being eaten by animals is not a beneficial mutation that improves their survival. being more nutritious to animals does not improve their survival. the fact that plants contain nutrients we need is merely coincidental.

Do you understand that many/most agricultural crops are spread primarily by animals? They eat the fruit. They consume the seed. The body cannot digest the seed. And they poop them out. This is some very basic stuff, that they teach kids in Elementary School.

this is just ... so wrong. a plant's survival is not based on whether or not animals want to eat it, or if they get sick when doing so. if that was the case, plants like nightshade or venus fly traps wouldn't exist. what you're saying doesn't even make sense.

These plants aren't foods. They aren't meant to be eaten. Not ALL plants have their seeds spread by animals. But most edible ones do.

plants don't spread their seed by being eaten by animals. if we're talking about mammals, pollen is spread by attaching to an animal's coat/fur and falling off.

Well, I'm not sure how to respond to this. How do you think life got to Hawaii? Or Easter Island? Did some fertilized pollen catch the air and fall onto the soil, and magically turn into a plant(despite the fact that pollen itself cannot create a new plant)? No. Some birds ate some fruit. The seeds had evolved to be able to withstand digestion. And the bird pooped the seeds on the islands.

i'm sorry but i don't think you know how science works. or evolution, for that matter. plants didn't evolve to become more healthy for consumption by organisms. evolution doesn't work that way. evolutionary "design" isn't a thing. organisms do not evolve to become perfect specimens. evolution is based on random mutation and adaptation. organisms give rise to a mutation that effects how well they survive in their environment. if the mutation is beneficial to their survival, they're more likely to propagate compared to less beneficial mutations. being eaten by animals is not a beneficial mutation that improves their survival. being more nutritious to animals does not improve their survival. the fact that plants contain nutrients we need is merely coincidental.

I hope that my previous responses have sufficiently refuted this as well. If you still have more questions/arguments, feel free to share.

Here's a good google summary of how plants spread their seed, from google.

"Animals disperse seeds in several ways. First, some plants, like the burr at left, have barbs or other structures that get tangled in animal fur or feathers, and are then carried to new sites. Other plants produce their seeds inside fleshy fruits that then get eaten be an animal."

I'm talking about the "fleshy fruits". These are the "fruits" that humans and animals eat, that have evolved to become more nutritious, to encourage animals to eat them.