i fucking love science

[johnnytodd]

Stick with yer x factor toddles.

I watched a program where this fella was planting some trees in a straight line in his back garden. There was a cat sitting on his shed roof watching him dig each hole perfectly in line, same depth etc.

This bloke stopped to have a brew and was surveying his work whilst he had 5 minute break, the cat climbed down and dug a hole had a shit in it and back filled the hole.It was amazing to see a cat do that.

 

[SALTIRE]

I watched a program where this fella was planting some trees in a straight line in his back garden. There was a cat sitting on his shed roof watching him dig each hole perfectly in line, same depth etc.

This bloke stopped to have a brew and was surveying his work whilst he had 5 minute break, the cat climbed down and dug a hole had a shit in it and back filled the hole.It was amazing to see a cat do that.

Trust you to come into a thread about science and lower the tone ya sod!

 

[blade1889]

Antibiotic Resistance...
...coming to a Bacteria near you soon



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35...social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

 

[HertsWolf]

Schroedinger is pulled over by the police.

'Excuse me sir, do you know you have a dead can in this box?'

'I do now....'

What about the cat though? We're dying to know about the damn cat!

 

[HertsWolf]

Antibiotic Resistance...
...coming to a Bacteria near you soon now



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35...social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

Yes, that was frightening to read that. Used to live in Holland in the 90s and doctors there refused to give antibiotics. Period. You really had to force them to give them. But my doctor there admitted that although it was a great policy, it was being made irrelevant by the very relaxed attitude to giving antibiotics elsewhere in the world, especially the US, China and India apparently.

 

[blade1889]

Yes, that was frightening to read that. Used to live in Holland in the 90s and doctors there refused to give antibiotics. Period. You really had to force them to give them. But my doctor there admitted that although it was a great policy, it was being made irrelevant by the very relaxed attitude to giving antibiotics elsewhere in the world, especially the US, China and India apparently.

Its ridiculous. Doesn't help that people aren't educated enough on them either. Easy to blame the doctor but when they're getting pulled up on not helping people its the easiest thing to do. People expect a cure for the common cold now and don't understand that antibiotics wont help with that or that help with a cold is unnecessary and go off on one when a doctor doesn't seem to be caring by not offering them anything. Its a dangerous cycle that's been going on for a while now. Amazing the lack of foresight on this one. Its a frightening situation to be in.

 

[HertsWolf]

I'm a little bemused by the frequent need to prove that "creation" didn't happen the way it is stated in the Bible. It's a regular meme in the forum.
Yet some very significant scientists are practicing Christians and while there's a suggestion that the majority of scientists may well be atheists, this doesn't mean that all are.
People like George Lemaitre (who first proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, derived what is now called Hubble's Law and also suggested what became known later as the Big Bang Theory) and more recently Guy Consolmagno and George Coyne were scientists and priests. All three are internationally-respected scientists in areas where I suspect some here may feel there are no Christians. Coyne, for xample, has even spoken out strongly against intelligent design.

There is no doubt that there are religious conservatives, some even in positions of great power and some trying to get elected to high office, but it doesn't mean that their world views reflect the views of many of the same general faith.

So the discussion of science here is fascinating, but a fair bit seems to be devoted to proving to us dumb Christians that the world wasn't created in six days is just a teensie bit tiring. It's a little like posting You Tube videos to prove to us why the earth isn't flat: we know that already.

 

[blade1889]

I'm not really following tbh Herts.

The initial discussion started with silkyman posting about evolution being proven. Evolution has been shown to be fact many times over and it kinda bemuses me that we still have these studies...we know already. Its like the constant studies proving tat vaccines are safe, what are they really hoping to achieve now? The ones that don't believe now never will.

John Nam (or is it Ham?) had a debate with Bill Nye about creationism and he used several examples of religious leaders in Biology and the Sciences in general. I dont think anyone would suggest the two have to be mutually exclusive. And I don't think that has been suggested here?

A fair bit of this thread is myself and silkyman...but that was only one conversation and I hope more join in with different conversations! And it wasn't meant to come across as bible bashing but discussing the science behind evolution is something i find interesting and obviously my views do contradict religions so that will always come across. Its kinda hard to discuss our evolutionary history from a single cell without contradicting the views of many religious people.

 

[JimJams]

I think a religious scientist is a contradiction though Herts tbh.

 

[HertsWolf]

I'm not really following tbh Herts.

The initial discussion started with silkyman posting about evolution being proven. Evolution has been shown to be fact many times over and it kinda bemuses me that we still have these studies...we know already. Its like the constant studies proving tat vaccines are safe, what are they really hoping to achieve now? The ones that don't believe now never will.

John Nam (or is it Ham?) had a debate with Bill Nye about creationism and he used several examples of religious leaders in Biology and the Sciences in general. I dont think anyone would suggest the two have to be mutually exclusive. And I don't think that has been suggested here?

A fair bit of this thread is myself and silkyman...but that was only one conversation and I hope more join in with different conversations! And it wasn't meant to come across as bible bashing but discussing the science behind evolution is something i find interesting and obviously my views do contradict religions so that will always come across. Its kinda hard to discuss our evolutionary history from a single cell without contradicting the views of many religious people.

I liked the links and little comments about science, but then here (and admittedly I think I was influenced by comments in other threads too) that talk about the stupid notion that earth started a couple of thousands years ago.

What is interesting is that when the concept of a big bang was first suggested, it was leapt onto by many religious conservatives (including the then pope) who claimed that this showed the earth was "created" because there was a single starting point. Until then, I understand that the prevalent steady state theory was being used by many scientists as 'proof' there was no God.

So what "created" the big bang. Or did the big bang "evolve"?

The point I was making is that it is easy to take cheap shots at the shallower end of Christianity when talking about science, but some great minds have been both great scientists and not just men of faith, but practising priests.

On a separate theme, but still related to the general idea.....

I read once, in a Jared Diamond book (so hardly high science) that all varieties of almond nut are highly poisonous. Except for the one variant we eat, which is a genetic mutation. So how did we humans get to identify it and use it? Every time ancient man ate an almond he would die, so the lesson would be "don't eat the almonds". That lesson would be learnt and passed on down the hundreds of generations. At what point did someone stumble upon the one in a million almond that was edible, say "Shit! I just found an edible almond?" And then they ate the unmutated version of a nearby tree and died again. I remember that Jared Diamond gave a very sweeping reason how man identified the mutation and came to domesticate it...but even then I was really sceptical about his reasoning. Unfortunately I can't find the specific passage, but it must have been in Guns, Germs & Steel. So how did we work out how to avoid killing ourselves with almonds, given there have been maybe 450 generations of humans since the start of the Mesolithic? (I am not trying to be smug with this or suggest a bearded bloke in sandals came down from the clouds....but I genuinely don't see how some of these things happened on their own)

Edit: must stress that I'm not suggesting intelligent design either, and it's also interesting that George Coyne passionately advocated against it.

 

[HertsWolf]

I think a religious scientist is a contradiction though Herts tbh.

Noted.
(There are plenty of respected scientists who have religious faith and vice versa)

 

[HertsWolf]

John Nam (or is it Ham?) had a debate with Bill Nye about creationism and he used several examples of religious leaders in Biology and the Sciences in general. I dont think anyone would suggest the two have to be mutually exclusive. And I don't think that has been suggested here?

It is regularly suggested.

Edit: And just has been, by someone.

 

[blade1889]

It is regularly suggested.

Edit: And just has been, by someone.

[/QUOTE]

I did face palm when I read that

Will reply to your other post when I had time

 

[HertsWolf]

I did face palm when I read that

Will reply to your other post when I had time

Poor timing, I guess.

 

[blade1889]

I liked the links and little comments about science, but then here (and admittedly I think I was influenced by comments in other threads too) that talk about the stupid notion that earth started a couple of thousands years ago.

What is interesting is that when the concept of a big bang was first suggested, it was leapt onto by many religious conservatives (including the then pope) who claimed that this showed the earth was "created" because there was a single starting point. Until then, I understand that the prevalent steady state theory was being used by many scientists as 'proof' there was no God.

So what "created" the big bang. Or did the big bang "evolve"?

The point I was making is that it is easy to take cheap shots at the shallower end of Christianity when talking about science, but some great minds have been both great scientists and not just men of faith, but practising priests.

On a separate theme, but still related to the general idea.....

I read once, in a Jared Diamond book (so hardly high science) that all varieties of almond nut are highly poisonous. Except for the one variant we eat, which is a genetic mutation. So how did we humans get to identify it and use it? Every time ancient man ate an almond he would die, so the lesson would be "don't eat the almonds". That lesson would be learnt and passed on down the hundreds of generations. At what point did someone stumble upon the one in a million almond that was edible, say "Shit! I just found an edible almond?" And then they ate the unmutated version of a nearby tree and died again. I remember that Jared Diamond gave a very sweeping reason how man identified the mutation and came to domesticate it...but even then I was really sceptical about his reasoning. Unfortunately I can't find the specific passage, but it must have been in Guns, Germs & Steel. So how did we work out how to avoid killing ourselves with almonds, given there have been maybe 450 generations of humans since the start of the Mesolithic? (I am not trying to be smug with this or suggest a bearded bloke in sandals came down from the clouds....but I genuinely don't see how some of these things happened on their own)

Edit: must stress that I'm not suggesting intelligent design either, and it's also interesting that George Coyne passionately advocated against it.

Re Almonds: Not something I'm gonna pretend to be an expert in but have just done a wee bit of research.

The poisonous species & genus' are bitter to the taste because of the compound that eventually turns into cyanide. As a general evolutionary rule: bitter = poisonous = don't eat and it would've taken people eating more than just one almond to kill them. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/certain-almonds-are-highly-poisonous/
Whereas we obviously eat the non-poisonous and non-bitter varieties.

The species we eat comes from a non-bitter, wild, ancestor (which I am assuming to mean it is also not poisonous). Amygdalus communis is the strain which we eat (pg 234 & 245). http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/8/art%3A10.1007%2FBF00123275.pdf?originUrl=http:/ - not sure if that link works but its a paper 'The genus Amygdalus L. (Rosaceae): Species relationships, distribution and evolution under domestication' %2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2FBF00123275&token2=exp=1450900829~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F8%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252FBF00123275.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252FBF00123275*~hmac=785ca0afa94da70da020b9b2942893ba5abc32356534c145318b6a147d2ca19f

So essentially the strains we eat came from an ancestor that was not poisonous or bitter. Bitterness being the warning sign not to eat that people would recognise to not eat them.

I hope that makes sense, I'm rushing as we have people round and I have to stop being anti-social now haha. Will try and have a go at your other questions at a later point.

 

[HertsWolf]

Whereas we obviously eat the non-poisonous and non-bitter varieties.

The species we eat comes from a non-bitter, wild, ancestor (which I am assuming to mean it is also not poisonous). Amygdalus communis is the strain which we eat (pg 234 & 245). http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/8/art%3A10.1007%2FBF00123275.pdf?originUrl=http:/ - not sure if that link works but its a paper 'The genus Amygdalus L. (Rosaceae): Species relationships, distribution and evolution under domestication' %2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2FBF00123275&token2=exp=1450900829~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F8%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252FBF00123275.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252FBF00123275*~hmac=785ca0afa94da70da020b9b2942893ba5abc32356534c145318b6a147d2ca19f

So essentially the strains we eat came from an ancestor that was not poisonous or bitter. Bitterness being the warning sign not to eat that people would recognise to not eat them.

I hope that makes sense, I'm rushing as we have people round and I have to stop being anti-social now haha. Will try and have a go at your other questions at a later point.

The point is that people would have learned to stay clear of almonds. It was a mutant version that was domesticated. What would be the process of discovering the mutant? (It's actually not known how this happened) All the non-mutated versions are poisonous not just bitter. People wouldn't go around eating nasty nuts. Someone soon will say "there's a logical answer" because that is what we now expect there always to be.

Edit: sorry just want to be clear. The domesticated version doesn't come from a 'non-bitter, wild ancestor'; it comes from a specific mutant. It's not, apparently, that there was a non-poisonous species or sub-species waiting for man to find it. All bar a few almonds are poisonous. So even if we knew there was an edible one (which we don't), how do we find it?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

almonds are disgusting i stay clear from all of em

 

[blade1889]

The point is that people would have learned to stay clear of almonds. It was a mutant version that was domesticated. What would be the process of discovering the mutant? (It's actually not known how this happened) All the non-mutated versions are poisonous not just bitter. People wouldn't go around eating nasty nuts. Someone soon will say "there's a logical answer" because that is what we now expect there always to be.

Edit: sorry just want to be clear. The domesticated version doesn't come from a 'non-bitter, wild ancestor'; it comes from a specific mutant. It's not, apparently, that there was a non-poisonous species or sub-species waiting for man to find it. All bar a few almonds are poisonous. So even if we knew there was an edible one (which we don't), how do we find it?

The almonds that we eat were domesticated from a wild version, which according to the study above was non-bitter, as far as I can work out bitterness in almonds = poisonous, 'sweet' = non-poisonous. We started eating this non-poisonous version and began cultivating and domesticating it for our own use.

Any evolutionary change happens thanks to an initial random mutation which (largely by chance, sometimes with Natural Selection to help it) propagates throughout a population and sometimes leads to speciation. We cant say what causes mutations in the past because it is random and could b due to any number of complicated factors such as DNA replicating errors or UV damage.

Human cultivation would have happened over many hundreds, if not thousands of years. The non-poisonous mutation would also take many thousands of years to propagate. Time is the big key here-Humans would not have found the first mutant tree and a shift to much of the Mediterranean eating Almonds would not have been instantaneous. Sure they would eat some species, it would be bitter, and they wouldn't eat them again...but that doesn't mean their descendants wouldn't try Almonds again or that even they wouldn't The morphology of A.communis (the non-poisonous species with domesticated sub-species) is different though so people may try both types. Or maybe the populations of poisonous and non-poisonous almonds grew in different niches (I'll have to look back at the article to check...on my phone and not possible rn)...this would lead to another possible explanation that humans who lived in niches with the non-poisonous type would eat almonds whilst those that didn't, wouldn't eat almonds.

Man would not have gone actively seeking this non-poisonous almond. They would have discovered it as hunter-gatheres, our ancestors were foragers so of course we tried different nuts and some would be nasty-so they wouldn't eat them again. Others may eat them again...and they wouldn't be bitter/poisonous. Or they themselves may try almonds again that look different. It only requires one hunter-gatherer to collect non-bitter almonds for him to pass this knowledge on and over hundreds of years the knowledge of this almond would spread etc. etc. Again, it wouldn't be over-night.

I'm not quite sure what your point about

it comes from a specific mutant. It's not, apparently, that there was a non-poisonous species or sub-species waiting for man to find it

Is really getting at. Many changes come from a specific mutation. And of course before it was discovered the non-poisonous ancestor to the domesticated variant was present it just hadn't been discovered and wasn't being taken advantage of. Us, as humans, didnt cause the mutation or decide that we wanted a non-poisonous almond-we happened across the non-poisonous almond by chance that was non-poisonous by chance and then domesticated jt. Obviously it wasn't specifically waiting for humans but that has no bearing on the debate.

How do we find it-pure luck but over the course of many years its not at all stretch to imagine humans would come across it, eat it and hey presto.

 

[blade1889]

On your earlier points re the big bang: Way beyond my knowledge to even attempt to explain the big bang, I have often said that Imo if there was a god then they possibly set it all in motion but as for creating humans etc. I cannot buy into it. I haven't yet found a religion that goes with that.

I'm not sure if you were saying that the Earth being only 2000 years old is a daft idea or whether we (myself and Silkyman) imply that it is a daft idea. If the latter then yes, I absolutely do believe it is a daft idea. I base that on my knowledge and understanding of the molecular clock which we use to provide estimates of how long ago species split doe to the constant nature at which mutations accumulate. And the molecular clock estimates tie in neatly with archeologists estimations etc.

 

[silkyman]

Any evolutionary change happens thanks to an initial random mutation which (largely by chance, sometimes with Natural Selection to help it) propagates throughout a population and sometimes leads to speciation. We cant say what causes mutations in the past because it is random and could b due to any number of complicated factors such as DNA replicating errors or UV damage.

All evolutionary change is driven by natural selection. The 'mutation' concept is a bit misleading, It's like saying I'm a mutant because I'm a bit taller than my dad. All organisms are different. Even from their own species. If those subtle differences help you in your environment, then they are more likely to be passed on over generations. (i.e. is for some reason it suddenly became very useful for humans to be taller than six foot two then I'd be more likely to thrive than someone shorter. If it became beneficial to be five foot three, then I'd be one of those being killed and eaten before I could reproduce.)

The slightly more agile gazelle, the slightly bigger walrus, the stag with slightly tougher antlers. They survive to maturity more often and when they get there are more likely to get that sweet, sweet reproductive action.

But the stuff about almonds is spot on. Even the toxic ones aren't instant, and as you say, would taste bitter to humans (Because some humans earlier in history wouldn't have had that response, and were more likely to die from poisoning, so the humans who could tell the difference and spit out the dangerous ones, were more likely to survive.)

 

[blade1889]

All evolutionary change is driven by natural selection. The 'mutation' concept is a bit misleading, It's like saying I'm a mutant because I'm a bit taller than my dad. All organisms are different. Even from their own species. If those subtle differences help you in your environment, then they are more likely to be passed on over generations. (i.e. is for some reason it suddenly became very useful for humans to be taller than six foot two then I'd be more likely to thrive than someone shorter. If it became beneficial to be five foot three, then I'd be one of those being killed and eaten before I could reproduce.)

The slightly more agile gazelle, the slightly bigger walrus, the stag with slightly tougher antlers. They survive to maturity more often and when they get there are more likely to get that sweet, sweet reproductive action.

But the stuff about almonds is spot on. Even the toxic ones aren't instant, and as you say, would taste bitter to humans (Because some humans earlier in history wouldn't have had that response, and were more likely to die from poisoning, so the humans who could tell the difference and spit out the dangerous ones, were more likely to survive.)

To have evolution you need the mutation first, no mutation = no evolution. Are you a mutant? No. Do you have mutations? Yes. Is the differences between humans caused by initial mutations? Yes (even if the mutation is many thousands of years ago). Mutant itself may be a fairly abstract term but I do think its helpful label sometimes.

And not all evolutionary change is thanks to Natural Selection. As discussed earlier deleterious mutations still survive in populations such as cystic fibrosis. The first CF mutation propagating through a population is still evolution and it propagates by chance, obviously not natural selection. Natural selection in small populations is actually the weaker force driving evolution in small populations, in small populations genetic drift (the random sampling of genes during reproduction) is a stringer driver of evolution.

I think you are possibly misunderstanding that evolution has to have advantageous effects, for evolution to occur then all that needs to happen is that alleles in a gene pool change in frequency...this can be positive or negative. Natural selection on the other hand is the only force driving evolution that always has advantageous effects at the time.

 

[silkyman]

On your earlier points re the big bang: Way beyond my knowledge to even attempt to explain the big bang, I have often said that Imo if there was a god then they possibly set it all in motion but as for creating humans etc. I cannot buy into it. I haven't yet found a religion that goes with that.

I'm not sure if you were saying that the Earth being only 2000 years old is a daft idea or whether we (myself and Silkyman) imply that it is a daft idea. If the latter then yes, I absolutely do believe it is a daft idea. I base that on my knowledge and understanding of the molecular clock which we use to provide estimates of how long ago species split doe to the constant nature at which mutations accumulate. And the molecular clock estimates tie in neatly with archeologists estimations etc.

There's also, as covered in one of the videos I posted earlier, some good evidence from places like the Grand Canyon. It is impossible with the laws of physics and chemistry, for that to have been created by the flow of water in '6,000 years', It simple couldn't happen.

Then there's geological evidence of rocks being laid down in an order and the cherry on top of fossils, which can be dated by other means, too, fitting the timeline of the rocks they were found in.

 

[silkyman]

To have evolution you need the mutation first, no mutation = no evolution. Are you a mutant? No. Do you have mutations? Yes. Is the differences between humans caused by initial mutations? Yes (even if the mutation is many thousands of years ago). Mutant itself may be a fairly abstract term but I do think its helpful label sometimes.

And not all evolutionary change is thanks to Natural Selection. As discussed earlier deleterious mutations still survive in populations such as cystic fibrosis. The first CF mutation propagating through a population is still evolution and it propagates by chance, obviously not natural selection.

The changes come first (although not always mutations any more than you have mutated from your parents by having slightly different characteristics.) but it's only if that change offers an evolutionary benefit that it will be passed on prolifically enough to alter a genome. More than one organism can have the same tendency in the same species. If being tall was an evolutionary benefit, there are already a lot of tall people.

Things like CF are evidence for evolution in their imperfection. It doesn't serve to be self limiting because it needs both parents to be carriers. So you could have generation after generation of carriers before one meets and mates with another carrier and their line may end up finished. But there would be siblings and cousins who haven't and so it remains in the genome.

 

[blade1889]

The changes come first (although not always mutations any more than you have mutated from your parents by having slightly different characteristics.) but it's only if that change offers an evolutionary benefit that it will be passed on prolifically enough to alter a genome. More than one organism can have the same tendency in the same species. If being tall was an evolutionary benefit, there are already a lot of tall people.

Things like CF are evidence for evolution in their imperfection. It doesn't serve to be self limiting because it needs both parents to be carriers. So you could have generation after generation of carriers before one meets and mates with another carrier and their line may end up finished. But there would be siblings and cousins who haven't and so it remains in the genome.

Evolution starts with mutations, that is a fact. Without mutations there can not be evolution. However you differ from your parents could not happen without differences in their genomes, differences that cannot occur without mutations.

Things like CF are evidence that evolution can occur without natural selection. Yes they are also evidence for the imperfection in evolution, you're spot on on that one.

I'm not sure you caught my edit at the end of my last post...
Natural selection in small populations is actually the weaker force driving evolution in small populations, in small populations genetic drift (the random sampling of genes during reproduction) is a stringer driver of evolution.

I think you are possibly misunderstanding that evolution has to have advantageous effects, for evolution to occur then all that needs to happen is that alleles in a gene pool change in frequency...this can be positive or negative. Natural selection on the other hand is the only force driving evolution that always has advantageous effects at the time.

 

[HertsWolf]

Lack of time and energy prevent my further contribution to this debate. Scientists investigating this for some decades have professed the domestication of almonds to be a real mystery. But here, in this thread, it seems the puzzle has been solved.

Edit: the original almond 'story' I have been told is on pp 119-9 of Guns, Germs and Steel.

 

[silkyman]

Just positing some ideas and selection through taste - they aren't immediately fatal - seems an obvious starting point.

Not entirely sure what it has to do with religion though.

If God is hiding in the gaps, it's in the first billionth of a second after the Big Bang, the moment key amino acids combined when the earth was young, and the domestication of the almond.

There's a lot of human history we'll never ever know. We'll never know who the first guy to rub two sticks together and make fire was (which doesn't mean it was really stolen by Prometheus), we'll never know who was the first person to decide rolling is better than dragging and we'll never know who decided to pull on something hanging down from a cow, and drink what came out.

 

[Stagat]

I thank God bovine fellatio never caught on.

 

[blade1889]

Herts is not you that has a go at EG for those emojis?

Anyway silkyman has essentially said it. We go back to the time machine argument, there are possible reasons why the wild almond would be eaten, off the top of my head:

1) occupy different niches
2) morphological differences
3) eaten by great-grandchild

Can we test these? No. We need a time machine but that doesn't mean there aren't plausible explanations.

Also worth noting that that book is from 1997 which at the rate science moves on is a lifetime ago. Text books go out of date in a year atm.

As far as I can tell there isn't much mystery:
1) do we know our ancestors avoided bitter food. Yes-numerous studies have identified the genes responsible for bitter avoidance and natural selection favouring them
2) can you tell the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous almonds. Yes thanks to bitter taste in poisonous almonds
3) is the non poisonous almond found in the wild that the domesticated almonds are grown from. Yes, thanks to this study: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00123275
4) can the non-poisonous species arrive from poisonous? Yes, random mutations happen all the time. Do we know the exact mutation? I am not sure, would have to research it although I would suggest it is in a gene related to the arsenic precursor that makes them poisonous and bitter.
5) are there reasons why this may be eaten. Yes, hunter gatherers etc.

So to me the only mystery is exactly the how and why but there are possibilities just not testable ones. Which to me are very minor unknowns and certainly aren't something that I'd use to support evidence for a god.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's like casting doubt on gravitation theory just because we don't quite understand how neolithic humans managed to stack twenty ton standing stones on top of each other. It's not something we would even consider without a theological motive.

 

[blade1889]