5 ms·
> if this change is beneficial to plants, why has it not occurred already by natural mutation? Because plants in the wild aren't selected for producing as much
by chmod775 5y ago
> if this change is beneficial to plants, why has it not occurred already by natural mutation?
Because plants in the wild aren't selected for producing as much rice/tuber as possible. They're selected for being able to survive and reproduce, which only goes hand-in-hand up to a point, after which the plant would just be wasting nutrients.
The amount of nutrients available to a plant in the wild might also be far from 'greenhouse conditions', so even if it was beneficial to the plants they wouldn't be able to do so anyways.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoSo it's 2: this change is not in the wild plant's best interests, for being able to survive and reproduce in the wild. In that case the dial is best set to a lower level of resource utilisation, that still produces sufficient offspring.
- whythre 5y agoSeems like an appeal to nature fallacy. If humans are ensuring that the plants reproduce, you don’t need to ‘set the dial lower.’ Almost all of our fruits and vegetables provide more nourishment than their naturally occurring counterparts. This is merely a continuation of that process.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoI do not think that I'm saying what you seem to be replying to. I merely asked why this mutation has not occurred in the wild if it is beneficial in the wild. And it was answered that it is not beneficial, in the wild. Farmed crops have different characteristics to wild plants, due to selection by the crop eaters. We know this very well. The same selection by crop eater is present in plants with berries where the seeds are dispersed by birds. The "appeal" and "fallacy" is you reading in a subtext that was not intended.