|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: falcon]
#6767198 - 04/09/07 07:59 PM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
My experience is similar to falcon's. the smell is in fresh Psilocybe cubensis, Psilocybe cyanescens, Psilocybe caerulipes, and active Pluteus. I have never encountered Panaeolus cyanescens, so I cannot corroborate his report on those, but Panaeolus subbalteatus does not have the smell, and if it is present in Gymnopilus it is covered up by the pungent Gym fragrance.
I find the smell nauseating but that is probably due to my past over indulgences
|
beatnicknick
The Innovator
Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1,074
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shroomydan]
#6768739 - 04/10/07 05:06 AM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
A possibly better question to ask might be "Why do our brains have receptors possible for tripping?" Maybe it's because we are very connected species, and if they start evolving chemically different, they could ruin that. Though that still leaves the question of why the chemical was created in the first place. The answer is probably what people were previously saying, an experimental deterent, accidentally reversed to actually end up bettering the species.
I mean think of how well there species is doing right now through human cultivation. Maybe the reason our ancestors started evolving more mentally and less physically was due to cavemen tripping out. Ha. Let that thought entertain you for a while.
*goes out to give a chimpanzee some closet fungus*
-------------------- I don't think for myself. I think as though I'm explaining my thoughts to someone else. I'm concerned only for those listening.
|
figgusfiddus
Arrogant Worm
Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: beatnicknick]
#6799971 - 04/17/07 02:23 PM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That's a far too deterministic view of evolution and human physiology. I don't think there's any science, or even common sense, to defend the notion that humans are receptive to drugs because they evolved to be receptive to drugs. Rather, most organisms that produce psychoactives do because it is evolutionarily convenient for the organism, whether because the actives are a convenient metabolic by-product or because they actually serve a function that aids in propagation--or both. In either case, they probably wouldn't produce actives if they had a negative effect on propagation, so we can assume that they are at the very least more or less neutral in their effect on the survival of the species.
I do believe strongly that there is a psychological benefit to the sparing use of hallucinogens, but it is not such a fundamental benefit that our earliest advances could have been guided by the use of natural recreational drugs. In fact, tripping even occasionally would probably have had a slightly negative impact on the survival of the human species, due to the sapping of motivation that tends to occur under the influence of most depressants and hallucinogens.
In other words, we probably figured out stone tools and fire without the help of fluorescent hand-trails.
-------------------- FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
|
Drewwyann
Slayer of ticks
Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 4,077
Loc: Atlantis
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: figgusfiddus]
#6801038 - 04/17/07 06:42 PM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
what about amanita phalloides? does it not take a few days to kill you? im not sure if that was mentioned because i didnt take the time to read all 10 pages of posts, but there are TONS of mushrooms that have delayed negative effects.
-------------------- Anyone need a glass pipe? : http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002435158931 Love powerfully
|
fastfred
Old Hand
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Drewwyann]
#6803870 - 04/18/07 10:44 AM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
> what about amanita phalloides? does it not take a few days to kill you?
The point is that it KILLS you. It doesn't really matter how long it takes. A species that kills it's predators gets eaten a lot less. Because it kills the animal it doesn't require the animal to understand a cause effect relationship.
-FF
|
figgusfiddus
Arrogant Worm
Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6806167 - 04/18/07 08:40 PM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, but there are certainly thousands and thousands of species of plant and fungus that have definite delayed deterrent effects (other than death). I'm not sure how you are standing by the notion that animals don't learn to avoid "bad" foods because it takes them half an hour or several hours to become affected. I think the evidence to the contrary is absolutely immense. Higher-level organisms, especially omnivorous scroungers (like us, to some extent), have advanced instinctual/psychological systems that enable them to make that association, even without big ol' human frontal lobes to make the actual rational connection. That is why, after a few trips, most people I know respond with increasing disgust to the smell of psilocybes, just like you might respond with disgust to the smell of liquor the morning after an overindulgence. The duration of that response varies, naturally, and probably has as much to do with the type of smell as the actual effects the substance had upon the body (beer still smells good a week later because it's made of things humans naturally find yummy--trippy mushrooms, not so much).
Animals get pretty good at recognizing stuff that's going to hurt them, usually because the plant, animal or fungus that is going to hurt them announces it very loudly. Psilocybes have a noticeable smell, a definite "not food" smell, and you can bet your ass animals recognize a smell like that better than people do.
Even organisms that defend themselves with potentially deadly force don't do it because it kills off their predators. An organism's survival is ensured through deterrence. Of course, deterrence never works 100%--hell, I'm sure there are some raccoons out there stupid or hungry enough to eat a death cap, if it's the first thing they came across after a long fast, but the animals that can't spot danger don't tend to make it (and thus spit out similiarly-skilled babies) as quickly as their cleverer counterparts. Meanwhile, for the most part, such a poisoned mushroom (whether poisoned with trippy goodies or deadly baddies, irrelevant) avoids consumption by being very conspicuous to instinctually-gifted scavengers.
-------------------- FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
Edited by figgusfiddus (04/18/07 08:51 PM)
|
mrmackey
aesthete
Registered: 04/15/07
Posts: 19
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: figgusfiddus]
#6806508 - 04/18/07 09:50 PM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
its what you call a secondary metabolite, chances are theyre signaling molecules that came about after things like budding yeasts started acting like fruiting mushrooms.
|
figgusfiddus
Arrogant Worm
Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: mrmackey]
#6806546 - 04/18/07 09:57 PM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Except that secondary metabolites are most extensively retained over the millennia when they are evolutionarily convenient, which is the topic of the discussion. There are plenty of chemicals in plenty of organisms that are secondary, in that they are not strictly necessary by-products of other metabolic functions (not "bi-products", original poster--like strap-ons). That doesn't mean they don't serve some mathematically advantageous purpose, in the grand scheme of things, and actually explains nothing about why this chemical would be so steadfastly retained when so many others go the way of the vestigial tail.
Either psilocybin is tied very closely to some invisible imperative function in these organisms--which does not seem likely, as you say--or it serves a defensive purpose (or propagational, according to the other camp).
-------------------- FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
|
virus1824
Mr Mushroom
Registered: 09/25/05
Posts: 1,751
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: figgusfiddus]
#6823208 - 04/23/07 01:25 PM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Ï know that in Africa many animals eat form certain fruits that contain alcohol, they are very populair and the animals seem to enjoy it. because they keep coming back. so the same might be involved for mushrooms. it is higly likely that an animal can lay a connection with something it ate 45 minutes ago.
Also since shrooms grow nice on cowshit and horse shit it is an effective way of reproducing on a fertile medium
-------------------- A weekend wasted is never a wasted weekend
Edited by virus1824 (04/23/07 01:28 PM)
|
figgusfiddus
Arrogant Worm
Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: virus1824]
#6833801 - 04/25/07 06:30 PM (16 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, but you're still assuming cows LIKE to trip. Honestly, I think it would drive them fucking bonkers. Plus, it would take them massive quantities of psilocybin... they'd have to eat patty after patty of their own poop to have any effect whatsoever. Have you ever seen a cow? They're massive.
More likely: spores spread via wind onto grass. Cows eat grass, after all, not their own shit. Then cows poop digested grass full of spores... spores germinate in poop... fruits drop spores on grass.
IT'S THE CIIIIIRCLE OF LIIIIIFE!
Come on guys, it's pretty simple. This is probably your average psilocybe's life cycle in the wild. And at no point in the process is the mushroom itself eaten, except perhaps by complete accident, and even then, probably not by a cow or horse, the animals which provide its only effective growing medium in that ecosystem. Generally, your fruiting body is going to fall off and decompose once it's done spewing its seed all over your field.
-------------------- FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
Edited by figgusfiddus (04/25/07 07:20 PM)
|
|