Hi Carol,

>
> Good point.  All the German I know is... well... I shouldn't even try,
> since I don't know how to spell it. :D
>
How about "Kindergarten" (nursery) and "Gesundheit" (health)?

>
> I'll try, but it's hard to know the age of the nuts you're getting
> unless you get them directly from the tree or the grower.  Neither of
> those options is available to me at the present.  But I'll keep it in
> mind...
>
Ripe nuts which are stored (and not...god forbid..irradiated) sooner or
later go rancid (the very oily ones faster than the less oily ones) and
are eventually consumed by fungi. They do not go into any form of
"suspended animation" Carol.

> > > My understanding is that the enzyme inhibitors are there to keep the
> > > nut/seed in a state of suspended animation, not so much to prevent it
> > > from being digested by others, but to prevent self-digestion (a compo-
> > > nent of most rotting).
> >
> > Since when does a live nut "rot" or "digest itself"???
>
> That's just the point.  A live one doesn't.  When living things are
> not in suspended animation, but actively alive, they are filled with
> enzymes that could be digesting their component parts, but the major-
> ity of those enzymes are controlled and kept from doing that.

I think you are mixing things up a little here. No self-digestion takes
place within a nut and neither are the enzymes (presuming you mean those
which trigger off germination) controlled. They are merely inactive
until they come into contact with water and the other environmental
conditions (e.g. temperature) are also right. When ripe nuts fall to
the ground the shell bursts open, i.e. exposing the interior to the
required elements.

> control takes energy.  A sleeping seed is in a different situation.
> Most seeds contain the very enzymes that they have inhibitors for,
> but when they're dormant, they have no influx of energy, so those
> enzymes have to be locked up chemically.
>
I don't agree here either. Seeds (i.e. ripe seeds) are contained in
a husk, which inhibits germination through water and light when the
seeds are not ripe (why do you think seeds are sold in watertight and
lightproof packages?). As soon as the seed is ripe the husk splits.

> All this isn't something I can reference, since it was part of a
> lecture and not something I read.  My apologies.

Shoot that lecturer. ;-)

> Also, though the idea of enzyme inhibitors as preventers of diges-
> tion by those who may eat the seeds makes sense when the seed isn't
> chewed, it's a very different situation if it is.  If a particular
> seed always gets chewed (likely for those that are large), the diges-
> tive enzymes of the chewer exert no evolutionary pressure whatsoever.

I can see what you are getting at..and you are right in some respects..
but not in the case of humans. Birds (which evolved from reptiles)
swallow seeds whole and can utilize some (although berry seeds are
generally ejected intact). The same goes for many other creatures in
no way related to man.

> If, on the other hand, a seed always goes straight through, it's a
> different story.  So, as seeds come in all sizes and styles, the
> situation is complicated and doesn't lend itself to wide generaliza-
> tions.

It wasn't a wide generalization Carol, it was a generalization as far
as humans and animals closely related to humans are concerned.

> > > I, like Kirt, have some trouble with the idea that seeds are not
> > > meant to be eaten.  If they are not, does that mean that animals for
> > > whom seeds are a major food source are not meant to exist?
> >
> > Which animal eats seeds rather than the "flesh" surrounding some of
> > them? Which animal gains nutrients from seeds alone and is this
> > animal supposedly one of our forefathers?
>
Now you know why I specifically used the term "forefathers".

> Birds, for one, are real big seed fans.  Some species eat little else.
> Whether they are our forefathers or not has nothing to do with it. :D

Yes it does..and birds also merely propagate many seeds (i.e. particularly
the seeds and stones in various berries).

> As I said just below, I'm not talking about humans here.  I'm merely
> answering your claim that "seeds.. are not meant to be eaten".  Since
> you didn't say "..by us", it looked like you meant "..by anything".

I used the terms "humans" and "forefathers" and so thought it was
quite clear what I was implying.

> > > The value of seeds as food for humans is a different question (and
> > > one which I cannot answer).

It was a question which I intended to answer.

> > > > They might look different but their purpose in Nature is identical.
> > > > Thus they stand to gain nothing by being chewed and digested.
> > >
> > > True, but they didn't evolve in a vacuum.  Similarly, the purpose of
> > > a deer's muscles could be said to be to get that deer away from its
> > > predators as fast as possible so that it can live to have more baby
> > > deer, but the deer's predators have been evolving right along side
> > > them, and the fact that wolves and others evolved the ability to make
> > > use of those deer muscles as food in no way denies the purpose that
> > > those muscles may hold for the deer.
> > >
> > I fail to see the connection here between deer and their predators and
> > enzyme inhibitors in seeds. Please explain Carol.
>
> It's a very similar situation that I thought might make my point more
> clear.  Guess it didn't work. :)
>
> So I'll try again... Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that
> ALL enzyme inhibitors in seeds are there because they protect some
> parts of the seeds from being digested as food.  Fine.

The enzyme inhibitor is there to prevent the seed from germinating
under the wrong conditions. The problem for humans is that this self-
same inhibitor also inhibits some of our enzymes (see the earlier
list that I sent).

> But my point
> is that it certainly doesn't follow from that statement that seeds
> are never meant, in the grand scheme of things, to be eaten, and that
> no animal could have evolved to use these same seeds as food.  I used
> the deer example because if I had used fruit, someone probably would
> have popped up with "But fruit WANTS to be eaten!"  I also chose deer
> because no one can dispute that they are a natural food for wolves,
> whether they want to be or not.
>
Some seeds certainly do want (need) to be eaten in order to propagate
(and these seeds can and are eaten by humans and chimps as well but
usually not chewed). Some restrict themselves to birds and other
creatures by being toxic to humans (many berries, for example). But
if any seed is eaten and chewed by a human without being exposed long
enough to either light or water then the human also consumes the
active enzyme inhibitor as well.

> The problem might be that I understood you to be saying something
> which, in fact, you never meant to say.

Well I think I did say it but perhaps did not make myself as clear
as I thought I did.

Best regards,

Alan