• naught@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        No idea! It’s important not to ascribe purpose or intent to beneficial but random mutations. It must do something. Like you’re saying, more pollinators or scare away pests etc. Somehow it is evolutionarily beneficial for reproducing with the additional benefit of being sick af

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Or just random coincidence out of millions of different plants and it didn’t do anything to harm the plant from spreading.

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Kind of weird to say you can’t ascribe a purpose to the beneficial mutations and that they must do something. You say they have no purpose, then say they’re beneficial (which is a purpose), then almost explicitly say that they must have a purpose.

          • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            No, they said not to ascribe a purpose, but that it obviously has purpose. Those are not the same thing. There is purpose, but we should not presume to understand or identify said purpose.