|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
twiggin
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 1
Last seen: 17 years, 1 month
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6574275 - 02/16/07 11:17 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
terrence mckenna posed a neat speculation that vaguely described mushrooms as being as they are for whatever reason but as pastoral nomads followed their herds they ate fungi from the dung as a food. Then he theorized that the synaesthesia that ensued led to the creation of higher communications e.g. I have a picture in my head and tripping allows me to formulate it in a vocal pattern that allows the same image to form in your headspace. Make any sense...? Just thought it was a neat thought
|
THE KRAT BARON
one-eyed willie
Registered: 07/08/03
Posts: 42,409
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Cyber]
#6593073 - 02/21/07 08:46 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cyber said: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product?
Sure, and it worked!
What has the mushroom gained from the production of Psilocybin?
#1) It successfully produced something that people like and has been distributed all around the world!
#2) It is now grown all over the world making it one of the most prevalent mushrooms.
#3) Through the production of Psilocybin, It has successfully guaranteed it's survival and the survival of successive generations.
All in all I would call it a successful adaptation!
The same can be said for gourmet edibles and they do not contain psilocybin.
-------------------- m00nshine is currently vacationing in Maui. Rumor has it he got rolled by drunken natives and is currently prostituting himself in order to pay for airfare back to the mainland but he's having trouble juggling a hairon addiction. He won't be back for a long while.
|
LynxRufus
Stranger
Registered: 08/09/05
Posts: 99
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: THE KRAT BARON]
#6594289 - 02/21/07 04:01 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Lol, this one is a keeper! Thanks Xtal, for breathing some more sanity to this one!
Fred, I truly respect you sticking to your guns. But man, you also need to balance that out with some objectivity and honesty. I'm not knocking your views. Just trying to put them in perspective.
You ARE assuming things about culture, beliefs systems, morals, etc. if you believe in the possibility that aliens projected their seed on purpose. If you aren't assuming it was purposeful, why are we talking about all this 'basic need to replicate' stuff? If you think it is one of several possibilities (purposeful seeding versus seeding due to natural calamity or other issue) then you assume this for at least one of the possibilities. I don't necessarily believe that you DO ASSUME these things. But at the very least you should admit that it is something you didn't account for (although I notice you amazingly skip certain things in your replies, rather than admit you were wrong on them).
I'm sorry, but Xtal and I are correct. You can play all the word games you like, but a theory is unprovable. Some theories, like evolution, are generally accepted in science as close to fact as possible WITHOUT THE ABILITY OF BEING PROVEN. And what can you expect? Some things like evolution, and admittedly this idea, are very complex. Hard to prove in real life. I'm also sorry, but other theories have more evidence than this. Just because something is plausible doesn't mean it is creditable. I could make up a plausible story about jeanies in bottles- backed up with beliefs by historical scholars, but that doesn't make them any more real.
No, FF, sending people to the moon is NOT the same as sending LIFE to the moon. We are not as of yet sending people to breed and colonize the satellite. According to your theory, the aliens sent out life to grow and develop life on planets. And if they were moral and ethical, at least in as much as humans understand and perceive such things, then whether or not they would ever reach said planet doesn't matter. Unless they know for a fact that there is not indigineous life developing on that planet, they are potentially destroying and conquering that life. Do you see what I am saying? If we SEND LIFE to a planet it will only be after much speculation, testing and debate on that very subject. The only thing to be said against that is that we have no way of knowing how a potential alien specie would think. But admitting that necessarily turns all arguments of "why" they did it to weak speculations at best.
Again, I am not saying this idea is inherently wrong. Without further evidence, however, it is nothing more than possible fiction.
|
LynxRufus
Stranger
Registered: 08/09/05
Posts: 99
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: LynxRufus]
#6594323 - 02/21/07 04:08 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If someone was interested in finding out whether psilocybin was a defense mechanism, I would think it would be easily tested. Tank up a butt-load of various types of bugs and see if they eat them, continually eat them or resist eating them.
Prolly hard to say in the end. There will be lines and layers of evolution to account for. Mushrooms evolving defense mechanisms, bugs evolving defenses against them, mushrooms and bugs co-evolving to 'get along' (predator eats mushie, spreads spores in return, like what is seen with the Weraroa Pouch Fungi).
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: LynxRufus]
#6596467 - 02/22/07 03:55 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I agree that would be an interesting experiment LR. Perhaps someone in this forum can shed some light on this matter.
Your comments are good LR. One of the problems with theories like these are that the degree of freedom is zero. That is to say that we have only one example of intelligent life or life it's self. That means that there is really no basis whatsoever for making sound claims about anything.
Statistically that's a major problem. If we had even one other example of life we could claim a DF of one and that would lend a lot of statistical evidence to make claims about what other life might be like.
So I agree that, scientifically speaking, we have no basis to make predictions about other life. I just consider it from a practical standpoint, wherein I cannot imagine any form of life that does not seek to replicate itself and spread everywhere that it could possibly exist.
So assuming that life attempts to spread, you then have to wonder, what are the factors stopping it?
When you look at the moon you see a large body that was dislodged from a planet that now bears life. So it's not a hard thing to assume that life could easily be transported intersolar distances. So then you have to wonder if life couldn't travel further distances.
I think it could. I assume that in the incredibly vast universe that somewhere, at some point, it has to have happened. So then I wonder if it might not have happened here.
You might say that it's a lot of speculation and wondering, but I say it's a viable theory. Really, it's as good as any.
As more and more is learned about life the theory becomes more and more plausible. Every time we look we find more extreme examples of what life can survive and endure. Even with what we know now, it's not unreasonable to think that a lichen could survive a journey through space and land somewhere it could grow. That's not even considering all the extremophile bacteria that can survive, and even thrive, in amazing conditions.
-FF
|
BUDDHA_702
Master Mycologist In Training


Registered: 02/17/07
Posts: 1,296
Loc: Some Country
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: SweetJimmyBrown]
#6619466 - 02/28/07 04:04 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SweetJimmyBrown said: in "Breaking Open the Head" daniel pinchback says offhand that mushrooms were engineerd by aliens (using the 4 indole substitution as an "argument"), placed on a asteroid and sent to earth to aid in human evolution. i'm going with that.
really though, awesome thread.
Hell yeah thay don't look like they came from earth!
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: BUDDHA_702]
#6622997 - 03/01/07 01:57 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The 4 substituted indole argument is false. It was based on the mistaken assumption that psilocybin is the only 4-substituted indole found anywhere in nature, so therefore it must be from outer space.
There are plenty of 4-substituted indoles found in nature, but somebody made that claim at one point so every now and again it resurfaces.
-FF
|
LayYouIn
Taurus


Registered: 09/28/06
Posts: 4,402
Loc: Organ
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero]
#6629066 - 03/02/07 06:06 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
absolute_zero said: Why did mushrooms develop the capacity to produce psiloc(yb)in?
easy.
psilocybin functions are the structuring system for the mushroom. without it, they would simply limp over and die. it helps give them strength so that they can stand up straight.
|
shirley knott
not my real name

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 9,105
Loc: London
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: LayYouIn]
#6631756 - 03/03/07 03:26 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
not easy (hence this thread).
for simple osmotic strength they coulda used anything. not all mushrooms contain psilocybin, and they stand up just fine.
-------------------- buh
|
Taharka
The Root of the Problem

Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 686
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero]
#6633189 - 03/04/07 12:57 AM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
absolute_zero said: Why did mushrooms develop the capacity to produce psiloc(yb)in?
Read The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan. Yes, mushrooms aren't plants. But perhaps they evolved Psiloc{yb)in so that people like *you* would take to growing them in jars.
|
LayYouIn
Taurus



Registered: 09/28/06
Posts: 4,402
Loc: Organ
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#6650455 - 03/08/07 07:53 PM (17 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shirley knott said: not easy (hence this thread).
for simple osmotic strength they coulda used anything. not all mushrooms contain psilocybin, and they stand up just fine.
oh.
|
scout24
Hallelujah!


Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Disappear Here
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: LayYouIn]
#6713710 - 03/26/07 05:42 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
This is a great discussion. I've also considered this subject in the past. I realize I'm not breaking any new ground, but here are my thoughts.
The orignation of psychedelic chemicals is likely random, as many have pointed out. At any rate, its perpetuation is really at the heart of the issue. Evolution is an ongoing and active process (Beak of the Finch, anyone?). There's no question that man's fascination with psychedelic mushrooms has resulted in their propogation. I would speculate that psychedelic mushroom varieties are increasing as a response to human interest. Pure speculation.
-------------------- Always Be Closing
|
scout24
Hallelujah!


Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Disappear Here
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: scout24]
#6720253 - 03/28/07 01:15 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It appears that new psychedelic mushrooms are being discovered on a rather continual basis, and it also appears that other plants contain compounds very similar to psilocybin. Assuming that these newly discovered (in scientific literature) mushrooms do not have a history of interaction with man, then it seems likely that psilocybin serves some other useful function - perhaps a variety of functions.
-------------------- Always Be Closing
|
figgusfiddus
Arrogant Worm


Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: LynxRufus]
#6727861 - 03/30/07 11:54 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LynxRufus said: If someone was interested in finding out whether psilocybin was a defense mechanism, I would think it would be easily tested. Tank up a butt-load of various types of bugs and see if they eat them, continually eat them or resist eating them.
Prolly hard to say in the end. There will be lines and layers of evolution to account for. Mushrooms evolving defense mechanisms, bugs evolving defenses against them, mushrooms and bugs co-evolving to 'get along' (predator eats mushie, spreads spores in return, like what is seen with the Weraroa Pouch Fungi).
On top of that, you have no idea that bugs respond to psilocybin in the way that humans do.
There's a reason we use lab rats. Now, I'm sure someone has doped up a bunch of rats on psilocybes, and I'd love to read the results, even if it wasn't an attempt to answer this specific question. Scratch that, I'd actually just like to watch a bunch of mice trip.
Meanwhile, if the rats found the mushrooms palatable in the first place (which I cannot guarantee, but which would not surprise me), you could test their willingness to repeat their mushroom meal.
Someone said before that they doubted most animals could distinguish between psilocybes and other mushrooms. Plain false. Cubes give off a very, very distinctive odor, quite different from any edible mushroom I've ever tried. Animals don't look for blue bruising and broken veils, they figure out what they can eat by how it smells.
Meanwhile, I know one thing from personal experience: the first time I ate psilocybes, I actually sort of liked the flavor. They kind of tasted like dried porcini (sp?), or similar mushrooms. With each subsequent trip I have found the odor (and the taste--though I think that specific flavor of cubes is more odor-based) of cubes more and more offensive. I strongly suspect this is because my body has identified that odor as something which should be avoided. This would indicate to me that psilocybin exists as a predator deterrent, but it's circumstantial evidence.
Identifiable smell + probable unpleasant and dangerous experience (for animals) = deterrent features. That's the connection I make, anyway.
I also don't think that spore circulation via digestion will be very effective for these fungi. They evolved to grow on feces, which for most animals are not good eats. Plus, they grow on the feces of animals that would not be incredibly likely to eat them, preferring grasses and such. Mushrooms reproduce by spreading thousands and thousands of spores to the wind. They are specially designed to do so. Psilocybes are no exception. As such, it is absolutely silly to suppose that they want to be eaten.
-------------------- FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
Edited by figgusfiddus (03/30/07 12:29 PM)
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: figgusfiddus]
#6728560 - 03/30/07 03:11 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> Identifiable smell + probable unpleasant and dangerous experience (for animals) = deterrent features.
I don't think they have an identifiable smell. I've smelled many mushrooms and they mostly all smell the same. Some edibles smell a bit different, but most wild ones smell pretty much the same to me.
> I also don't think that spore circulation via digestion will be very effective for these fungi.
Luckily you don't have to think about it. It's already well proven.
http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au/Mycology/Animal_Interactions/animalsFungi/dungFungi.shtml
Spores survive the GI tract and grow in the dung. The fruits don't even have to be directly eaten because they drop spores that end up landing on the grasses that the animals eat.
-FF
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6733519 - 04/01/07 12:01 AM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I have noticed a very distinctive smell in active psilocybes. Interestingly, the smell is not present in active members of other genera like Panaeolus.
|
figgusfiddus
Arrogant Worm


Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 2,126
Loc: Figgus, Fiddia
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6734866 - 04/01/07 01:22 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
fastfred: yes, but digested spores aren't dispersed as well if the fruit body is consumed. They survive in the feces, but then they are contained only in that fecal mass. It makes far more sense for the shroom to spread its spores to the wind, considering the pasture in which it would do so would generally be spotted all over with dung.
Eaten shroom --> one opportunity to germinate.
Uneaten shroom --> hundreds or more.
If the SPORES are digested from eaten grass, great. If the fruit body is digested, bad news for the mushroom.
And I can guarantee you, the smell is most distinctive. And if humans can smell it, most animals definitely can.
-------------------- FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS FGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDSFGSFDS
|
PowRGnome
No Stranger toCamus

Registered: 04/01/05
Posts: 83
Last seen: 12 years, 5 days
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: figgusfiddus]
#6740327 - 04/02/07 09:29 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
...so the other spore says, "Clamp connection? You're only half way down the esophagus!"
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: PowRGnome]
#6762073 - 04/08/07 05:08 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> If the SPORES are digested from eaten grass, great. If the fruit body is digested, bad news for the mushroom.
You are assuming that the fruit would be eaten before it disperses it's spores. Mushrooms get taller as they mature so they are most likely to be eaten towards then end of their development.
What likely happens most often is that the mushroom disperses millions of spores before it's eaten. When it's eaten it will still contain millions of spores that didn't drop or landed on the stalk.
> I have noticed a very distinctive smell in active psilocybes.
Maybe you have a better nose than me then. I detect only a "shroomy" smell which I've noticed to be present in most, but not all, mushroom species I've smelled.
Perhaps someone could shed more light on this subject?
-FF
|
falcon


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,049
Last seen: 3 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6763222 - 04/08/07 10:42 PM (17 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Psilocybe cubensis, Panaeolus cyanescens, Psilocybe cyanescens, Psilocybe caerulipes, Psilocybe fibrillosa fruit bodies and mycelium as well as the mycelium of Psilocybe subaeruginosa have a distinct psilocybe smell. The fruit bodies of Pluteus salicinus also have the "psilocybe" smell.
Panaeolus subbalteatus, Gymnopilus spectabilus, G. aeruginosa and G. luteofolius fruit bodies don't have the psilocybe smell, that I can detect.
|
|