>>13389816> Taste is consistent throughout the animals life and is determined by the genotypeWhat part of simplification do you not understand? Regardless, the longer a creature goes disliking the taste of poison, the less likely they are to die to said poison.
>It's possible (likely?) for variation to occur among species in taste of some particular poisonous thingYes. Works for smell too. We see this even in modern humans.
>the variation is significant enough to change the behavior of animals who eat itYes and again this is the case even today. Hell, some things are poison to some people and harmless or even helpful to other people.
>he animals that like the taste of poison are less likely to pass on their genesEating things that kill you isn't exactly the best strategy for procreation.
>the difference in likelihood is significant enough to alter the taste after many generationsYes. The rates of change are highly variable depending on starting conditions (how many creatures, do they communicate, how abundant is the poison, how toxic is it, individual toxicity resistance, ect), but ultimately that statement is accurate.
>can you justify them?How can you refute them? You gonna keep giving vague dismissals or you gonna front some alternatives?
Bonus Animal Fact: Nearly all mammals have exactly 7 cervical vertebrae, including giraffes, humans, platypuses, mice, and whales.
