SporeTek said:

yeah, they call that darwin's theory not darwin's law for a reason. It hasn't been proven and I for one do not subscribe to it. Also, even if you are correct about the short life evolution, mycelium forms a network, an intelligent network. Life finds a way. Terence McKenna believed that this particular mushroom is a communication system and was put here by "others". I'm with Terence all the way.

---

           

I'm with you all the way, although as I recall, McKenna spoke of mushrooms being interstellar, even intergalactic voyagers, as a percentage of spores will be launched airborne and escape the atmosphere, and will be capable of perpetual survival, then able to colonize the right conditions should they find them. So true that none of Darwin's basic presuppositions can be proven, and in fact, as Pier Luigi Luisi writes, "molecular Darwinism is unable to elicit concepts other than those from which it was originally constructed" -- in other words, leads nowhere. It is certainly not a testable theory. But it seems to be the best that science can do, because science's built-in blind spots prevent it from asking the questions that will reveal the path towards understanding what is really going on. That leaves people like McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, and Jeremy Narby to lead the way forward, although a growing minority of scientists now admit the futility of Darwin's theory, and of modern neo-Darwinism.

Evolution exists, but not in the Darwinian sense, and the records show us that it is rarely gradual... for a few billion years there was just algae and bacteria, and plankton, then all at once, in the blink of an eye (10 million years), there were tentacles, and jawed, clawed, toothed creatures. Just like that. Darwinism calls for a far, far more gradual evolution.

Narby points out (in Cosmic Serpent) that the genetic code is a language, like a program. Until it's discovery (and we still don't know what 97% of it does), we thought that only humans could write language. We thought that intelligence was required to do that. So -- who the hell wrote the script?

...okay, enough from me...

Montock said:

I blame canada.

---

yup, must be canada...damn flap heads driving cars with square tires. 

1. I didn't see anybody jumping on you....just a discussion with differing points of view.
2. Everything we have said is completely off topic from this thread and therefore meaningless.
3. Now I feel dirty...like a thread jacker or something...eeeeewwww

SporeTek said:

Montock said:

I blame canada.

---

yup, must be canada...damn flap heads driving cars with square tires. 

1. I didn't see anybody jumping on you....just a discussion with differing points of view.
2. Everything we have said is completely off topic from this thread and therefore meaningless.
3. Now I feel dirty...like a thread jacker or something...eeeeewwww

---

Puma said:

SporeTek said:

yeah, they call that darwin's theory not darwin's law for a reason. It hasn't been proven and I for one do not subscribe to it. Also, even if you are correct about the short life evolution, mycelium forms a network, an intelligent network. Life finds a way. Terence McKenna believed that this particular mushroom is a communication system and was put here by "others". I'm with Terence all the way.

---

           

I'm with you all the way, although as I recall, McKenna spoke of mushrooms being interstellar, even intergalactic voyagers, as a percentage of spores will be launched airborne and escape the atmosphere, and will be capable of perpetual survival, then able to colonize the right conditions should they find them. So true that none of Darwin's basic presuppositions can be proven, and in fact, as Pier Luigi Luisi writes, "molecular Darwinism is unable to elicit concepts other than those from which it was originally constructed" -- in other words, leads nowhere. It is certainly not a testable theory. But it seems to be the best that science can do, because science's built-in blind spots prevent it from asking the questions that will reveal the path towards understanding what is really going on. That leaves people like McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, and Jeremy Narby to lead the way forward, although a growing minority of scientists now admit the futility of Darwin's theory, and of modern neo-Darwinism.

Evolution exists, but not in the Darwinian sense, and the records show us that it is rarely gradual... for a few billion years there was just algae and bacteria, and plankton, then all at once, in the blink of an eye (10 million years), there were tentacles, and jawed, clawed, toothed creatures. Just like that. Darwinism calls for a far, far more gradual evolution.

Narby points out (in Cosmic Serpent) that the genetic code is a language, like a program. Until it's discovery (and we still don't know what 97% of it does), we thought that only humans could write language. We thought that intelligence was required to do that. So -- who the hell wrote the script?

...okay, enough from me...

---

LeopardMan said:

Darwin and Darwinism are not the same thing.

---

Puma said:

Damn flapheads can't stay on topic. It's because it's so dark in Canada, and the mushrooms are so much more potent there.

True... social Darwinism gave us the holocaust, after all. Darwin wouldn't have liked that one.

---

SporeTek said:

die.thread.die.die.die

---

RogerRabbit said:

I've read the study and looked at the pictures.  It's obvious these are noobs on their first grow, regardless of the fact they have access to a GC. I would bet money they're using multispore inoculation by the looks of the pictures.  I would also bet money they don't know how to adjust pinning triggers, by the looks of the crappy harvests they got.  Nor do they know what a casing layer is.  They also didn't quantify the light source or frequency used, only making high-schoolish references to dim, medium, bright, etc.

In addition, the pictures of fruits grown in poor light conditions also show signs of insufficient fresh air exchange, which could be skewing any results obtained.  It seems in their vigor to block light, they also blocked fresh air.  Based on the pictures, they only had a few fruits to work with, and as everyone here has found out by experience, there can be an exponential difference in potency between individual mushrooms on the same flush.  It takes a LOT of mushrooms to establish any sort of factual data.

Since these results contradict the experience of thousands of members here over the last decade and earlier, I'm going to dismiss this as a fluke.  How many times a week do we get noobs here saying things such as "this-or-that strain are fast colonizers, slow colonizers, more potent, less potent, more contam resistant, etc"., all based on one or two grows, when they haven't even learned the variables yet.

Furthermore, chemistry geeks are going to have a field day with their extraction technique, which involves heating the dried fruits, completely fucking up the psilocin which is what they were trying to measure.  They didn't even measure psilocybin, the main ingredient.
RR

---

Quote:

In light of this post I say someone contacts the researchers and gives them tips on proper growing technique, factors influencing grows, isolation, casing layers, and so on. From what I gather these types of research projects are few and far between, and any accurate results would benefit mycologists everywhere. Personally as a chemist if I was told my experiments were full of errors and inconsistencies and ultimately proved nothing I would definately redo them correctly.

---

I have just contacted the lead author, Hasan Rafati, directly, expressing my interest in their protocol.  I've also provided a link to this particular thread in case they care to wade through it.

Peace
-PS