these on my patio every summer.

My fiance tells me that as soon as he laid eyes on 'em, he that knew I was the girl for him :).

Love it!

Basho Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:32:03pm

I really liked this article. It was a simple experiment yet the results were profound. And choice was obviously used metaphorically. No need to take it so serious.

ELC Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:56:27pm

No offense to anybody, but as soon as I read an assertion like plants making choices, I stop reading. Good grief.

teleskiguy Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:01:28pm

My mouth tastes like burning!

BLBfootballs Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:13:27pm

re: #91 ELC

No offense to anybody, but as soon as I read an assertion like plants making choices, I stop reading. Good grief.

Goodness, ELC! Read up a little on evolutionary theories and language... and open your mind to the possibilities of Life.

Ojoe Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:22:24pm

re: #74 Bobibutu

LOL !

itellu3times Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:28:30pm

re: #91 ELC

No offense to anybody, but as soon as I read an assertion like plants making choices, I stop reading. Good grief.

Well, you're right, of course. And may I remind the jury, Darwin never would allow for the "plants making choices". The rats and birds may make choices, but not the peppers, yet it's the peppers that evolve, and nobody is "evolving" them, not even the rats or birds. Evolution is the sum of events, and combinatorics, and sunny days, and everything else.

OTOH, it is soooo easy to slip into anthropomorphisms like that, because it makes the subject easy to follow, even though we KNOW we didn't really mean them. Well, it's best to do the work, and keep the language clean, to prevent, ahem, misunderstandings.

itellu3times Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:29:05pm

hey Charles, after a preview, the post comment button didn't work, I had to refresh the page, reenter, and post immediately.

Dasher Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:45:17pm

re: #74 Bobibutu

Buddy of mine is a hot sauce nut. Gave him a bottle of this 2 years ago - there is still some left. ;-)

[Link: www.hotsauceworld.com...]

I like a hot sauce called Louisiana Swamp Fire but you have to use it quite sparingly.

lostlakehiker Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:22:14pm

re: #91 ELC

No offense to anybody, but as soon as I read an assertion like plants making choices, I stop reading. Good grief.

Sometimes people speak metaphorically, because it gives it in a nutshell and the full, exact, careful, accurate story is just what you'd expect it was if you knew anything at all about biology and evolution.

If you don't, you might as well give the author the respect to read a few sentences deeper into the article. You might come out knowing a little something about evolution, or at any rate, about what it is that scientists are actually claiming when they talk about evolution.

Honest, scientists aren't dumber than rocks, and they do know that plants are brainless.

Euler Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:26:58pm

re: #91 ELC

No offense to anybody, but as soon as I read an assertion like plants making choices, I stop reading. Good grief.

"Plants making choices" is a harmless shorthand used to convey the idea that the adaptive mechanism behaves as if it has intentionality.

And not just evolutionary biologists use this "intentional stance." The attitude can be useful even in mathematics, where mechanical systems with simple dynamics can be evocatively described as having intentions. For example, Conway's game of Life is cellular automaton that "wants" to stabilize locally into simple oscillators. Try the "Run R-pentomino" applet.

100

Abu Bin Squid Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:52:53pm

My two cents. Personification is usually fine except on a weblog where evolution is taken so seriously. Were anyone to misuse the language, even casually, in a thread about religion v. evolution, well teh spam would hit the fan.

I'm supporting proper verbiage. Don't be thin skinned if "plants making choices" is denounced.

101

Claire Mon, Mar 2, 2009 11:16:38pm

Do you suppose fundamentalists take everything literally, not just the bible? Metaphor seems to be lost on them. Interesting.

102

Throbert McGee Tue, Mar 3, 2009 3:47:57am

re: #100 Abu Bin Squid

My two cents. Personification is usually fine except on a weblog where evolution is taken so seriously. Were anyone to misuse the language, even casually, in a thread about religion v. evolution, well teh spam would hit the fan.

And in fact, many creationists will quite happily latch onto metaphorical language like this as "proof" of how confused evolutionary biologists are.
I remember reading an essay by one religious ID supporter on the Web who went on a long rant over an animal-behavior article that used a seemingly innocuous phrasing like "the male lion successfully courted the female" (i.e., the attempt ended in activity you can only see on Xtube For Lions).

Well, "success" implies a goal, and goals imply teleology, and teleology implies an acceptance of purpose behind the Universe, which implies a creator-God, which just goes to show that evolution-peddling atheists are hypocrites! Or at least, that was the whine of the creationist in this particular case.

Obviously, with opponents so eager and inventive at twisting words, evolution writers perhaps shouldn't waste time second-guessing themselves over every single phrase they write.

Still, it doesn't hurt to be more conscious about excessive use of anthropomorphic language.

103

bullskin Tue, Mar 3, 2009 5:37:03am

I always wondered how the acacia or the blackberry bush knew developing thorns could act as a deterrent against animals.

104

Cato Tue, Mar 3, 2009 7:28:22am

I do not understand why red hot chili peppers seem only to grow under the bridge, on scar tissue and only in Califorication.

105

trulyyours Tue, Mar 3, 2009 10:07:12am

Disregarding the attacks on me which will follow by asking this simple (scientific) question: How does the fact that evolution theory can provide an explanation AND intelligent design theory can provide an equally credible explanation (within the structure of their different theories) in any way prove or disprove one or the other is "truth"? The only credible answer is: it doesn't. All that's proven is that both theories, at least regarding the hotness of peppers, can provide an internally consistent explanation.

If this worked so well for peppers, why aren't all fruits and vegetables hotter than hell, or covered with spines, or whatever?

106

Mr Secul Tue, Mar 3, 2009 10:13:49am

re: #105 trulyyours

In what way is that question scientific? What did you mean when you said that the question was scientific?

107

Sharmuta Tue, Mar 3, 2009 10:17:15am

re: #105 trulyyours

How does the fact that evolution theory can provide an explanation AND intelligent design theory can provide an equally credible explanation (within the structure of their different theories) in any way prove or disprove one or the other is "truth"? The only credible answer is: it doesn't. All that's proven is that both theories, at least regarding the hotness of peppers, can provide an internally consistent explanation.

No- that's not correct. The difference is the scientific explanation is backed by empirical data. Intelligent Design offers no data in it's explanation. In fact- ID doesn't even offer a testable hypothesis, unlike evolutionary theory. The hypothesis was tested, and the data provided. The hypothesis can be tested again and again by other scientists to confirm the findings or should contrary evidence arrive, report those findings. A scientific "explanation" that offers no data is not an "explanation" at all.

108

Sharmuta Tue, Mar 3, 2009 10:24:56am

re: #105 trulyyours

If this worked so well for peppers, why aren't all fruits and vegetables hotter than hell, or covered with spines, or whatever?

This also demonstrates that you didn't read the link.

109

goldentoadster Tue, Mar 3, 2009 10:28:27am

Find your Jihadi -- All the wild chiles are extremely hot; mild chiles have been bred to be larger or milder (or for other conveniences, such as remaining on the plant, rather than dropping when ripe, and hiding under the leaves so birds can't see them) by human beings. Conceivably habaneros evolved in a very competitive environment, but Capsicum annuum and C. frutescens chiles do just fine in the tropics too. Maybe the colossal spiciness of habanero is just a random variation that became established.
I'm wondering whether chiles are red to attract birds (don't know whether birds have color vision), or whether plants in the Solanaceae family just tend to have red or orange fruit, e.g. tomato, tomatillo (though consumed when green), tamarillo, wolfberry, ground cherry, some of the wild eggplants.

110

wrenchwench Tue, Mar 3, 2009 11:06:00am

re: #109 goldentoadster

I admire your plant knowledge. Animals, not so much.

(don't know whether birds have color vision)

Yes, they do. Have you seen the colorful males showing off to attract the females? I wonder if the females consider their selection "natural."

111

Akiva Tue, Mar 3, 2009 11:34:59am

One of the big problems with this approach is an early statement in the article, "some plants may make choices". (I'm sure many others mentioned it, but I'm not reading through all the comments.) Since when do species make choices on their design? The statement obviously means species self design?

Some will say this is just a language mistake. However, this is frequently an approach mistake. Either there are an accumulation of random mutations that result in new species features improving the species for it's environment, thereby resulting in an increases survival rate and "selection" of the trait, or there is design. Trying to find "intent" leads to a natural focus to find "intendor". Since that couldn't be a "designer" - indicative of a Higher Power, people tend to personalize it upon the species itself, or the amorphous "nature".

Clearly the incredible complexity of not only the accumulation of random genetic mutation to create a non-dangerous species change in an individual combined with a multi-species interaction scheme such as is the case in a pepper which has developed a feature for the spread of seed through consumption by another species yet avoiding consumption by negative impacting species is so mind numbingly complex and statistically unlikely that many of us see direction (and therefore a Director) in the beauty of the possibly-statistically-impossible result.

112

Salamantis Tue, Mar 3, 2009 11:59:18am

re: #105 trulyyours

Disregarding the attacks on me which will follow by asking this simple (scientific) question: How does the fact that evolution theory can provide an explanation AND intelligent design theory can provide an equally credible explanation (within the structure of their different theories) in any way prove or disprove one or the other is "truth"? The only credible answer is: it doesn't. All that's proven is that both theories, at least regarding the hotness of peppers, can provide an internally consistent explanation.

If this worked so well for peppers, why aren't all fruits and vegetables hotter than hell, or covered with spines, or whatever?

Exactly what is the 'scientific' explanation that creationism/ID provides? So far as I can discern, it offers on explanation of anything whatsoever except for the blanket "God Did It" dogmatism that it offers for every question. And such an answer is theological, not empirical, metaphysical, not physical, and religious, not scientific.

In fact, even Disco Institute fellows George Gilder and Michael Medved admit that ID is content-free:

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

113

Mr Secul Tue, Mar 3, 2009 12:17:00pm

re: #111 Akiva

You are making such a hash of some simple concepts.

Mammals have very good teeth that damage the seeds and they have a longer digestive transit time. Birds don't chew the seeds and they pass rapidly through their guts.

Fruits that are eaten by mammals produce fewer offspring than fruits that are eaten by birds.

Mammals are sensitive to capsaicin, birds are not.

There is natural variation between individual plants. Some will be hotter than others. Hotter individuals have a natural advantage in breeding because they are less likely to have their seeds eaten by mammals. Therefore they have greater numbers of offspring therefore hotter individuals are selected for.

There is no intent, its natural selection.

114

Salamantis Tue, Mar 3, 2009 12:20:54pm

re: #111 Akiva

One of the big problems with this approach is an early statement in the article, "some plants may make choices". (I'm sure many others mentioned it, but I'm not reading through all the comments.) Since when do species make choices on their design? The statement obviously means species self design?

Some will say this is just a language mistake. However, this is frequently an approach mistake. Either there are an accumulation of random mutations that result in new species features improving the species for it's environment, thereby resulting in an increases survival rate and "selection" of the trait, or there is design. Trying to find "intent" leads to a natural focus to find "intendor". Since that couldn't be a "designer" - indicative of a Higher Power, people tend to personalize it upon the species itself, or the amorphous "nature".

Clearly the incredible complexity of not only the accumulation of random genetic mutation to create a non-dangerous species change in an individual combined with a multi-species interaction scheme such as is the case in a pepper which has developed a feature for the spread of seed through consumption by another species yet avoiding consumption by negative impacting species is so mind numbingly complex and statistically unlikely that many of us see direction (and therefore a Director) in the beauty of the possibly-statistically-impossible result.

The plants don't know about the rats and the birds and their differential seed-destroying tendencies and their differential reaction to capsicum any more than they make choices about how hot to mutate. Some random mutations simply exploit their host organisms' surrounding environments better than others do, and thus are selected by it (meaning that they reproduce more successfully, than other organisms of their species which lack the mutation - for instance, mild peppers that get consumed by rodents instead of birds, and whose seeds get crushed instead of excreted whole and fertile). And those selecting environments includes not only the temperature, the sunlight, sea saltiness or the rainfall; they also include the predators, the prey, the parasites, the food sources, the soil nutrients...everything that can comprise an ecological niche, and is present to be exploited. What would be statistically unlikely would be for species NOT to in the fullness of time eventually produce mutations that functionally exploited each structural facet of their environments.

The reiterative manifestation of simple algorithms can lead to complex-appearing phenomena (the flocking of birds and the schooling of fish just depend upon each member being instinctually programmed to maintain a distancy between x and y from all its neighbors).

115

karl__lembke Tue, Mar 3, 2009 1:06:09pm

Heading off on a tangent, I was attending a class in medical botany at the Los Angeles State and County Arboretum back in the 70s. One tale that came up was based on the fact that birds don't digest caffeine.

Back during World War II, when coffee was being rationed, the cola companies went looking for alternate sources of caffeine. Some bright fellow realized that birds would eat coffee beans, and perch nearby and eliminate wastes. The perches near coffee groves had huge, thick deposits of bird guano, loaded with caffeine. All anyone had to do was dig it up and refine the caffeine out of it.

Fortunately, some brighter fellow realized what the consumer response would be if the story ever got out. "Birds go better in Coke"...

116

karl__lembke Tue, Mar 3, 2009 1:18:31pm

re: #111 Akiva

One of the big problems with this approach is an early statement in the article, "some plants may make choices". ....

Some will say this is just a language mistake. However, this is frequently an approach mistake.

Others have written about what biologists actually believe is happening in this case, despite the occasional slip into intentional and anthromorphic language.

I think this is just a language mistake, and one that's easy to make simply because our language supports this sort of thinking. We use the same verb and sentence structure to describe a bloodhound following a trail and an electron following an electric field potential. One is obviously volitional, the other is not, but our language makes no distinction unless we're carful to the point of being pedantic.

117

Salamantis Tue, Mar 3, 2009 1:19:33pm

re: #115 karl__lembke

Heading off on a tangent, I was attending a class in medical botany at the Los Angeles State and County Arboretum back in the 70s. One tale that came up was based on the fact that birds don't digest caffeine.

Back during World War II, when coffee was being rationed, the cola companies went looking for alternate sources of caffeine. Some bright fellow realized that birds would eat coffee beans, and perch nearby and eliminate wastes. The perches near coffee groves had huge, thick deposits of bird guano, loaded with caffeine. All anyone had to do was dig it up and refine the caffeine out of it.

Fortunately, some brighter fellow realized what the consumer response would be if the story ever got out. "Birds go better in Coke"...

Wanna pass a cup of Kopi Luwak?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

118

karl__lembke Tue, Mar 3, 2009 1:26:33pm

re: #117 Salamantis

Wanna pass a cup of Kopi Luwak?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Maybe I'll pass on it.

(A few years back I noticed teenagers engaging in a sort of "I Dare You To Eat This" fashion trend. And indeed, some candies advertised as being so sour they hurt.)

119

Doda McCheesle Wed, Mar 4, 2009 8:16:37am

I had a teacher in high school, who had a Ph.D. in physics. He publicly stated to students "I am an atheist". When questioned by students as to where the universe came from, he said "it all started from the big bang". When asked where the "big bang" came from (i.e. the point that expanded outwards) he said "it was there". When pressed he would say "it was just there".

So of course, this begged the argument from someone: "how is believing that 'it was just there' for ever (existing without a starting point) before the bang make any more sense than belief in an infinite 'creator'?". He never answered that one.

I also happen to have sitting in my house right now three plaster casts me and my kids made of dinosaur footprints, from the actual footprints in the ground. We've seen with our own eyes newly uncovered intact skeletons of dinosaurs. They are undoubtedly REAL. Not "accidental" jumblings of bones from various animals. Some "creationists" want to insist that such things never existed as living beings- God made the world with these bones and fossils in place waiting to be discovered for God only knows what reason!

Yet I still have difficulty with the idea that the universe itself is infinite (in terms of before the big bang) without a start point from an infinite "creator". I have also read statements from "evolutionists" that make it sound as if, say, a bumblebee evolved a stinger because it needed one to survive, and that after only a million years of evolution, there it was (i.e. the bee couldn't survive without the stinger, but survived for a million years until the species acquired one)...difficult difficult, eh? Obviously a proper scientific examination of the various forms of bees and their habitats and numbers can easily explain how they survived as a line, and perhaps this person just didn't do a very good job of explaining.

Anyway, it's easy to spend the next million years debating and arguing over creations vs. evolution, but ultimately no one can really provide any solid PROOF that one occurred completely without the other when you go back far enough.

So I can and do believe in both God and evolution. As for pushing one over the other, I learned about evolution AND creation in my PRIVATE religious (Jewish) elementary school. We explored fossils and everything. I learned more about evolution in public high school via a nature center program. The religious stuff CAN and SHOULD be taught in PRIVATE schools and/or by PARENTS at HOME. The scientific stuff (i.e. evolutionary theory) can and should be taught in public and non-religious private schools. Of course there should be emphasis on the fact that some things are indeed still theories, but anywhere proofs can be asserted, they should be (i.e. fossil records, etc.).

Now as for whether the infinite creator of all is watching little old ME every moment of every day of my entire life and really cares if I "accidentally" click on that link to the "naked Brittainy photo"... that's a different argument for a whole different thread!

120

Salamantis Wed, Mar 4, 2009 9:04:43am

Your physics teacher should have explained to you that ther Big Bang's matter-energy created spacetime via gravitational field curvature, so there was never any such thing as a 'before' the Big Bang, any more than there is such a thing as 'outside' the universe. And that the quantum fluctuation didn't need any impetus in order to happen, any more than the particle-antiparticle pairs randomly popping into and out of existence in the quantum foam do.

121

Doda McCheesle Wed, Mar 4, 2009 12:01:28pm

re: #120 Salamantis

Thanks for the info... all of this stuff (i.e. quantum physics etc.) is just so fascinating to me...

So- any explanation now on how magnets and gravity work?!?

122

Salamantis Wed, Mar 4, 2009 12:55:36pm

re: #121 Doda McCheesle

Thanks for the info... all of this stuff (i.e. quantum physics etc.) is just so fascinating to me...

So- any explanation now on how magnets and gravity work?!?

We're getting closer to a unification of the four fundamental forces (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity) and a unification of Einstein's relativity and Feynmann's quantum mechanics (what's known as the GUTOE: Grand Unified Theory Of Everything). Garrett Lisi's E8 model will soon be tested in the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), when they search for the elusive Higgs Boson.

His theory:

[Link: arxiv.org...]

It also only required the four Einsteinian spactime dimensions instead of String Theory's 10 or 11.

String Theory always was a hypothesis or conjecture instead of a theory, anyway; since there was never a way to empirically test it, it always was nothing more than a mathematical castle in the air.

String theorists despise Garrett Lisi's E8 theory, for transparently self-serving reasons. But unlike string theory, E8 theory does make empirically testable contentions, and as I said before, some of them will sonn be put to the test. My bet is that some version of E8 will be found to be correct; it is just too elegant, parsimonous and beautiful a solution for me to consider it to be far wrong.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

A Question Whose Time Has Come

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud