I’ll continue the question, honestly asking. ‘Seeds contain anti nutrients because the plant doesn’t want us to eat their babies’ The answer has to be more than just that though, because plants don’t want birds eating their babies either. But we wouldn’t say that birds that eat seeds are poisoned by them would we? It has to mostly be that since we aren’t evolved to eat them we cannot process them or similar. Right?
Discussion
I think it comes down to the seed distribution strategies of the plant.
Birds can eat a bunch of seeds, some pass through intact. Passing through may help the seed germinate in some ways. The plant feeds the bird in exchange for taking some seeds far away with a fertilizer package.
Squirrels do not dig up all the acorns they bury for winter
I guess plants do not want us to eat the seeds if we do not help them spread. We can 'plant' tomato seeds in our poop
So I think some animals evolved with plants in a way they both benifit
Certainly true. But to push it abit, if acorns are good to eat for the squirrel because they plant 20% for new seedlings and seeds are good for birds because some of the seeds consumed are distributed as they pass through their system, so there was co-evolution, aren’t these seeds that humans are propagating in seed oils successful from an evolutionary perspective, aren’t humans distributing the seeds through agriculture. The deer doesn’t want to be eaten either by the wolf or the human. I’m just saying the food that is good for a species is more dependent on the species evolving to consume it rather than the consumed species getting a benefit from it such that they allow itself to be consumed for the benefit.