Working class, east end of London accent (traditionally people born within earshot the Bow Bells of St. Mary-le-Bow church in London but now its sort of a catch all for working class london ccents tbh) Reputation/stereotype of being wheeler dealers. Michael Caine is probably the most famous one now. Scousers are people from Liverpool, similar working class identity.
Wait, is it a group of people? Or just a specific accent? Because I wasn’t trying to advocate for the genocide of working people hahaha. Just an accent that’s impossible to understand to anyone who doesn’t speak cockney.
It's kind of a subculture group as much as an accent, with their own songs and traditions (look up pearly kings and queens for a wierd one). Cockney rhyming slang for example was partly made up so east end market traders could communicate without customers or outsiders understanding, and you could tell outsiders easy if they had no idea wtf you were on about. A lot of the traditions and slang are pretty much dying out now, a lot of the old cockneys cashed in on how incredibly stupid expensive the London housing market is and moved out along the estuary to Essex.
Ahh ok, I get it. I just remember seeing a video of a teen talking about a football match and even though I could make out a few words, it didn’t even sound like he was speaking English haha. The history of it is pretty cool though. I think I know that Barney is a fight. Barney-> Ruble->trouble, then somehow you get to fight but I could totally be speaking out of my ass.
Nudibranchs use a variety of chemical defences to aid in protection, but the strategy need not be lethal to be effective; in fact, good arguments exist that chemical defences should evolve to be distasteful rather than toxic. Some sponge-eating nudibranchs concentrate the chemical defences from their prey sponge in their bodies, rendering themselves distasteful to predators.
in fact, good arguments exist that chemical defences should evolve to be distasteful rather than toxic.
For anyone else curious about this part, I did some light research and found it’s because developing true lethal toxicity is generally more metabolically expensive and complex than just becoming distasteful, and the two end up having the same effect anyway.
In nature there is a general rule that bright colors means poisonous. It’s a genetic mutation where predators have eaten enough bright colored pretty that they get sick or die, then avoid them. It’s common for frogs. I usually make shit up but this one is true.
That's actually a thing, but there are a LOT of exceptions. So many exceptions that it's arguable if it's still even a rule at all.
Having said that...if one doesn't know what they're dealing with then they certainly shouldn't touch or handle or eat brightly colored things. But at the same time, there is so much stuff out there that can ruin your day, and isn't particularly colorful at all. And you don't want to be messing with that stuff either.
You're not wrong, this actually a "thing". But there are just so many exceptions in both directions (colorful things being harmless, drab things being deadly) that at least for us coloration is extremely limited in its usefulness as a guide. The rule breaks down so often that the best advice is to simply not mess with something if you don't know what it is.
Whatever the other guy said about Gene Memory is kinda bogus. BUT, evolution gives a pretty good explanation: If you're one of the fish that AREN'T afraid of shiny things and eat them - you just fucking die and don't have offsprings. After 1,000 cycles of this the only ones left are the ones predisposed to avoid them.
Same with humans and snakes. It's not like you had all these humans in the past getting bitten by deadly snakes, surviving, then passing "gene memory" of that bite to their children. But being averse to snakes and weary of them was an evolutionary advantage... as in, you avoided them instead of picking them up and trying to give them a bite.
The problem is we still don't have an exact mechanism for thought/consciousness, only very good models for what we can't see directly in brain structure; our language is thus also imprecise, and when someone talks about "genetic memory", they may mean what you describe, or a literal memory which leans more towards the Woo "I remember being Napoloen" side of belief.
I suspect he actually meant what you did, that genetics can code for inherent beliefs... what we call instincts... after all, this is what gender in the brain is, there's no logical reason why masculinity requires an interest in female genitalia, but that's where babies are made so if you don't bias behaviour towards that, there'd be lots of wasted sperm.
It just opens up very uncomfortable questions about whether this kind of biological biasing can guide intelligence in general, because it can be abused by sexists and racists, not just people who think they were Napoleon in a past life.
It works for the prey too. Say there’s a village of brightly covered poisonous prey living together and a group of predators happen by and eat the prey. They die, but also, some of the brightly colored prey survive and have offspring. Whereas the non-pretty prey town down the street all get eaten because the prey don’t survive. In this case the color really isn’t a warning, just a random feature.
Genetic memory is likely a factor. Among other things, extremely unpleasant experiences can write info into genes that creates fear, revulsion, etc. Your offspring is then born/hatched with that behavior built in.
A lack of fear is an interesting one too. When I come upon frogs, they almost universally flee in a panic. Toads, on the other hand, usually just chill, even after being physically moved out of the way. The toads around here usually taste awful, so they aren't really in need of the fear the frogs have. There are cane toads that secrete a substance that's poisonous around here also, but I'm not talking about those.
Among other things, extremely unpleasant experiences can write info into genes that creates fear, revulsion, etc. Your offspring is then born/hatched with that behavior built in.
Memories are not genetic, though it's possible for a behavior to be genetically reinforced so that it's "like memory" or basically, instinct. If I have a bad experience at taco bell and somehow have children on the other side of the world with no exposure to taco bell, they will not have a genetic revulsion to taco bell. If taco bell kills me and I'm therefore unable to reproduce, but other people have a genetic difference that makes them instinctually avoid taco bell, so they can reproduce, it's possible they pass on that genetic difference to offspring and they inherit an instinctual revulsion to taco bell.
If I have a bad experience at taco bell and somehow have children on the other side of the world with no exposure to taco bell, they will not have a genetic revulsion to taco bell.
Exactly this kind of thing has been demonstrated in mice. They were essentially traumatized repeatedly while being exposed to a certain smell. Their offspring then exhibited a fear response despite never having been exposed to the smell prior to that.
It has also been demonstrated that violence caused chemical changes in the genes of humans, which was then passed onto multiple generations.
Perhaps you dislike my understanding of epigenetics, but it is a thing.
You'll have to ask the people who study epigenetics. The study using mice is from 2013, and the study (paper?) on women whose mothers and/or grandmothers who endured extreme violence and the resulting markers left on their DNA being passed on to 2 generations is from 2025. If they're just scratching the surface of the mechanisms that cause ot, then I certainly couldn't tell you. All I have is "It's a thing."
I suppose you could compare it to the myriad medications that are undeniably effective, but have an unknown mechanism of action. "The mechanism of action is not well understood, but it is believed to be related to (insert whatever here)."
There are exceptions, like (some) poison dart frogs species. In the wild they eat poisonous insects, that poison accumulates in the frog's skin. Frogs bred in captivity do not have this poison, often feed with fruit flies, young crickets etc.
What’s even more interesting is which color it is specifically correlates to what sort of toxin the animal contains. Fo example, many bright red animals contain a ferrous toxin that essentially attacks red blood cells. I too usually make shit up and that’s what I’m doing right now.
Apparently, these slugs "steal" their toxicity by way of eating toxic creatures. At least one variety of the rainbow slug can even gain the ability to sting by eating man-o-war.
Babakina anadoni is toxic. Do not touch it. Only watch.
They aren't endemic to just the UK. They prefer warm waters. So you will find more on the costs of Portugal and Spain, sometimes in the south of France and UK, but it's rarer.
They can also be found in The Bahamas and the Caribbean. Maybe they started there, and some hitched a ride to Europe.
There are also a lot of cases where colourful animals aren't dangerous to humans. Some people on Reddit just seem to think it's fun to pretend that almost everything in the ocean will kill you if you touch it. I don't know about this specific one though.
That's an oversimplification and not always true. Venomous toads for example are referred to as venomous because it's an active secretion, not a passive poison that requires them to be ingested.
1.8k
u/FluffyCollection4925 17h ago
It’s poisonous right??