|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
absolute zero
The Hero

Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 796
Loc: 127.0.0.1
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
|
Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? 1
#3186926 - 09/27/04 03:14 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Just one of those questions that's been flowing through my brain...
Why did mushrooms develop the capacity to produce psiloc(yb)in? What is the evolutionary benefit of expending energy to produce these alkaloids? Why is alkaloid content high in pins, yet production slows dramatically when the cap opens? Is it a defense mechanism to keep animals from devouring them until they can drop their spores?
That's all I can think of for the moment, but I'd love to see a conversations on it...
--------------------
|
ld50negative1
lethal dosage

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3186951 - 09/27/04 03:21 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I don't really think it would be a deterrent because the effects take a well enough emount of time so as to be extremely inefficient - now, a terrible taste would make more sense... or if the shroom killed the animal so that the bastard wouldn't eat anymore of its own kind (shroom)
--------------------
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3186971 - 09/27/04 03:26 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
One possible explanation is defense against predation. Animals don't appear to have the neurological machinery needed to make sense of a trip, and for most, it seems to be an unpleasant experience. One trip, and they never munch on mushrooms again. This idea is exploited by humans in areas where wild animals (wolves and such) attack livestock on ranches and farms. Rather than kill the problem animal(s), one of the livestock is killed and infused with an agent that causes intense nausea and vomiting. The problem predator eats the sacrificed livestock and becomes violently ill for a while. After that, the predator makes a very strong association between puking and livestock, and never comes anywhere near the farm again. It's the same process that makes people puke when they smell puke or see other people tossing their cookies.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Psiloman
member

Registered: 04/11/03
Posts: 1,116
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: ld50negative1] 1
#3187533 - 09/27/04 05:27 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
" don't really think it would be a deterrent because the effects take a well enough emount of time so as to be extremely inefficient - now, a terrible taste would make more sense... or if the shroom killed the animal so that the bastard wouldn't eat anymore of its own kind (shroom) "
Yes,it would MAKE MORE SENSE for a human,or if we accept that evolution has consciousness and can make educated prethought choices.
From what we know so far evolution does not work this way.Of course a very bad taste would be more LOGICAL,even better a compound that causes sever irritation and swelling maybe some tissue damage,i guess every animal would have grasped the meaning "Eat mushrooms-Lotsa pain-Lotsa burning-Dont eat the fucker again".
THe thing isthat evolution more or less works like "if it works dont fix it".Apparently psilocybin could work as a detterent somehow although it may not be logical to us..Maybe its a trait usefull in older times (think distant evolutionary past) that simply wasnts eliminated and it stays on.Dont just think with "current events".Maybe psilocybin is an effective poison/detterent for a grazer/predator we will never known/existed in the past and was a big threat to this mushrooms...
I liked diploids example as well,very innovative method of keeping predators away from livestock!
|
ATWAR
Connoisseur

Registered: 01/26/03
Posts: 1,640
Loc: #108768 in line...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3187592 - 09/27/04 05:42 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I know this has been mentioned before:
The mushrooms that developed these chemicals were attractive to animals (and man), not a deterrent. Animals (and man) pick them, aiding in spore dispersal, and therefore survival of the species...
-------------------- To give is to live...
|
Sin Bad
Mushroom Man

Registered: 04/03/00
Posts: 191
Loc: Japan
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: ATWAR] 1
#3188829 - 09/27/04 09:51 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It does seem a little strange that psilocybin would be used as a detterent...as mentioned, by the time it takes the drug to take effect, the mushroom is likey to have been consumed, and it may be hard for the animal to make a link between the unpleasant feeling and what it ate.
This is also true of animals that were attracked to mushrooms - could they really make an association with what they ate half and hour or so ago with the sensation they were experiencing now? Maybe they could - apparently Reindeer go for Fly Agaric for this reason...
I think psiloman has a good point... there are many things that still exist today that have evolved, even though they have little or no use in this day and age. For example in humans, wisdom teeth, and appendix are not needed, yet we have not lost them yet, and probably never will unless appendcitis starts killing off huge amounts of people.
|
IndiaShroomer
Stranger
Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 5
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3190315 - 09/28/04 02:52 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There is one thing we may have missed.
Whatever makes you say the psilocybin/psilocin is a deterrant to predation.
Maybe it has nothing to do with it at all, maybe it is a metabolic by-product like urea. Since most of our friends are coprophilic, they have to deal with high ammonia throughout their growing and fruiting cycles. In my opinion there must be a connection to the growing environment, of course it could still be plain deterrence.
You might want to look at this paper: http://www.shroomery.org/index/par/23937
There is mention of how the same species of mushroom can have drastic change in psychoactive components depending on where it grows.
Of course, this does not preclude deterrence. Since the probable predators would also differ in each environment. Am i making sense
stoned pixies
|
Psiloman
member

Registered: 04/11/03
Posts: 1,116
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: IndiaShroomer] 1
#3190605 - 09/28/04 06:34 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yes you are making complete sense!
This could stand true but we should take into account the "trade offs".
Apparently to code for the enzymes that make psilocybin in the DNA and to make those enzymes some energy must be spend. If this process taxes energetically the cell then there is big chance that the species will perish dying to more "energetically efficient " species or simply offsprings will survive that by mutation will have those traits eliminated....
Psilocybin could be a byproduct of metabolism (very likely if its not "heavy" energywise for the cell to make),it could be a detterent (i can see that working,and putting some ATP spent to the survival of the species!) ,it could be an attractant for other (Very nice method of propagation ,puts ATP expenditure in good use as well!).
It could be all of them,it could be none of them...Its a good topic to discuss ,but be sure to expect a bundle of opinions and never a single answer...
My answer to the original question can be summarise to : "We dont exactly know and its not possible to know for sure,but we some very interesting theories worth discussing even academically!"
|
Floyd_
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/01 
Posts: 207
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3190670 - 09/28/04 07:43 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
one thing that hasn't been mentioned. These alkaloids take awhile to produce effects in large animals yes. But on small insects the effect might be immediate. i've read a paper before (i wish i had it) about DMT and insect larval growth. It seems for a particular insect (silk worm i believe) DMT stopped the larval stage from pupating OR the eggs from hatching, i can't remeber which.
I'm sure that if you ran some tests on the effect of psilocybe alkaloids on insects you'd find some clear cut evolutionary advantages.
which btw i don't think i've ever seen those little gnats inhabiting a psilocybe.
|
noxy
Dr


Registered: 09/20/04
Posts: 181
Loc: its more a time, not a pl...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 2
#3191595 - 09/28/04 01:22 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It is very interesting indeed.. Consider for a moment that psilocybin is the phosphoric acid ester of psilocin and is the only known indole derivative occurring in nature that contains this novel phosphoric acid radical, and psilocin is in itself only one hydroxy molocule different from serotonin a chemical found in the human brain that cotrols mood, emotion, sleep, appetite, learning and memory. Is there a connection?
|
Hambo
Limey

Registered: 09/23/04
Posts: 497
Loc: UK
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: noxy] 1
#3191779 - 09/28/04 02:04 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Hmm, theres a zillion species of all manner of things with stuff being produced in them. Additionally, we've have several tens of thousand years? to make the connection. Not to get too carried away..
--------------------
|
Pinback
Stranger


Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 836
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: noxy] 1
#3192084 - 09/28/04 03:27 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
That sounds like a new version of what Terence McKenna said: "psilocybin is the only 4-substituted indole in nature". Of course he was wrong; ergotamine is one counter-example, a spider poison another. Even if it was true, I don't understand the significance of such a fact. I'm sure many other species (plants, fungi, animals...) contain unique metabolites. The comparison to serotonin is not really valid either. First of all, there is more difference than the position of the hydroxy group. Psilocin is dimethylated on the amine. The only connection they have is that they are most probably metabolites of tryptophan. There are in fact fruits that contain serotonin (bananas for example), but I don't see anyone suggesting that they have some mystical origin. What I think about the psilocin/psilocybin production is that we don't really know, and might never learn. Some hypotheses are better and more probable than other though.
|
midway
Stranger

Registered: 02/20/04
Posts: 212
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Pinback] 1
#3192151 - 09/28/04 03:43 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Ive always indulged myself in the belief that psilocybin producing fungi are designed for cohabitation and cultivation by humans..remember that some species of ants cultivate particular fungi for food.
|
absolute zero
The Hero

Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 796
Loc: 127.0.0.1
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3195626 - 09/29/04 12:49 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
When replying, please keep in mind that the point of this thread was not to come to a clear conclusion, rather to spark discussion, and to come across some other ideas about the questions at hand...
With that said, from the posts so far, I have a few comments...
In regards to the time of action of the alkaloids, I do not think that this would be an issue as a deterrant... Taste aversion can develop whether you get sick or experience something unpleasant immediately or if there is a relatively short timeframe between cause and effect... I've read about how doctors give a special type of hard candy to children who are about to undergo chemotherapy so that they won't develop a taste aversion to their normal favorite meals. Also, from personal experience, I have eaten eggs that made me sick, but the effect didn't come until 2-3 hours after I had consumed them... it was a good 6 months after that before I was able to stomach eggs again...
One thing mentioned in the thread, that I think seems more feasible as a deterrant theory is the comment that said it might be a deterrant to insects, not to humans or animals... Has anyone ever witnessed any kind of insect laying eggs on, or eating psychoactive fungi?
I can identify with everyone who is set on the theory that these alkaloids survived because they made the fungi more attractive to man and animal, thus ensuring survival as long as man retained an interest in the species. Its a very nice theory to think about; its warm and fuzzy feeling... Is the effectiveness of distributing spores really increased that drastically if they are picked as opposed to just letting the wind carry them?
--------------------
|
Shmoppy McGillicuddy
EmpathicSociopath


Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 4,145
Loc: Oceania
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3196255 - 09/29/04 03:38 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Well, I wish the psilocybin was a deterrent to insects, because fungus gnats are a bitch to get rid of. They live on the fungal tissue.
As to the tripping being a deterrent, I think that the only reason you were disgusted by eggs was the fact that you knew that it was eggs which made you sick. For an animal, I doubt they would be able to make the distinction if the action is any more than 15 minutes after ingestion, and even then, tripping is not really an obviously bad feeling. It would be a pretty pathetic line of defense if your deterrent could possibly be desireable.
As for the picking idea, I think that its more for the eating of the carpophore, not the actual picking action. Spores survive the ruminant digestive system, and then germinate after being crapped out. Its an easier way to distribute genetic material.
There was some mutation that caused the fungus to produce psilocybin/cin, and because ruminants will eat psychoactive mushrooms, their spores spread farther, and were dropped in their preferred substrate. As for woodlovers, its just the dispersal of spores by various woodland creatures that caused them to keep the trait. This was a definite advantage, so the mushrooms prospered, and we get what we see today.
--------------------
|
absolute zero
The Hero

Registered: 11/04/01
Posts: 796
Loc: 127.0.0.1
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
|
|
I'll settle for that answer Very well stated
--------------------
|
phobey
watcher

Registered: 03/20/03
Posts: 299
Loc: home
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3198884 - 09/30/04 03:22 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zero__Glass said: Why is alkaloid content high in pins, yet production slows dramatically when the cap opens?
I think the content throughout the cycle from pin to fullgrown shroom is exactly the same. Only when bigger its disperced throught the whole shroom hence there is less alkaloids by weight but not less potent or anything. Anyways i?m just guessing here and have nothing to back it up.
Peace
|
Silven


Registered: 08/30/04
Posts: 2,072
Loc: El Mexicano
Last seen: 10 months, 2 days
|
|
Schmoppy wrote:
Quote:
As to the tripping being a deterrent, I think that the only reason you were disgusted by eggs was the fact that you knew that it was eggs which made you sick. For an animal, I doubt they would be able to make the distinction if the action is any more than 15 minutes after ingestion, and even then, tripping is not really an obviously bad feeling. It would be a pretty pathetic line of defense if your deterrent could possibly be desireable.
I'd have to disagree about tripping being a pathetic deterrent. Say that something small, the size of a full grown raccoon, ate a few mushrooms and was having a level 3 trip by our definition. The woods could potentially be a VERY dangerous place for that little animal to be completely delerious and unknowing of what is going on.
Also, remember that some animals have a very good memory and I think it is very possible they could relate the eating of a mushroom to their sickness. I highly doubt that non-intellectual animals could find much enjoyment through being delerious or hallucinating. It could cause some serious problems to them when they need their heightened senses to navigate safely through their forest home.
Though for my theory, an animal would have to ingest more than just one mushroom, and the bitter taste of mushrooms could possibly deter that animal from eating any more, I think psilocybin is just a second defense for mushrooms from bigger animals that eat more than one mushroom, where-as the psilocin/psilocybin is more of a front-line for insects that are succeptible to it's effects.
----------------------------------------------------
I also saw an experiment with spiders that might be somewhat related to this thread. It showed the effects of multiple drugs on the same type of spider. It used marijuana, LSD, heroin, and a few other less known compounds. The THC caused the spider to make sporadic webs, lacking the intricate design that most spiders make when their webs are un-touched by something that could break it. The heroin made the web even more sporadic with large holes where there should have been web, and the LSD did basically the same as the heroin. The other drugs caused this to a lesser effect, but about the same as the THC.
(now I blow my hits on my spider friend that lives on my front porch )
Anyway, hopefully I said something atleast slightly intelligent or useful.
- Silven
-------------------- What do you bring to the table?
|
NNY
Z?

Registered: 07/17/04
Posts: 120
Loc: USA
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Silven] 1
#3199275 - 09/30/04 08:46 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
IIRC the LSD spider made a beautiful web.
|
HarveyWalbanger
Demiurge


Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 3,076
Loc: 8b
Last seen: 3 months, 13 days
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero] 1
#3199476 - 09/30/04 10:21 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Acording to what I've read, lots of organisms seem to enjoy the intoxication.... It might be the bovines enjoying intoxication.... but then again, It might not have enything to do with the psilocybin at all, it might just be the flies and the spores. (see the link, by MJshroomer)
|
scatmanrav
Brainy Smurf

Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 11,483
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: HarveyWalbanger]
#3202501 - 10/01/04 12:45 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Pin's containing more actives (even per weight) of larger shrooms is a bad rumor with no proof or research behind it. Caused by improperly dried larger shrooms most likly.
I enjoy the discussion about the deterant/attraction though, I have often thought and pondered which it is myself. I'me for the attraction of tripping to spread spores theory.
|
george castanza
Lord Of The Idiots!

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 8,762
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: scatmanrav]
#3202712 - 10/01/04 01:47 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
all i have to say is that if i were an animal i would love shrooms(psilowatever) and i'm sure they do as i have seen all my outdoor work go for snacks to nature(not even mad)... but you have no ego to begin with.. so you got nothn' to lose ...and that puts you in a good place... think on that for a min.
chris said it the best when some kid ask what do magik mushrooms do to you?
"anything you want"
-------------------- KRAMER CAKES


|
seethe303
enthusiast

Registered: 12/04/02
Posts: 353
Loc: over the rainbow
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: george castanza]
#3203189 - 10/01/04 07:21 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
this thread is awesome. great post george.
|
SweetJimmyBrown
Infidel Zombie


Registered: 08/31/04
Posts: 337
Loc: 'starting north, slowly h...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: seethe303]
#3203234 - 10/01/04 08:02 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
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.
-------------------- Ille dolet vere, qui sine teste dolet. * * * I'm as calm as a fruit stand in New york and maybe as strange. * * * Simple Grain Recipe
|
Pinback
Stranger


Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 836
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: seethe303]
#3203320 - 10/01/04 08:42 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Some questions for anyone who thinks that the psilocin/psilocybin helps the mushrooms to survive by attracting animals. The questions surely don't have any answers yet, which is kind of the point.
- Can animals discriminate psilocybian mushrooms from other mushrooms before eating them? (Many people can not...)
- If so, are they attracted after eating them?
- If they are attracted, how would eating them actually help the mushrooms to survive?
The last one seems very counter-intuitive to me, as a living mushroom is able to produce a lot of spores which could spread over a large area. An eaten mushroom MIGHT produce mycelium in the few places the animal doo-doos, but I have not seen this proven. In fact, then it would be a bad evolutionary strategy of the mushroom to even eject spores!
I think it would be quite hard to come up with a consistent hypothesis regarding animal attraction. This would then have to include Psilocybe woodlovers, Psilocybe dunglovers, Gymnopilus, Pluteus etc., which are really different in habitat and geographic location. Today I don't think that there is any experimental or observed data that supports this.
|
HarveyWalbanger
Demiurge


Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 3,076
Loc: 8b
Last seen: 3 months, 13 days
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Pinback]
#3203372 - 10/01/04 09:01 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Did you read the link I posted? About the flies and the shit? Insects eatting them does spread them....... now whether the intoxication is beneficial, or purposeful is another matter entirely...
|
Pinback
Stranger


Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 836
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: HarveyWalbanger]
#3203446 - 10/01/04 09:46 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, I did read it, but I've probably found larvae in every species of mushrooms I've picked, except for chanterelles (they too can be insect infested, but it's not too common). I haven't seen or read anything that shows that psilocybian mushrooms would have more larvae or anything like that. And just as you write, there is nothing indicating that psilocin/psilocybin would be beneficial to them.
I don't really see how insects eating mushrooms would spread spores though. Sure, spores might stick to a flies legs and be transported somewhere else, but I think air currents would do that just as well...
|
Shmoppy McGillicuddy
EmpathicSociopath


Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 4,145
Loc: Oceania
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Pinback]
#3204163 - 10/01/04 02:54 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Well, they were probably a mushroom before they were psychoactive, so they spread their spores the normal way, by air currents. However, the ingestion of the fruit bodies by various animals helps to spread it farther, so they do both. It would be silly to not shoot out spores into air, because if they grew in an area without animals present, they would die off.
They are still mushrooms, just with an added advantage of being attractive to animals, and not just hungry animals, as in the case of normal plant fruit.
--------------------
|
Sin Bad
Mushroom Man

Registered: 04/03/00
Posts: 191
Loc: Japan
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero]
#3211411 - 10/03/04 09:13 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Animals generally have a much more acute sense of smell than humans, so maybe they could identify the mushrooms more easily than us.
However - are psilocybin mushrooms really more attractive to animals? In the fields where I pick liberty caps, there are lots of sheep, but they tend to leave the mushrooms alone. I often find little islands of long grass with liberty caps in, where the sheep have eaten around the mushrooms.
Based on this evidence, it seems that the psilocybin is working as a detterent rather than attractant.
Psilocybin does not seem to deter flies from laying their eggs in liberty caps, - I always find tiny white larve in my caps.
So - it doens't deter flies, but may possibly deter some vertebrates.
But does their attractiveness to humans really aid their survival? Surely picking a lot of mushrooms will reduce the amount of spores released into the air, as you are reducing the amount of time that the mushroom has to release them.
I am more of the opinion that psilocybin is just a left over bi product of evolution, and that it does not aid the mushrooms survival.
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Sin Bad]
#3212722 - 10/04/04 04:44 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
you could argue bothways with this one. Mushroom poisons in mushrooms like amanitas, etc, are not fast acting - so are not designed to be deterent - whether an animal/dumb human realises the connection between their kidney and liver failure and the mushrooms they ate two days beforehand doesnt really matter as they will die and will not live on to eat further mushrooms. I would like to think that the alkaloids are produced to attract human use and therefore aid the mushroom's spore distribution, but id find it easier to reconcile the possibility that it is some kind of deterent - most animals will smell psilocybe mushrooms and then refuse to eat them from the smell alone - they know they arent normal. There are mushrooms in the conocybe and other families that are thought to contain BOTH psilocybin related alkaloids and possibly those contained in the more poisonous varieties, which suggests that there existence in the mushroom is a possible deterent - whether affective or otherwise.
--------------------
|
HarveyWalbanger
Demiurge


Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 3,076
Loc: 8b
Last seen: 3 months, 13 days
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Pinback]
#3213505 - 10/04/04 11:48 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't really see how insects eating mushrooms would spread spores though. Sure, spores might stick to a flies legs and be transported somewhere else, but I think air currents would do that just as well...
The larvae eat the caps... they then grow up, and land on the cow shit.
|
Sin Bad
Mushroom Man

Registered: 04/03/00
Posts: 191
Loc: Japan
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero]
#3216979 - 10/05/04 01:13 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The "flies being benificial to shrooms" theory only works for shit loving species. What about species such as liberty caps that don't grow in shit?
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Sin Bad]
#3235085 - 10/08/04 11:15 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
One fascinating possibility is that the alkaloids may serve a function in the mushrooms similar to that of the chemicals in our bodies which are so similar. Could it be possible that Psilocin et al are messenger molecules between cells in the colony?
This function if it is there, would certainly be in tandem with other evolutionary benefits mentioned above. For instance these chemicals may have originated as a simple byproduct of metabolism when a species adapted to a new environment, and then their presence helped the colony survive by increasing communication between the cells. (this is merely speculation)
However it got started, these chemicals are now clearly a way that the mushrooms have adapted to man. They offer us something beautiful and we cultivate them, ensuring their survival.
|
bobmarley4prez

Registered: 10/20/03
Posts: 87
Loc: southwest
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shroomydan]
#3239083 - 10/10/04 12:40 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
see i think that since evolution is a current phenomonon that perhaps the one random mutation to some already existing biochemical pathway caused the production of Psilocybin, and these fungi are just now (since the rise of man) reaping the benifit(who knows when the mutation occured). (once humans are thrown in the mix mutations which make plants/fungi more desireable to humans provide huge boosts in fitness of the organisim because they suddenly have stewards of their survival. just think about how wide spread the spores of P cube have become as a result of their containing Psilocybin) so evolution is working right now and yes Psilocybin does work as an attractive, at least for humans and yes this relationship is benifiting the P cubes. (why Psilocybin is still in other species i dont know, but the Psilocybin trait is forever embeded into the genome of the fungi and as a result they will always flurish in the presence of beaqutifull people)
-------------------- Anything above this line is a lie. i do not cultivate psychadelic mushrooms nore do I intend to. One day I encountered a bufo toad. Since that day I have been instilled with the power of the devil.
|
solo2hd
Stranger
Registered: 07/27/03
Posts: 1
Last seen: 19 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: bobmarley4prez]
#3247929 - 10/12/04 04:19 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The fact that mushies bruise blue makes me think that the psilocybin is a deterrent... "IM BLUE DONT EAT ME OR ELSE"... what other food turns blue, or is blue to start with? The color blue could be equated with bright colors of poisen arrow frogs, or the yellow and black stripes of bees. In nature it is common for poisonous species to be unusually colored.
Also, I think animals would be able to make the connection between what they ate and how they feel. Think about when you eat some fungus and the feeling you get while your stomach tries to digest them... animals would know something was wrong if they started feeling sick or puking. What are they puking up?? the mushrooms they weren't supposed to eat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there other slower acting poisons out there?
|
Fucknuckle
Dog Lover

Registered: 04/24/04
Posts: 6,762
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero]
#3264125 - 10/22/04 09:51 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I would like to add my 2 cents here. Athough I'm not to sure it's along the lines of this thread but close I have always believed man ows his entire modern brain to mushrooms and other psyhcoactive plants. It was by consumption of these things that we got mathimatics,complex emotions and art. And with out this advance we would still be monkeys eating fruit and swinging in the trees The productoin of Psilocybin was mother natures way of having a symbayatic (I don't know how to spell it) realtionship between man and mushrooms. Just a far streched idea for you
|
rdnp2035
Stranger

Registered: 03/08/04
Posts: 408
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Fucknuckle]
#3272957 - 10/24/04 08:06 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Someone cited the spider drug study...here: http://www.missblackwidow.com/drugs.html The LSD wed is not like the herion web. Actually there is no herion web on this page, although I have seen these pictures elsewhere, maybe one or two got left out. The pot web looks demonic, if bare. The spider did much worse on caffeine than the psychedelics.
Also, I put my two sense on the psilocybin mushroom as enginered to promote evolution in the monkey brain. Radial evolution.
|
Brady
randomizer
Registered: 09/17/04
Posts: 170
Loc: on a damn island , FL
Last seen: 13 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: rdnp2035]
#3273219 - 10/24/04 09:22 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
ok .. I didn't see any direct point where this would fit into the conversation but I kept having Terrence Mckenna's "stoned ape therory" come into my mind..
-------------------- I love to trade , trade with me!
|
MovingTarget

Registered: 10/04/04
Posts: 4,825
Loc: temporary
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Brady]
#3275748 - 10/25/04 03:02 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Ok heres my opinion, I dont think it acts as a deterrant as the mushrooms ive picked often have larvae/maggot eggs(im not sure which) inside them, and rabbits are known to eat them too, in fact I read that rabbits can eat the destroying angel with no ill effects.
As for the psilocybin attracting animals to eat. I doubt any animal could link a good trip effect with the mushroom, link bad effects with a mushroom yes, but the tripping? I really doubt it as the animal would be too confused if it really could trip on mushrooms.
The only reasons for psilocybin being present in mushrooms that I can think of is that it either acts as a defence against mold and contaminations etc, or has just appeared by chance and the mushrooms which contain psilocybin happen to be adept enough at surviving to contiunue growing with psicocybin as it effects the mushroom in no bad way.
Or maybe it benefits the mushroom in some other internal way and really has nothing to do with defence from animals or insects at all
--------------------
|
Cyber
Ash


Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MovingTarget]
#3275898 - 10/25/04 03:47 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
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!
|
MovingTarget

Registered: 10/04/04
Posts: 4,825
Loc: temporary
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Cyber]
#3275932 - 10/25/04 03:59 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
fluke?
--------------------
|
kLaWsRauGHt
Seeker of innertruth


Registered: 07/22/04
Posts: 147
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MovingTarget]
#3278367 - 10/26/04 05:13 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
somebody has an obsession with terrance mckenna.. :P
-------------------- "I love the expansiveness of thought, i detest the morbidity of the mind"
|
MovingTarget

Registered: 10/04/04
Posts: 4,825
Loc: temporary
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: kLaWsRauGHt]
#3278437 - 10/26/04 06:19 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
who me? never read or heard any mckenna stuff
--------------------
|
Tag_Number
Experience
Registered: 10/06/04
Posts: 154
Loc: Soma dreaming itself
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MovingTarget]
#3278523 - 10/26/04 07:40 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Tag_Number]
#3278809 - 10/26/04 09:36 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Some interesting discussion in this thread. I'm not sure how psiloc(yb)in came to be created in these mushrooms - An equisite and calculated act of The Creator set to look like an evolutionary by-product to a scientific culture that cannot see past its own brand of rationalism which is built on a bed of irrational supposition? Or vice versa...either way has a hint of the cosmic giggle about it... At any rate the mushrooms began to produce this chemical. This makes me begin to wonder what kind of consciousness these organisms experience. We all know what psiloc(yb)in does to human consciousness - does it put the mushrooms permanently into this exalted sphere of consciousnes? Is their 'soul'/psychic energy one of the greater species in the 'spirit world'/imagination? Are they permanantly tapped in with something far greater than an earthly mushroom/mycelium body consciously existing on the other side of what to us is a veil, but to them is perhaps more like a window without glass? Have they exceeded the consciousness of most beings in the planetary ecology and now they help to bring us forward into (existance with) this super-consciousness? (There are of course other organisms that contin high levels of consciousness expanding substances, but none so approachable, accessible or assimilable as the mushroom). Perhaps, but perhaps not, it may be that psiloc(yb)in does not have the same effect on them at all. Perhaps they contain an 'antidote' and live in a droll consciousness; but if so wouldn't that 'antidote' nullify the psiloc(yb)in effects on us when we eat the mushroom? Maybe not since our metabolism works differently..... At any rate it seems to me from the conversations I have had with fungi that they do have a 'body' in these realms - or at least they have a connection to an entity of amazing power and intent (along with a whole universe of metaphysical life). This same entity that we can connect with when we eat the shrooms, this same galaxy of lifeforms and intelligence. I personally believe the mushroom is hunting out a symbiosis, and we have become the prime target. It is an excellent deal. We want their exalted consciousnes, they want our hands and tool building skills - and both of us want to have fun, adventure, and loads of laughs. This is by no means unusual, symbiosis is an extremely common and essential part of the evolutionary process, one classic example is the symbiosis of mitochondria with the cell, a symbiosis that went so far the two beings became one - the basis of all animal life. Sure the mushroom can spread its spores via the wind - but can it grow in an Alaskan Winter, or in a New York Summer? Not until the humans formed a friendship with it. And when we look back through the chapters of evolution we see that there has ben a symbiosis attempt before. And back in those archaic times some factor brought the proto-hominids evolution along at a previously unknown rate. The strongest candidate for this hyper-jump in evolution to our current neo-cortexed form is - the mushroom. Now as a species we are ready to go further, along with the re-awakening of the spirit that has been occuring in the Western psyche since the mid 1950's and spurred on by none other than a host of psychedellic compounds, the mushroom has slipped back into our lives. Just this year a fresh stanza in the bio-cosmic symphony has begun with the first commercial spaceflight. The dawn of the space age proper has arrived, a glow is on the horizon. This means redefining ourselves and our survival perameters - something many of the knots in human consciousnes cannot cope with. We have been given very pointed individual consciousness by our current form (and those immediately preceeding in the evolutionary map). The psychedellics (with psilocybin as their best agent) re-integrate this with a much broader consciousness. One might call this 'the spirit' (for want of a better metaphor). Many (generations of) humans have concentrated on their knot of consciousness so hard and for so long they have created a kind of super granny-knot that they refuse to untie. These people have formed a barrier to the inflow of evolution and in effect fight the spirit since they percieve it as threatening and its enmeshing in their being as a loss beyond all measure. These are the desperate perpetrators of profane history. Those who seek eternal division and trumpet self-righteous claptrap mono-ideologies. And so we as a species reach a paradox of our nature. This is the challenge of life - the negative and the positive are forever entertwined in this way, and one always rises to meet the other. The race is on - but only Love is unthreatened... Soon we will ascend into the imagination above and below and around - The awesome broadening of our experience in/of both the material universe and the psychic universe. This whole thing of tripping, of being a space cadet is what it says it is. It is preparing us to leave the planet. This must be imminent, and it's freakin humanity out......we have reached the planetary envelope. It's gonna get fuckin trippy out there, and the experience will change everything. The shroom wants our hands....we want its consciousness - where shall we go with our symbiosis? Their consciousness available to us opens a whole different universe up to us psychically, and acts as an undeniable realm of evolutionary catalysis for this 'material' universe. Humanity's hands offer unrivalled potential for increases in shroom propagation rates and the speed of distribution through the galaxy (which is surely imminent). In order to do this we need to take the entire biosphere and actually re-invent it over and over to fit new challenges. Our little super-conscious friend inspiring and delighting in the variety and novelty all the way. Like the shroom - Our future can grow underground for an age, gaining size, connections and strength, and then fruit in a blink - keep your eyes peeled! One
                  
|
MovingTarget

Registered: 10/04/04
Posts: 4,825
Loc: temporary
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Tag_Number]
#3279101 - 10/26/04 11:15 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
thanks for the link but it would take an age to download just one of those wit my shitty connection speed (edit) But thats irrelevant!!! Those opinions I gave were purely my own an were not influenced by mckenna or any other reading! (2nd edit) Great post CJay
--------------------
Edited by MovingTarget (10/26/04 11:22 AM)
|
mrnobody998877
Stranger
Registered: 09/01/04
Posts: 8
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MovingTarget]
#3280253 - 10/26/04 03:58 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
sorry, iam a student of biology / biochemie, and have to give wy thinkings about that
i think there is one point forgotten here : EVOLUTION works through Mutation & Determination, this means, the WHY (-IT-DEVELOPED) is to search in genetical mutation and not in a human way of sense.... The WHY is for every new chemical compound in (Cell-)Evolution the same : MUTATION of the DNA/RNA (ok different ways to go there as Chemicals, UVLight,...)
so we have to see it was DEVELOPED, no deeper WHY....Ask your Chem. oder Genetics-Professor /-Teacher about it the WHY.... 
Why i think this is important to say ? At first it looks the same if we say "the giraffe has become a long neck to eat higher fruits" or "the long neck helped the giraffe to eat higher fruits and like this survive in an new biologic clima"; But there is a difference, cause a) the long neck can also help with other things... b) if the higher fruits would no longer exist, maybe the neck would go shorter in some long time (or short ?) but maybe stay like this, cause it has another good thing in it which helps in the new environment; maybe it would never grow shorter cause this mutation would never happen or its only happens together with mutations which would make the animal die before being ready to make children; maybe the animal would be eaten by others or die cause of bacteria,.....
so the question to ask is : HOW did a certain Mutation help the specie to survive or even survive better than others species or maybe find a new way to synthesyse Aminoacids, .....
And there are DIFFERENT answers, and many of them are true
* it might be there was a species of animal oder mikroorganisem which was defeated with this compound or still is....
* or that this something helps the mushroom to live on (through spores)
* ...
and of course nowerdays we play a big role in this, the domestication of cattle and today the done research (cause of this compound) helps the fungi to grow on and on; so things maybe changing from time to time....
WHY do we have an Appendix ? ---> Mutation of DNA HOW did it help the species ? ---> it helps some vertebrates to make a millieu in which some microorganismen can make suger out of cellulose
but today we still have it ! the mutations in the DNA does not make the same things back that before came in (mostly)....So we have a litte appendix and not no appendix, but we dont need an appendix, in fact it makes a lot of people ill, but Evolution does not work like "ah it needs this and that we can give away and so on"
i knew most people know that fact, but it is important to see all time and not ask question like "if the sense was to take the spores with the shit cause some animals love tripping (a lot of animals LIKE alkohol some times !!!!) why does the woodlovers also have that compound ?" cause there is NO SENSE in Evolution, its all some energy which forms atoms, molecules and out of this come cells, but they only follow the rules of energy in the atoms; i believe today we dont know every sphere of beeing but seems like we more and more understand some very basic facts and from there we have to go, please dont begin to argue with me about the sense in objectiv way, cause "sense" is something humankind has made and is very subjectiv !!!!!!!
So : Do you know if the development of psylocibin is a convergently evolution ? it is really rare in the world, that such organical compounds develop convergently... so i think the "mother" of all psylocibin-species has had this mutation.... maybe iam wrong wih this cause dont know so much of evolution of basidomycetes, but seems logically to me... and the mushy cannot think "a okay now i eat wood, abnd i dont need this fuckin psilocybin anymore"
all in all its an very interestin question, but you can only find out for what it is helping / or helped an maybe some genetical history of it, but cannot say "this is the why of psilobybin" "WHY do we have 2 and not 3 eyes ?" (yeah i know : god made adam like himself and god has 2 eyes and blablabla....nice storytellers but taking medicine which was made by people just "knowing nothing real about the world" )
|
kbilly
earthwalker

Registered: 09/01/04
Posts: 158
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: mrnobody998877]
#3282240 - 10/26/04 11:06 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
would the psilocybin not cause soem sort of stomach upset in anumals that eat them thereby allowing it to pass quicker throuh the gut of animals and hence allowing for a higher spore survival rate. i know nothing of the stomach chemistry of cows etc.
|
MovingTarget

Registered: 10/04/04
Posts: 4,825
Loc: temporary
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: kbilly]
#3282252 - 10/26/04 11:09 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
did i mention earlier that rabbits can eat destroying angels with no ill effect?
maybe thats diferent from how the spores may effect their stomachs though...
--------------------
|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MovingTarget]
#3285528 - 10/27/04 04:53 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Why did mushrooms develop the capacity to produce psiloc(yb)in?
For a similar reason our brains produce dmt? Somehow consciousness related? Maybe a by-product of it's metabolism by chance? Maybe not?
What is the evolutionary benefit of expending energy to produce these alkaloids?
If it does lead to a kind of 'above average mushroom intellengence' , expanded consciousness must be an evolutionary advantage - imagine the possibilities.
Why is alkaloid content high in pins, yet production slows dramatically when the cap opens?
If so, perhaps because the individual mushroom passes the zenith of its youth?
Is it a defense mechanism to keep animals from devouring them until they can drop their spores?
Personally I doubt it. Some guy just posted about his dog munching some down in the Domenican Republic - dunno if it had a good time or not tho. Maybe I'll ask.
WHY do we have an Appendix ? ---> Mutation of DNA HOW did it help the species ? ---> it helps some vertebrates to make a millieu in which some microorganismen can make suger out of cellulose
but today we still have it ! the mutations in the DNA does not make the same things back that before came in (mostly)....So we have a litte appendix and not no appendix, but we dont need an appendix, in fact it makes a lot of people ill, but Evolution does not work like "ah it needs this and that we can give away and so on"
Yes time leaves its relics, evolution leaves its relics. The new is built upon the old and the species memory, or habit of form as it were, persists for some time. As you mentioned - the species memory fades through non-unse, and perhaps that is why our useless apendix is so shrunken (relative to body size) when compared to the same function organs in species that use theirs every day.
I feel it is unlikely that psiloc(yb)in is a genetic relic, of actual endogenic use to the mushroom only in some far distant past. The main reasons being that it holds the possibility of some kindo of access to a kind of intergalactic consciousness which sings a song that is Life flowing. Who knows how the shroom experiences that...
In our species the psiloc(yb)in has to pass the blood brain barrier to have an effect, but this is the main seat of our conscious experience and where we have receptors for the psiloc(yb)in to fit into. I'm not sure how or where the it fits some kind of receptor in the mushroom. Surely there must be one, if it is a by-product from some lost age then there must have been a receptor one would think. If psiloc(yb)in became some useless repeated genetic sentance, would the receptor disappear? Could such a substance become useless to species?
No one really knows the answers to any of this, but there's a few guesses for you. Perhaps it is of some perameter we humans cannot even really conceive of.
|
nubby
Stranger
Registered: 10/26/04
Posts: 2
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: CJay]
#3285711 - 10/27/04 05:30 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i think mrnobody had a lot of good points. you just have to look past his weird spellings. the active alkaloids DID NOT evolve to mess with humans. no way. not at all. we're just way too new on the evolutionary scene. alkaloid-producing fungus have been around for billions of years, but modern humans only showed up in the last half million years. you might be able to argue or find evidence that the alkaloids are intended to be a poision or deterrent to hungry animals, but not one aimed solely at humans. co-evolution requires very unique circumstances. mushrooms can definately survive without humans, and humans without mushrooms. the alkaloids could be waste products, signal molucules, metabolic byproducts, or catalysts for other reactions in the life of the mycellium. according to my good friend, who studies fungus, there is actually active debate and confusion among research mycologists currently as to why fungi make such alkaloids. however, similar molecules are found in many other species of fungii.
|
AntiMeme
yankee doodledandy
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 208
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: nubby]
#3286147 - 10/27/04 06:46 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting thread. I recently stumbled uopn a usenet thread from the bionet.mycology group where some biologists discuss the very same thing:
Biological function of hallucinogens in fungi?
--------------------
|
Colonel Kurtz Ph.D
What What?

Registered: 07/22/04
Posts: 11,113
Loc: Shadow Moses
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: nubby]
#3286466 - 10/27/04 07:52 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
What an interesting read. I think everything I have to say have been said, but it was amazing nonetheless. Maybe I should point out that as an attractor to humans there's an amazing parallelism in Cannabis and it's psychoactive compound, THC (and also in many other species, such as caffeine and coffee, tobacco... etc). I think there's an obvious symbiosis here, as one species benefits the other, but this has been pointed out before. Just a thought.
--------------------
There's no better way to rock out than with your cock out!!
|
mrnobody998877
Stranger
Registered: 09/01/04
Posts: 8
|
|
> Why did mushrooms develop the capacity to produce psiloc(yb)in? --->answer is everytime the same : cause of Mutation.... 
searching for a sense or asking the question like this will lead you very easy to a "false" answer; cause the why is always Mutation.... you just can ask, why it helped surviving, or is still in the genetics,....
i know it looks like a little bit too much looking on the words, but in genetics & evolution it is very important to ask the right question to come to a conclusion which fits the real world....
>Why is alkaloid content high in pins, yet production slows >dramatically when the cap opens? does anyone out here really know if this is true ? i always hear about that but never seen an table from a laboratory or something like this which can really say this..... i think mosten this is experienced cause people dont dry there fungus correctly but little pins are very easy to get cracker dry and also not loosing much alkaloides while drying..... i dont know, but just have never seen a real scientific research.....
>i think mrnobody had a lot of good points. you just have to look past >his weird spellings. yeah thanks....i am really bad in english i know....so i have to use some words i know to say things that are a little bit complicated...
|
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: CJay]
#3290245 - 10/28/04 04:14 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
the reason humans still have an appendix is that modern humans have slowed evolution in many areas with advances in medicine: without intervention, deaths from appendicitis would slowly but shirley lead to a benefit from a smaller and eventually absent appendix. that's my guess, anyway. similarly, glasses are witholding human visual evolution - all the ones with really bad eyesight would have been eaten long ago, but these days the bad eye genes are kept in the gene pool.
that psilocybin makes humans trip may be a freak coincidence, just a molecule that fits into another molecule. or psilocybin may be a natural growth hormone (auxin), an animal deterrant toxin, an inconsequential waste product, or even a cellular messenger that represents an advance in communication.
this thread is awesome, let's keep it going i've seen no evidence so far that psilocybin offers any evolutionary advantages or disadvantages to the host species - is there any?
-------------------- buh
|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#3290805 - 10/28/04 06:12 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
modern humans have slowed evolution in many areas with advances in medicine
I would say that is in part true. The other part is the fact that the past is built upon and remains for some lag as a species evolves. For example our brains which contain the structures of the reptillian R-Complex, the mammalian limbic system, and our own lucky special addition the neo cortex.
Like building a city maybe, the past remains, perhaps to sooner or later be completely redeveloped in the complete revision/transformation of a species.
> Why did mushrooms develop the capacity to produce psiloc(yb)in--->answer is everytime the same : cause of Mutation....?
Mutation may have been the causing agent, but that is the same for every feature of the biosphere we see around us, every nuance and every broad stroke of Life. What determines whether a mutation remains is whether it is successful in Life.
For some reason this must have been of benefit, or of no consequence. If of benefit then who can guess at what benefit to the host organism....perhaps my musings on the mushroom's consciousness go to far, maybe I am naieve, and completely wrong...who knows...but something is definitely going on.
Perhaps by the equations of darwin based theories of evolution this looks like something not deliberately targetted at humans - that would make sense. I believe it so when taking a kind of very rational point of view within me.
On the other hand...
What I percieve is the possible confluence of 2 energies that apparently coincidentally have come together. Some kind of intelligence reaching through the billions of years of apparently random mellieu (or at least some balance) has likely guided this from behind the scenes.
Now this may be a crazy fantasy....I don't know either way.
|
bluebass
bum
Registered: 10/27/04
Posts: 4
Loc: OHIO
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: CJay]
#3291021 - 10/28/04 07:13 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think psilocybin can be a deterent,and a way to propigate itself [ininvertintely]. we are here discussing cultivation of these specific mushrooms.People cultivate these psilocybin producing mushrooms.The spores for these mushrooms are all over the planet,but so are culinary mushrooms.Maybe something [a animal]would eat one trip and be like never again.I wonder if there are more culinary mushrooms cultivated or psilocybin mushrooms cultivated?[don't mean to get off of topic]Maybe it is a bi-product of metabolism.maybe they are just there for our use.
|
mrnobody998877
Stranger
Registered: 09/01/04
Posts: 8
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: bluebass]
#3292687 - 10/29/04 04:28 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>...Some kind of >intelligence reaching through the billions of years of apparently >random mellieu (or at least some balance) has likely guided this from >behind the scenes.
if you say guided it all looks a little bit like god was in the play or any other higher intelligence.... so i like to look very scientific at nature. but this dont mean i think we know more than 0.0001% of what is happening !
so i always have this feeling too, something is reaching out for us, but does someone here really unterstand Quantum-Mechanics ? Because they say, like some "enlightned" said the last 1000s of years, that time & space are Illusion, or lets say time & space like we see it is an Illusion... The past, the future & the now are NOW and on ONE POINT, no space....
So this means a lot of things can be possible which we even cannot imagine - maybe this a kind of future or THE ONE (i mean the world in its "real" beiing - no space & time) is reaching out for us....
so this is were science comes into the game, cause the only way to really know is to make a hyptothese an then to proof; everything else (even if true !) is believing !
and i believe (! ) this is a very nice theme for research, hopefully the scientific research in psychedelica will start again in some years, there are so many questions to answer...... Till then we have to do our own Hobby-research......
|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: mrnobody998877]
#3308011 - 11/02/04 05:20 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|

Science is great and has benefitted humans tremendously - but it is built on 2 huge leaps of faith:
1.The laws of the universe are the only permanent things and extend infinitely in all directions.
2. Despite science's claim of rationality the entire model of the universe is built upon the big bang theory. If you can believe this then to my mind you can believe anything. The universe sprung from an unimaginable nothing in an instant for absolutely no reason and with no impetus. Talk about pulling a rabbit from a hat!
Perhaps in fact the laws of physics actually changed, perhaps they do change. Perhaps nothing is permanent.
I can't help the kid in me which asks 'why?' and at every answer asks again 'why?' - eventually no matter who you ask the eventual answer comes - 'I don't know' (or the get out 'It just is')
And no one does know - we build our scientific model of the universe on supposition as if it is fact. And to me this makes everything questionable. Sure we can chuck things in equations and apply a realative objectivity, but just because we get a working answer does not mean we truly understand. This could be a fluke of our locality and a kind of functioning 'magic' black box. We cannot really understand because none of us can answer the most fundamental question.
Who knows...
|
Tag_Number
Experience
Registered: 10/06/04
Posts: 154
Loc: Soma dreaming itself
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: CJay]
#3308830 - 11/02/04 11:20 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Psilocybin fungi could be all over space.
|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Tag_Number]
#3313353 - 11/03/04 08:38 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Entirely - they could form some huge intergalactic network that holds faster than light and unbounded communications access all areas, as well as forming a hyper information storage system for the galactic web of life. A kind of library and phone booth rolled into one with access to the DNA master (memory) storage banks as well as that of each individual being - and possibly further into 'non-organic' memory and 'spirit'. Certainly a well of experience and insight beyond measure. The psiloc(yb)in might have been 'injected' into our local ecosystem and the comms ariel it produces might have been relaying back to the galactic hub of life since its beginning here - so that tabs can be kept on the progress of another newly evolving world. Spores may have slowly drifted on the solar winds to our world where the radar sent back 'images' of another child ecosystem and species coming into being. Or perhaps a probe or some such brought it, (perhaps along with the seeds of life themselves)......and now the senders await our coming of age and the fusing/opening of consciousness that will lead us into galactic society membership. Then again - maybe it's all a crazy fluke and we are (unlikely as it seems one of) the only planet(s) in the entire galaxy with biology - maybe we are the first, and luckily we have this little fungal friend to help us know ourselves. Maybe we will be the ones who end up seeding other fledgling ecosystems around the galaxy in some future when we have mastered space. Maybe both - in the sense of a cycle of the spreading of conscious life. Certainly no matter what the story is, this species provides an access to higher and broader consciousness. And whatever the: how, when, and why - a true friend to us this species has become, without doubt.
|
Tag_Number
Experience
Registered: 10/06/04
Posts: 154
Loc: Soma dreaming itself
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: CJay]
#3315791 - 11/03/04 04:02 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Eating of the Hyperfungi is some way to unveil things as they are.
|
Pinback
Stranger


Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 836
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#3319491 - 11/04/04 11:28 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shirley knott said: or psilocybin may be a natural growth hormone (auxin)
This is quite interesting. Psilocin is similar to auxin in structure, and is found of the highest concentrations in the fruit bodies, meaning it could be a signal to start reproductive growth. One can of course make many objections to this (structural similarity is probably coincidental because fungi and plants are very different, why there is a high conc. of psilocin/psilocybin in sclerotia, most fungi don't have it, etc), but still, it is an interesting thought.
Some other posters in this thread should probably use less drugs and/or post their thoughts in the philosophy forum.
|
Tripster
200+ trips wise

Registered: 10/10/04
Posts: 275
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Pinback]
#3330896 - 11/07/04 06:57 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think it's a deterent. The defense mechanism isn't set up to save that mushroom in particular, it's set up to save the species in the future. That's why it works even though it takes so long to kick in. No animal short of humans would have the mental capacity to take a "trip" and therefore it would not be a pleasant experience they would want to repeat.
-------------------- You've raped! I feel dirty It hurt! As a child Tied down! That's a good boy And fucked! Your own child I scream! No one hears me It hurt! I'm not a liar My God! Saw you watching Mommy why?! Your own child -Korn
|
danlennon3
LivingIsEasyWithEyesClosed.....


Registered: 10/29/02
Posts: 19,246
Loc: usa
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Tripster]
#3331787 - 11/07/04 11:25 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
one night we blew endless amounts of hits to this big spider as it was making the web but the thc did not effect its webmaking abilities
-------------------- "Psychedelics should be used not to escape reality, but to embrace it"
|
pshawny
Mycobian



Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 1,332
Loc: Shroomery
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: danlennon3]
#3344502 - 11/10/04 11:21 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Psilocybin could have been used by an ancient animal/insect/amphibian. Say it, whatever it might have been, ate the mushrooms and converted or stored the poison to use for it's own defense.
--------------------
|
lesstutrey
All Weather Associate


Registered: 10/24/04
Posts: 495
Loc: Chicagoland
Last seen: 9 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: pshawny]
#3350096 - 11/12/04 03:09 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
we forget that billions of years ago the earth was much different. Even the make up the soil, etc. It seems to me that psilocybin could of at one point been used as a method of defense against environment(or possibly a way to bind to nutrients its needs), and as it did little harm to the organism mearly stayed with us for milllions of years. Perhaps at one time all mushrooms produced psilocybin and the cubes and various other speices are mearly behind the tide of evolution like a cockroach, horseshoe crab or cockroach..
|
Cap_tianG
Stranger
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: lesstutrey]
#3351095 - 11/12/04 10:52 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It is not obvious to assume its a def fence system for the mushroom. It is more likely in my opinion to be developed as a predecessor of more complex function of the reproductive traits of this species. It was recently learned that Fungi is more closely linked to animals than it is to plants as previously thought. Is it possible that if given enough time a fungi would develop more of a sentient? And when i mean enough time i mean BILLIONS of years? as stated it is near the same chemicals used in brain functions in many animal species. It has to be a bi-product of some other function... to create this, you need this, and this is a result an unused chemical? with no way to expel it, maybe the fruit of the mycelium is doing more than simply reproducing.
OR>>> could it be a positive function for survival? Humans have developed a nurturing relationship with psycho active fungi. They have been referred too as God's Flesh by some cultures. All of us here know its very powerful tool when used correctly. Some research has shown it to be connected with first speech patterns in humans, causing the brain to function more openly, or like a TURBO for a growing evolution. Who knows but a great question!!
|
Tag_Number
Experience
Registered: 10/06/04
Posts: 154
Loc: Soma dreaming itself
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Cap_tianG]
#3362806 - 11/15/04 03:43 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cap_tianG said: Some research has shown it to be connected with first speech patterns in humans, causing the brain to function more openly, or like a TURBO for a growing evolution. Who knows but a great question!!
I think psiloc(by)in can alter human evolution as these compounds effect by reacting with DNA, generation after generation. As serotonin (5-HT) makes that neurotransmitter more frequently firing, if such chemical is high enough ratios in the blood and neurotransmitter sites can create more data input (feed). As the senses dilate. The aperture of the pupil dilates. More light (photons) is translated within the brain producing the sense of depth, color and shape. You are creating a full-blown experience by rising such neurotransmitter sites via senses. This is done with psiloc(yb)in.
|
mrnobody998877
Stranger
Registered: 09/01/04
Posts: 8
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Tag_Number]
#3364795 - 11/15/04 03:44 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>I think psiloc(by)in can alter human evolution as these compounds >effect by reacting with DNA, generation after generation.
hmm...
which DNA you mean, i think you dont mean the DNA in the "normal" body cells, cause this wont be given to the next generation and chemicals which force mutations in this cells lead (in most cases)to cancer, when there is too much contact.....
so you mean the DNA in the special cells wich divide to be given to the next generation..... so dont forget that the most mutations will follow in missbuilding including early death or other main body/mind complications....
so do you see this in the groups of psylocibinusing groups ? i believe not, cause the should have cancer and / or missbuilded childs....and maybe one out of billions which have a mutation maybe be cleverer or have some other "advantages", but there should also be a lot of missbuilded childs.....
or do you see something special in the chemical structure which would force "intelligent" mutations ? i would not say that it is 100% impossible that some day maybe we find out there is one molecule which can do it, but do you really believe in ?
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero]
#3366509 - 11/15/04 09:23 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Someone said that psilocybin has existed in mushrooms for millions of years, and therefore is not a co-evolutionary factor aimed at man. Do we know this to be true?
No doubt the mushrooms existed, but how could we possibly know that they were active? Have some of them been found frozen in a glacier and tested for psilocybin?
|
mrnobody998877
Stranger
Registered: 09/01/04
Posts: 8
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shroomydan]
#3369611 - 11/16/04 03:56 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
as i said its really really rare (i dont even know one) in nature that a chemical compound develops convergently, which means not at two places or two times, so i think, because some really different shrooms from different familys have this compound means their "motherspeci" must have had it, i dont know how old cubensis is thought to be, but i would bet its a lot older than human maybe even than the Mammalia class itself (Mammals), cause the class basidomycetes ("higher shrooms") are ca. as old as the first other "land plants" .....
|
bigslick
science fictionwriter

Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 186
Loc: just behind you
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: mrnobody998877]
#3373015 - 11/17/04 07:08 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Me thinks the shrooms produce the magic as a deterrent to certain animals... Ever since I started growing shrooms my wifes little yorki luved the smell of the mushrooms. If I was sitting on the couch with a bag of shrooms in my pocket she would try to get them. I thought it was kinda funny but no way would I puposely feed the dog shrooms. One night while enjoying a movie on a mild trip my wife comes downstairs and asks if she can have some shrooms. So I go upstairs get some shrooms to weigh out a dose for my wife. After I give my wife the shrooms she requested I go to put the remaining shrooms back in a big ziplock and suddenly one big hawaiin cap breaks off a stem and falls to the floor. Quicker than shit that yorki grabs that cap runs under the bed and eats it. Whithin an hour the dog goes nuts my wife is worried sick the dog might die and I'm kinda pissed cause this is not my fault (and I know the dog won't die). My wife holds her freaked out dog for a couple of hours then I take over and hold it. Its wigged out, but I think my much less worried demeanor calms the dog. The dog starts breathiing more normaly while I watch T.V. The dog fully recovered and seems good as new but she aint crazy over the smell of shrooms anymore. I'm sorry the dog went through this and I have taken steps to insure it won't happen again. Feeding canines cubies: chance that dog will die = very low chance dog won't enjoy effects = very high
-------------------- Everything I write is a total work of fiction
Edited by bigslick (11/17/04 07:16 AM)
|
IndiaShroomer
Stranger
Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 5
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shroomydan]
#3377167 - 11/17/04 11:31 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Well then, though this is a one of case; mammalian deterrant sounds good to me.
got me thinking...why have a chemical that affects the brain? why not one that just kills the damn mammal? some fungi did come up with that!
basidomycetes evolved before mammals so basidomycetes were around, then the first mammals turned up, they nibbled the fungi, fungi responded, how?
what is now psilo bearing fungi evovles response: as organochemical response. The mammal around that time are pretty basic, with basic (primitive brains), so the fungi came up with a chemical to act on it. http://www.healing-arts.org/n-r-limbic.htm http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/B/bodystory/brave_primative.html
what chemical to act on? fungi chooses to directly act on the neurotransmitter. (why, i have no clue? 
why neurotransmitters? neurotransmitters are older than the brain http://www.nyu.edu/classes/azmitia/lectures/lecture07/transmitters.html
The brain at that time was probably only a basic mammalian brain, so the neurotransmitter might have been serotonin) neurotransmitter = serotonin psilocybin = serotonin anologue (kind of 
serotonin = action on hypothalamus (in addition to several others, but we are looking at the deterrance aspect only)
"psilo-alkaloids inhibit serotonin production by the hypothalamus" http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/Prohibition/Notes/Mushroom_Cultivation.html
we know, hypothalamus controls instincts, emotions, drives, keeping body conditions constant
explore the brain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/organs/brainmap/index.shtml
any mammal consumes fungi = screws the hypothalamus, gets a very uncomforable experience. no mammal would want that again. The other effects, the psychedelic effects would only be enjoyable to a human (some anyway)
slightly off track, if the neurotransmitter 'serotonin' has remained unchanged over mammalian evolution, psilocybin might well be that old, if not older.
funny thing, though the fungi and the mammals evolved, this chemical deterrant need not change. Why? to eat this fungi succesfully (withot uncomfortable experiences) the mammal would have to evolve a completely new neurotransmitter type, one that is unlike serotonin. would evolution allow that?
The fungi just came up with one chemical that addresses a chemical component in the mammalian brain that the mammal cant just do without. and since the neurotransmitter isnt changing ever, psilocybin/psilocin never need change either.
Kind of like the ultimate deterrant, you poor mammals can evolve anyway you like... you will never be eating me! I can now also directly relate to the uncomfortable body feelings when I trip. it's just the fungus telling me, you stupid mammal... dont try me again. but we humans never listen do we!?
now, some questions: why did only some species of basidomycetes develop effective deterants? what would the exact mechanism of the development of psilocybin/psilocin in the fungus from an evolutionary standpoint? would there have been other types of chemical deterrants that fungi adopted? did only a few that address neurotransmitters survive? were there species way back in time that tried deterrants based on maybe Acetylcholine, Dopamine or epinephrine... (since these are just as old as serotonin)?
|
IndiaShroomer
Stranger
Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 5
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: IndiaShroomer]
#3401527 - 11/24/04 12:12 AM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
bumped... curious about opinions on the board
|
Darkie
Bitches n hoes dont mean a thing


Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 216
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: IndiaShroomer]
#3817271 - 02/22/05 02:41 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Personally i think they came from another planet because they do not much look like anything from this one. Are there any other....like molds....or something, that produce cacphores like mushrooms do? I mean, they aren't plants (right? or am i wrong?) and they arent animal...they are from another planet then. So however they got here, they were evolved(made?) on another planet so there is a good chance we can't even explain or imagen why they produce the Magic.
A lil bit more down to earth explaination is it is a biproduct of some kind of metabolism in the mushroom because it just attaches the 4-ho to the tryptamine...or something like that.
It could even be happening by accident! Maybe just because of how mushrooms are they absorb what they do from the soil and then maybe what happens just happens....ok that makes me sound dumb THINK OF IT THIS WAY. If there is a lil sugar in your gastank it turns to carbon (or caramel) in your engine. Now imagen that the carbon is psilocybin. Although it has nothing to do with your car, it just happens cause it is in the food(gas/soil/cow dung). Ok, THAT is my final answer....or maybe it was aliens
-------------------- You gotta wake up to get faded but you gotta get up to get paided.
|
Darkie
Bitches n hoes dont mean a thing


Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 216
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Darkie]
#3817290 - 02/22/05 02:44 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
OH another thought (sorry double post). If animals eating them may or may NOT be adverse to the dispersal of the species, then there should not be any deterant at all to animals eating them. Infact, some have already argued that it may be an attractant. So if there is no real problem caused by animals munching on them, then a deterant of any kind is not evolutionaryily logical.
-------------------- You gotta wake up to get faded but you gotta get up to get paided.
|
Cerebro
Spawnmaster C


Registered: 09/13/06
Posts: 192
Loc: Cocytus
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero]
#6304670 - 11/21/06 12:17 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think Psilocybin functions as a type of auxin. The photoactive property of psilocybin could signal a response in the mushroom perhaps to grow towards a light source(phototropism). I also believe it may play a role in mushroom cell energy. It could control turgor pressure. It could be involved in vascular system of the mushroom. I also agree that it is an attractant in mammals but a repellent in certain insects and their larvae(maybe beetles or even trypanosomes). Psilocybin resembles certain organophosphate neurotoxins. I've seen beetles hiding under ragged mushroom caps. I would think the dispersal of spores could be caused by flies. As Flies are phototactic.
Edited by Cerebro (01/14/07 02:34 PM)
|
Mr_Spliff
Dreamer


Registered: 12/01/05
Posts: 224
Loc: Undesclosed Location (its...
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Cerebro]
#6318514 - 11/29/06 11:21 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Dude I don't know nor care, I like shrooms, and so does my dog, I have to keep my tubs up high or else he will try and digg threw the pollyfill. Deterant, I think not. I do know that me and my dog have something in common tho. Wed both do almost anything to get some shrooms, like play with shit with our bare hands 
Blah blah blah I know everyone says that you shouldn't give your pets drugs, well i'm a dumb ass, I got curious, so I gave my dog shrooms one time. Now he's always lookin for em, I give him what he wants once in a while tho, like once a month, I have his dose worked out and everything based on his weight and a dose for my weight being 3.5 grams dry just figure out the ratio and you got your dose, I always shoot low tho just in case. Its fun, I take him to the park, to the woods, where ever, and he just runs around with the biggest pupils ever. I know I cant know for sure if he's enjoying himself, but his tail wagging usually will let me know he is happy. And as for animals haveing the capacity to trip, I'm sure they do. Its halarious to watch Peetrie bark at the air, or bounce on the ground as if he was attacking a cockroach or something. I doubt he get anything but a good time out of it tho, and if terrence is right about all that mumbo jumbo, then maybe one day in the future well have artistc chiuahuas.
One time tho I gave him too much, everytime I touched him he would pee. It was like having a supersoaker 2000. And he would walk up to other dogs face to face to check em out then he would run away in pure terror. He wouldn't stop whineing. So I had to rub his belly for like 3 hours to keep him calm ( he still kept peeing tho, so I had to possition him just right). It seemed as if he passed out on me while I was petting him, I got worried, but as soon as it I would get a little too worried hed open his eyes to peek around and then cose them again. He didnt eat shrooms for awhile after that, but after I found him with his head in my mono-tub I knew his fear was gone. 
|
Blek
Stranger


Registered: 08/17/05
Posts: 983
Loc: The universe
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Mr_Spliff]
#6319906 - 11/29/06 10:40 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Haha that's funny MrSpliff!
My theory is as follows.
As mentioned earlier, something to consider is that Earth's climate, soil, and atmosphere are ever changing and were much different millions/billions of years ago. Also mentioned earlier, "psychadellic" compounds could have had a much different purpose and could have been very "non-psychadellic" millions of years ago. Consider the fact that fungi are some of the oldest beings on the planet and therefore are a common ancestry for a large amount of today's biosphere.
Okay. Where do you find magic mushrooms growing today? Deep in the forest in a well balanced ecosystem? No.
You find them in the human path of destruction. I.e. grazing land (animal dung & decomposed animal dung), devastated woodlands, landscaped areas, suburban housing developments, etc etc etc.
This leads me to believe that humans have been a major contributing factor to the survival of psychadellic mushrooms.
I think psychadellic mushrooms were much less common, possibly even nearing extinction prior to the human population explosion and environmental devastation. On top of that, and on a more recent note... humans have drastically increased the amount spore mass on this planet (and possibly others) simply through cultivation of magic mushrooms.
Is it by coincidence that magic mushrooms, which arguably spread environmental awareness only grow in places where there is environmental devastation? I think not. Mother Earth's way of sending a message perhaps? The same laws that govern the Universe govern our planet, Earth as well.
|
licue
Stranger

Registered: 07/21/06
Posts: 16
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Zen Peddler]
#6324781 - 12/01/06 03:40 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bluemeanie said: you could argue bothways with this one. Mushroom poisons in mushrooms like amanitas, etc, are not fast acting - so are not designed to be deterent - whether an animal/dumb human realises the connection between their kidney and liver failure and the mushrooms they ate two days beforehand doesnt really matter as they will die and will not live on to eat further mushrooms.
I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that killing your predator is not a deterrent?
|
VampireSlayer
killing ghosts,zombies andvampires forlife


Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 2,529
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: licue]
#6340993 - 12/06/06 03:19 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
magic mushrooms came from aliens
-------------------- I Don't come to fight flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness in high and low places
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Blek]
#6341401 - 12/06/06 05:12 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blek said:
Is it by coincidence that magic mushrooms, which arguably spread environmental awareness only grow in places where there is environmental devastation? I think not. Mother Earth's way of sending a message perhaps? The same laws that govern the Universe govern our planet, Earth as well.

These potent Psilocybes that shroomydan originally identified as Psilocybe caerulipes but are now thought by Guzman to be a new species have taken a liking to Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), an invasive Asian species that was introduced to North America as an ornamental but escaped cultivation and is now crowding out native species of plants and animals along the edges of many of our streams and rivers. It seems with the ecological threat comes a metaphysical warning.
|
VampireSlayer
killing ghosts,zombies andvampires forlife


Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 2,529
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shroomydan]
#6341442 - 12/06/06 05:21 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
wait so psilocybes from asia are invading america at an alarming rate? hell yea bring them on!
-------------------- I Don't come to fight flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness in high and low places
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: VampireSlayer]
#6341538 - 12/06/06 05:37 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know where Bluefoot came from, but the plant he likes to grow under came from asia, and the mushroom seems to have tagged along for the ride.
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shroomydan]
#6346817 - 12/08/06 01:46 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Most plants and fungi make small molecules.
It's hard to avoid teliological explanations, but small molecules do serve as a a deterrent against the plant being eaten because any organism ingesting them has to detoxify them. Thus, organisms that produce a wide variety of small molecules would be selected for.
I am not aware of many genetic analyses having been done on cubies or any psiloc(yb)in bearing mushrooms. I only have one article detailing the identification of different strains through a genetic analysis.
I also have not seen any detailed studies on the genes involved in psiloc(yb)in production, metabolism, etc. Without an understanding of the biochemical processes involved in psiloc(yb)in regulation, then it is hard to say what role the substance plays in the organism.
Ergot, on the other hand, has been studied to death and the biosynthetic pathway and genes and such involved in ergot alkaloid production are well characterized.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Chemiker]
#6347867 - 12/08/06 12:04 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Psilocybin isn't really a "small molecule". It would be interesting to study the pathway and figure out what other uses the involved enzymes might have.
TDC is present in quite a few organisms and isn't specific to fungi. 4-hydroxylase seems fairly nonspecific and might have some other use in the fungi. N-methylase also seems like it would be useful for other reactions, but adding carbon to nitrogen seems somewhat energy wasteful and would seem to be counterproductive in relation to consuming nitrogen.
Such potent psychoactives probably have their own evolutionary reasons simply due to the fact that they are potent, and so they certainly cause evolutionary effects and affect selection. Terrence McKenna theorizes that man has been using mushrooms as long as 150,000 years, possibly much longer. That is plenty of time to have greatly affected mushroom evolution. The fact is that mushrooms enjoy their current status because of the attractant properties of psilocybin, and it may have been helping them for as long as 150,000 years. There's no reason to think that this hasn't been the case for the majority of time that psilocybin has been on this earth.
-FF
|
creamcorn
mad scientist


Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 2,962
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6348023 - 12/08/06 01:10 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: TDC is present in quite a few organisms and isn't specific to fungi. 4-hydroxylase seems fairly nonspecific and might have some other use in the fungi.
This would be the enzyme that reverts psilocybin back to psilosin, correct? My apologies if its a dumb question, chemistry terms boggle my mind... i know -ase=enzyme then my eyes glaze over 
If that's not it... I know there is one... any information on the process by which that happens? (ff i'm looking at you, i can manage to understand what you've got to say most of the time ) I can look at your avatar and grasp how you come to those conclusions there and follow the process, just trying to picture the reaction in the case of psilocybin being reverted back into psilosin in the fruitbody, the by-products, how its split up, etc
I'm a bit out of my element to even be discussing this so again my apologies if it sounds silly or elementary... but my theory is this:
psilocybin is just a "carrier" of phosphorus... its attached to compounds closely related to simple amino acids found in the substrates it grows on and in the process we end up with something that just so happens to be psychoactive in humans. DNA production requires phosphorus, does it not? pyschoactive mushrooms have the ability to produce psilocybin, and have then also contain enzymes to strip that phosphorus off as part of the process by which its reverted back to psilosin again (which is the reaction i'm wondering about, does it really leave a free phosphorus?) psilocybin is also easily soluble in water. so its my thinking that the psilocybin is produced, "dissolved" in water that's pumped up into the fruitbody, esentially allowing it to travel from the mycelial network base up to the cap of the mushroom. up there, the phosphorus is stripped off, and then used in DNA production... spores are little DNA packets after all, and they're produced up top there. as for the psychoactive aspect then, i believe its just coincidence that its so similar to our own neurotransmitters - if there's a "greater purpose" that led to that coincidence, perhaps in the spiritual realm or what have you, is up to your interpretation i suppose...
it just for the most part fits with things we anecdotally observe about mushrooms... consider the following:
-psilocybin production doesn't seem to really ramp up to appreciable levels until fruits are developing. we know there's little to be found in mycelium prior to fruiting. that makes me believe its not "needed" by the organism until mushrooms are growing. if it were some sort of evolutionary protection/defense mechanism i'd think it would be formed from the get-go. by the time its fruiting its likely overcome most "predators" and some fruitbodies are bound to make it far enough to drop spores (reproduce), doesn't seem to me they need a whole lot of protection given their brief lifespan... and anyway, wouldn't a poison be a more effective deterrent than a hallucinogen? 
-many believe potency is best just prior to spore production (hence the tradition of harvesting as the viel tears)... a question here is, is there any data that takes into account specifically and separately BOTH psilocybin and psilosin, studying concentrations before and after spore production? by my theory and intuition i'd wager high psilocybin/low psilosin prior to spore production, and the reverse - low psilocybin/high psilosin after spore production. bioassay of fresh fruits is of little value here because assuming not much oxidation has occurred the perceptible difference would be negligible, since both are active... though along the same lines it could be said that over-mature mushrooms then lose a greater deal of potency when dried/stored since the psilosin is vulnerable to oxidation
so questions that this leaves me with,
if this is really how it works, then why the difference with non-active mushrooms? where might they get their phosphorus from for spore formation? are there any other non-psychoactive compounds/reactions that would parallel this "shipping" of phosphorus to the spore production site?
how does this jive across the range of psilo* containing species? can we find correlations between the physical mushroom cap sizes and the spore loads they produce with the different psilosin/psilocybin ratios they're thought to contain? if my idea is to be true those that produce the greatest number of spores would be expected to be higher in psilosin and lower in psilocybin... less spores, less dna, therefore less phosphorus is gonna be needed, and therefore not so much of the reverting from psilocybin back to psilosin
-last but not least, why else would the mushroom have the ability to convert from one to the other? there *must* be a purpose to that! i think that stomps on the "defense mechanism" idea a little more. if it was for defense it would only need one or the other, not both? (if both were achieved in the first place due to incomplete reactions i could see maybe - and that may be the source of where some of the related compounds come from, but here's we're talking a deliberate ability to convert one to the other.)
again sorry if i botched up most of that but hopefully i convey the point without too many holes or technical inaccuracies in my theory, but if it makes sense maybe somebody who knows more about it could elaborate and help me develop that theory?
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: creamcorn]
#6348225 - 12/08/06 02:48 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
>chemistry terms boggle my mind... i know -ase=enzyme then my eyes glaze over

Tryptophan is a basic amino acid. TDC (tryptophan decarboxylase) decarboxylates tryptophan to tryptamine. Tryptamine is N-methylated to N-methyltryptamine and then again to N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT). DMT is then 4-hydroxylated to psilocin. Psilocin is then phosphorylated to psilocybin.
So it's decarboxylation, N-methylation, N-methylation, 4-hydroxylation, and phosphorylation.
The decarboxylation is the only step that has been nailed down for sure, the others are just the proposed, and most reasonable, mechanism. TDC and phosphorylase are the only characterized enzymes in the process. We say there is also N-methylase and 4-hydroxylase because it's just assumed that there are enzymes catalyzing the reactions.
4-hydroxylase is interesting because it 4-hydroxylates many indole substances. It's somewhat odd to hydroxylate in the 4 position.
To get from psilocin to psilocybin the psilocin is phosphorylated to psilocybin. That's pretty normal, many things (like base pairs) get phosphorylated all the time. It's a phosphorous backbone that connects all the base pairs in DNA and RNA.
DNA and RNA need to get snipped up all the time also, so it's not strange that there are a lot of dephosphorlation reactions going on. Phosphatases are the enzymes that dephosphorylate molecules. When tissue damage happens it's not surprising that phosphatase runs wild and starts dephosphorylating things like psilocybin.
So it seems pretty normal to me that hydroxyl groups get phosphorylated and that phosphate gets dephosphorylated from free molecules, especially ones that aren't incorporated into a larger phosphate backboned molecule like DNA.
So I don't really see much in the theory that psilocin is some sort of phosphate transport mechanism because the same reactions would occur anyways.
Psilocybin is a potent molecule, so once it came into being it was certainly capable of affecting selection by itself and doesn't need any biochemical pathway explanation to justify it's continued existence. I don't think it serves any useful purpose biochemically.
-FF
|
creamcorn
mad scientist


Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 2,962
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6348358 - 12/08/06 03:36 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: 4-hydroxylase is interesting because it 4-hydroxylates many indole substances. It's somewhat odd to hydroxylate in the 4 position.
so in other words, i have it backwards, 4-hydroxylase "adds" the 4-hydroxyl group, it doesn't take it away? and just to make me understand the terms, the reverse would be 4-dehydroxylase? (not that there's necessarily such a thing, but assuming there is that's how it would be named based on convention?)
this sounds like one of those things that i understand juuust enough to be totally wrong about it... like someone who just learned how to delete files on their computer erasing all their system files to "save space" (haha sorry thats an analogy in a field i actually work in)
Edited by creamcorn (12/08/06 03:43 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: creamcorn]
#6349899 - 12/09/06 01:18 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yep. Enzymes are named to best characterize their activity. Sometimes it can get confusing like phosphorylase and phosphatase. They name it phosphatase because it creates a phosphate, rather than dephosphorylase.
If it turns out that 4-hydroxylase only works on indoles they'll probably call it indole 4-hydroxylase. And N-methylase might be two different enzymes, one for each step. They would probably call them N-methylase and N,N-dimethylase.
> 4-hydroxylase "adds" the 4-hydroxyl group, it doesn't take it away?
Yep. I'll redo my diagram when I have some extra time. There are a couple errors in it... I think the baeocystin is in the wrong place and I want to try to fit everything in a little nicer and add norbaeocystin. I've also been back and forth on the structure of psilcybeen, but I'm pretty sure it's right.
The psilocin/psilocybin ratio issue is an interesting one. Most of the literature is a little wacked out and can't be effectively compared because everyone used different extraction methods and a lot of them falsely increase the psilocin content because they either selectively extract (acid-base extractions) or they let phosphatase convert too much psilocybin to psilocin during the extraction.
-FF
|
Acinaxuz
In SomnisVeritas.

Registered: 06/20/06
Posts: 231
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6370349 - 12/14/06 01:03 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I haven't read the entire post, haven't really had the time.
I did a post a few months back about tryptamines, and the purpose of psilocin/psilocybin. According to research, more evidence points to the purpose being like that of our own serotonin --regulating cycles-- as opposed to a defense system. Though, I will say that in regulating cycles in mushrooms, the end result is the dropping of the spores, it's the last punch in the cycle, and is no longer needed post spreading it's seed.
Just my take
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6370484 - 12/14/06 01:38 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: Psilocybin isn't really a "small molecule".
It certainly is a small molecule. Of all the molecules that living organisms make, molecules that are the size of monomeric units of biomacromolecules like proteins are definitely small. No matter how you slice it, on any scale, psilocybin is a small molecule. Even a small polypeptide is many times larger than psilocybin.
Quote:
It would be interesting to study the pathway and figure out what other uses the involved enzymes might have.
Yes. If the enzymes involved only produce psilocybin, then cells are expending a lot of energy just to produce psilocybin. If, on the other hand, the enzymes involved catalyze a large number of reactions, then psilocybin suddenly wouldn't seem to be such an important part of the mushroom .
Quote:
but adding carbon to nitrogen seems somewhat energy wasteful and would seem to be counterproductive in relation to consuming nitrogen.
Such potent psychoactives probably have their own evolutionary reasons simply due to the fact that they are potent, and so they certainly cause evolutionary effects and affect selection. Terrence McKenna theorizes that man has been using mushrooms as long as 150,000 years, possibly much longer. That is plenty of time to have greatly affected mushroom evolution. The fact is that mushrooms e
Some have suggested that the role of psilocybin is merely to carry away excess nitrogen, though I think this explanation is not considered likely.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Chemiker]
#6377583 - 12/16/06 06:47 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chemiker said: It certainly is a small molecule. Of all the molecules that living organisms make, molecules that are the size of monomeric units of biomacromolecules like proteins are definitely small. No matter how you slice it, on any scale, psilocybin is a small molecule. Even a small polypeptide is many times larger than psilocybin.
I disagree. That would be like saying that lake Superior is small because the ocean is many times it's size.
You can't compare any normal monomeric molecule to a massive polymeric biomolecule like polypeptides or nucleic acids. If you did that you'd have to then say that some DNA and polypeptides are "small" and that other's are large compared to other macromolecules. With that reasoning anything with a MW of 10,000 or less would have to be considered "small" and you'd have to say that psilocybin isn't just small it's minuscule.
I'm not saying that psilocybin is a particularly large molecule, but I wouldn't call it small. Comparing it with other biomolecules that play important roles you can't call it large. But you have to compare it to other molecules in the same process. It's obviously the largest molecule in the psilocybin pathway, and since that's usually what we're talking about you could say it was somewhat large since it's bigger than the other molecules we usually talk about. We're usually talking about solvents, nutrients, precursors, and other additives. In that context it is a larger molecule.
When I think of most molecules I've dealt with in chemistry I always consider it a medium sized molecule. Compared to other psychedelics it's not really that small either. It's larger than serotonin, and it's similar in size to many other related biomolecules, psychedelics, etc..
You just jumped an entire scale to think of it as small.
-FF
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6378351 - 12/17/06 12:09 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I disagree. That would be like saying that lake Superior is small because the ocean is many times it's size.
That's kind of a flawed analogy. Psilocybin MW: 284. That's 142 times larger than the smallest molecule, H2. How many times larger is that lake than the smallest body of water?
It doesn't really matter, but I consider it a small molecule. Molecules can't get much smaller. I mean, sure, it's not hydrogen gas, but it's small. Even as an organic chemist, I consider this a small molecule. In an article I just posted about LSD binding to 5HT2A, the authors call serotonin a small molecule. This just seems to be what it would be called by convention, so that's what I'm going by. Also, I'm an x-ray crystallographer and we commonly refer to two types of crystallography: one of them is "small molecule" crystallography and psiloc(yb)in would definitely fall into that category.
Please don't tell me what my logic is, okay? I consider it a small molecule. If you don't want to, then that's fine. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I think it's small. You don't. Big deal.
[just so we're clear: I call myself both an organic chemist and a crystallographer - most of my background is in organic chemistry and I've worked in organic synthesis. At heart, I consider myself an organic chemist. Currently, I'm an x-ray crystallographer and I don't do small molecules ]
PS - if this starts an argument, I'll delete this, because the judgement is subjective and I don't give a fuck if you call it large or small. That's what I calls it.
I'm curious: what is the difference between an evolutionary product and an evolutionary byproduct supposed to be?
there we go, now my post has purpose.
Edited by Chemiker (12/17/06 12:39 AM)
|
RigaCrypto
Hidden Heart

Registered: 06/22/06
Posts: 23
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Chemiker]
#6378505 - 12/17/06 02:05 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Re: the defense mechanism theory, I think it could only be resolved by "proper" scientific studies involving several species the mushroom has or might have had contact with in its evolutionary past. A similar situation exists with Erithroxylum Coca. The vegetal matter is benign to higher animals (including humans) and is actually eaten by some (including monkeys and llamas).
Coca leaves though are very toxic to insects that presumably tried to nibble on them in the plant's evolutionary past. It seems that cocaine inhibits the reuptake of octopamine, a neurotransmitter found in invertebrates, with a much higher efficiency than it does dopamine.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=47626&blobtype=pdf
In a similar fashion, psiloc(yb)in might have evolved as a specific defense against certain species which threatened the mushroom. But with research hindered by its illegal status, no wonder that such studies haven't been conducted.
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: RigaCrypto]
#6383660 - 12/18/06 03:52 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I've always just figured that it couldn't cost much energy for an organism to allow a metabolic intermediate build up in concentration. If this had helped organisms in the past, since some of those metabolic intermediates would be toxic to predatory organisms, then what would prevent an organism like psilocybe cubensis or the like from doing the same with psilocybin?
After all, evolution is a selective editing process, so if it doesn't harm the organism, there doesn't necessarily need to be a reason, other than that it worked for other organisms and wasn't selected against.
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Been thinking about this a lot [Re: Chemiker]
#6390099 - 12/20/06 12:37 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I've read the whole thread, but forgive me if I forgot something that was already covered.
Ever since I started learning about psilocybe mushrooms, I've been intrigued by how/why they developed the way they did. Shrooms are odd because they produce (mostly) desired hallucinogenic effects, yet they cause undesired nausea. These seem to be at odds, but they really aren't.
It isn't difficult to see how animals would associate the mushrooms with their hallucinogenic effects. Pets and small children are known to seek psilocybin mushrooms after trying them. The nausea, it seems to me, merely provides the mushroom with an additional propogation opportunity when consumed. Spores may not survive digestion, and if they do, the resulting shit might not be an adequate growing environment. Vomit is a different story. Yes it will be acidic, but will likely provide an ideal nutrient base for the mushroom to grow. The acidity might also serve as a sterilizing agent, giving the mushroom an advantage over competing bacteria/fungi. After the vomit, some spores are likely to remain in the digestive system so they can be deposited elsewhere.
From the perspective of the animal, they eat the mushroom (negative taste), experience nausea (another negative), then experience the hallucinogenic effects of the mushroom (the desired benefit). Observation shows us that the hallucinogenic benefits of the mushroom are enough to bring the animal back to the mushroom again and again. And each time (before the advent of sewers) the mushroom benefits by having its spores deposited in new, nutrient-rich environments.
It seems that amanita muscaria, which also causes nausea but provides hallucinations, employs the same strategy.
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Been thinking about this a lot [Re: pokermush]
#6390769 - 12/20/06 03:10 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
pokermush said: Shrooms are odd because they produce (mostly) desired hallucinogenic effects, yet they cause undesired nausea. These seem to be at odds, but they really aren't.
It's not odd at all according to the mechanics of evolution. Mushrooms can't intend to produce chemicals for our ingestion, so it's possible for any organism to produce a chemical that we either find very desirable, very undesirable, or somewhere in between.
Pets and small children are known to seek psilocybin mushrooms after trying them.
Reference for you claim about pets and small children? Everything I've read indicates that animals DO NOT self administer hallucinogens, including psilocybin.
The nausea, it seems to me, merely provides the mushroom with an additional propogation opportunity when consumed.
?
Vomit is a different story. Yes it will be acidic, but will likely provide an ideal nutrient base for the mushroom to grow.
Are you at all sure about this?
From the perspective of the animal, they eat the mushroom (negative taste)
Speak for yourself. I love the taste of shrooms. I don't see why you should presume that all animals dislike the taste.
then experience the hallucinogenic effects of the mushroom (the desired benefit).
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that animals would find being under the influence of a hallucinogen beneficial. Humans are the only animals known to self-administer psilocybin bearing mushrooms, so it seems that the cognitive effects are only desired by humans. From an animal's point of view, being intoxicated on a hallucinogen for 4 to 6 hours could be seriously dangerous.
Observation shows us that the hallucinogenic benefits of the mushroom are enough to bring the animal back to the mushroom again and again.
This is the first time I've ever heard of anybody making such an observation. Do you have any credible sources to back that up?
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: Been thinking about this a lot [Re: Chemiker]
#6390877 - 12/20/06 03:39 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I've read so many different things, I don't remember exactly where I read that pets had been observed eating psilocybin mushrooms. I think it was in one of my books, but I'm not sure. If I find it again I'll post here. Basically, it said that pets (dogs) had been observed seeking and eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. Is there any reason to think that an animal consuming shrooms wouldn't enjoy the experience? Even if it might leave the animal more susceptible to danger, if the animal enjoys the experience it will come back for more.
I know that organisms can't intend to evolve anything. But in general, only traits which enhance survival/reproduction persist. That suggests that psilocybin directly contributes to the survival and/or propogation of the mushroom.
I don't know that vomiting would be an effective way of distributing spores to a new location. That is speculation on my part. However, imagining a stomach of partially digested seeds, roots, grasses, leaves, vegetables, or fruits, it's easy to see how those stomach contents could provide an excellent growing environment. I would expect the mushrooms to grow well from the natural vomit and dung of most animals.
Basically, I'm hypothesizing about how the psychedelic properties and the nasea-inducing properties of psilocybe mushrooms would provide a significant evolutionary advantage.
Edit: I had read so often on here that people can't stand the taste that I just assumed they taste bad. You're right about the taste. I ate my first ones a few hours ago and they tasted great! I would eat them just for the taste even if they had no psychoactive properties.
Edited by pokermush (12/21/06 01:06 AM)
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Been thinking about this a lot [Re: pokermush]
#6403867 - 12/28/06 01:26 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think most people agree that they don't taste very good. Of course, some people like the taste or will just eat anything. Taste has a large genetic component so it's going to be very different for different people and is surly different for animals.
I have also read reports of animals (dogs) enjoying tripping and liking to eat shrooms.
We better stop talking about animals dosing, even if self administered, as it's against policy for some reason. I'm sure at least one mod has his finger poised over the lock button right now.
-FF
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Chemiker]
#6403876 - 12/28/06 01:34 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chemiker said: I've always just figured that it couldn't cost much energy for an organism to allow a metabolic intermediate build up in concentration. If this had helped organisms in the past, since some of those metabolic intermediates would be toxic to predatory organisms, then what would prevent an organism like psilocybe cubensis or the like from doing the same with psilocybin?
The fact that it's not toxic. In fact, it's quite non-toxic.
Quote:
After all, evolution is a selective editing process, so if it doesn't harm the organism, there doesn't necessarily need to be a reason, other than that it worked for other organisms and wasn't selected against.
There may well be a biochemical use for psilocin/cybin. Or, more likely, one or more of the enzymes involved in the biochemical pathway is usefull in another capacity.
The fact that psilocin is highly potent means it will be actively involved in selection. Something that produces a substantial effect can't be said to just be some extra DNA that happened to get there somehow and just persists because it isn't selected against.
-FF
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6404895 - 12/28/06 12:51 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
fastfred said: Chemiker said: then what would prevent an organism like psilocybe cubensis or the like from doing the same with psilocybin?
The fact that it's not toxic.
Psilocybin is definitely toxic.
Just for example:
Hallucinogens must be classed as toxic. p.10
Shultes, R E.; Hoffman, A.; and Ratsch, C. Plants of the Gods. Healing Arts Press, Rochester, Vermont, 1998.
In fact, it's quite non-toxic.
Psilocybin is inherently toxic. You are equating the word "toxic" with "often fatal at normal doses", which is not the sense I am using. In a technical, psilocybin is toxic and at low doses (as it produces an undeniable intoxication - something which is pointed out in Plants of the Gods, as well as many other texts, but I'm counting on you not to argue with Albert Hoffman's use of the term).
The fact that psilocin is highly potent means it will be actively involved in selection.
What species is it potent in?
I fail to see how any chemical can be "actively" involved in evolution.
Something that produces a substantial effect can't be said to just be some extra DNA that happened to get there somehow and just persists because it isn't selected against.
This is exactly how evolution works in many cases. Random mutations or gene modifications, in most cases, result in a change that hampers the organism. In other cases, the change might have no effect on the fitness of the organism and thus nothing will select against that change.
Your argument does not follow the principles of evolution. Remember: evolution is not a "forward looking" process. The changes leading to the evolution of species can result from accidental changes in genes or from 'gene shuffling' mechanisms already found in the organism. This does not allow for the organism to direct the production of a given chemical like psilocybin in order for another species to consume. Evolution is a passive process.
Your argument is bordering on the teleological and your conclusion (last sentence) is unsound.
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Chemiker]
#6405336 - 12/28/06 02:49 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin
Quote:
Psilocybin is a naturally-occurring compound found in high concentrations in some species of Psilocybe and Panaeolus (collectively called "psilocybin mushrooms" or "psilocybian mushrooms"), and at low levels in a large number of species of the Agaricales.
If it is present in many different species of mushrooms, it seems more likely that it has historically served a broader useful evolutionary purpose. It isn't hard to imagine a few species evolving higher-psilocybin production from a common ancestor that only produces small amounts.
This raises an interesting (but OT) question: What other mushrooms contain psilocybin? Common Agaricus varieties? Are all grocers guilty of distributing a controlled substance? Could an agaricus strain be developed that had very high psilocybin/psilocin content? Based on what I quoted from the wikipedia entry, the answer seems to be "yes".
And if psilocybin is present in Agaricus, is it possible that it is related somehow to the love people have for these mushrooms? Do very small amounts of psilocybin contribute to the well-being of people or animals in some way? Perhaps something as small as amplifying the taste receptors on the tongue, or leaving someone slightly less depressed for a short time? If so, it is then easy to see how some mushrooms would specialize in psilocybin production to make its fruit more desirable.
Edited by pokermush (12/28/06 03:13 PM)
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: pokermush]
#6405607 - 12/28/06 03:51 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It would be interesting if higher plants were found to contain psilocybin at some point. This the case with ergot alkalods: some higher plants (such as Morning Glories, of course) contain ergoline alkaloids.
Technically, the grocer would have to be aware of the fact that he's distributing a controlled substance and in order to prosecute, the state would have to demonstrate this knowledge. Not likely.
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Chemiker]
#6405805 - 12/28/06 05:07 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
True about the intent of the grocer. However if common food mushrooms contain some actives, I think it gives psilocybe growers a bit more leeway to try to classify their cubies as food, not drugs. Here in Utah we already have a law that says naturally occurring amounts of controlled substances are permitted in foods and food supplements (distributing it as a drug is still covered by other sections.) Treating cubies as food might change their legal status in some states.
And if the grocer's mushrooms contained psilocin/psilocybin, potent strains could probably be developed. How cool would that be?
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: pokermush]
#6406414 - 12/28/06 09:04 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm all for genetically modified "food"
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Chemiker]
#6407212 - 12/29/06 04:32 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chemiker said: Psilocybin is definitely toxic.
No. Not in any sense of the word.
> Psilocybin is inherently toxic.
No. By what measure are you trying to claim this?
> In a technical [sense], psilocybin is toxic and at low doses (as it produces an undeniable intoxication...
Intoxication != toxic.
Toxic: Containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death.
Toxic: Extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful.
> I fail to see how any chemical can be "actively" involved in evolution.
Don't straw man me, I said "actively involved in selection" not evolution.
> Your argument does not follow the principles of evolution.
You go on to basically accuse me of anthropomorphizing evolution. I said nothing of the sort.
There is an energy penalty for any gene. If it is not advantageous then it is slightly selected against. Further, if there is no advantage, it won't become widely distributed through the entire species' gene pool, and will certainly not attain 100% expression in dozens of species as it has.
I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing. I don't think your idea that the pathway is somehow just an accident that has such little effect that it's not actively selected against holds any water whatsoever. I have no idea what "principle of evolution" you think holds that a random, non-advantageous mutation will somehow magically spread throughout a species and also be maintained across species over an evolutionary timescale. I think perhaps your reasoning has wandered off course and become unreasonable.
-FF
|
Chemiker
Stranger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 367
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6409279 - 12/29/06 09:36 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
fastfred said: > Psilocybin is inherently toxic.
No. By what measure are you trying to claim this?
By the same measure that Hoffman was using it. This is the definition of toxic that I know is used by convention by scientists (or at least scientists within my particular socio-linguistic group). If you want to insist that the lay-definition is correct, go ahead. I disagree and I am using it in a different sense.
Your question is pretty stupid. I just cited a reference for that definition. It's not like I imagined it.
Intoxication != toxic.
Okay, honestly, you don't know what you're talking about. The book I just cited was by Albert Hoffmann and R E Shultzes. Unless you can find me a better definition, then I'm going with that one. Right now, you're just contradicting them and what I know to be the meaning of the word "toxic" by convention.
If a drug produces intoxication, then it is toxic. I shouldn't have to be a linguist to explain this to you.
Toxic: Containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death.
Ok, lets see, one definition, from where? Let me guess, answers.com.
Can you deny that psilocybin can cause death? On what grounds can you claim that psilocybin can't be poisonous?
I'm getting tired of arguing with you. I don't mind when people are as ignorant as you, but I do mind when ignorant people like you continue to argue, without good reason.
Toxic: Extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful.
That is not the scientific definition. Did you just make that definition.
What the fuck is your point anyway? How about I just repeat the definition that I have in one of my posts above and assert that you're wrong? Do you really think that just saying, "nope, here's the definition of toxic" means anything? Especially when, at least I have a credible reference saying that psilocybin is undeniably toxic. Go ahead and make up any definition you like. It doesn't over-ride the one I just gave and I could go out and find just as many definitions equivalent to the one I just gave. Who's right then? We both give 10 definitions and they contradict each other's definition.
Don't straw man me, I said "actively involved in selection" not evolution.
What's the difference? Chemicals can't think. How could psilocybin possibly be actively involved in selection? Psilocybin can't select anything. Other organisms or circumstances will select for or against psilocybin bearing mushrooms.
You go on to basically accuse me of anthropomorphizing evolution. I said nothing of the sort.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're way off track. You don't seem to have a clear idea of what you're talking about and I'm going to say so.
There is an energy penalty for any gene.
And if that gene doesn't cost enough energy to wipe the species off the face of the earth, then I suppose that the gene will just go on existing.
What about genes involved in energy transfer pathways? They cost energy, yes, but they are also neccessary.
If it is not advantageous then it is slightly selected against.
I didn't say that it wasn't advantageous. Rather, what I'm getting at is that its origin could have been random (it probably was). Sure, it costs the organism a little and that means it's selected against slightly, but that doesn't mean that it should be extinct by now, does it?
Further, if there is no advantage, it won't become widely distributed through the entire species' gene pool
Patently false.
and will certainly not attain 100% expression in dozens of species as it has.
How do you know that other species don't have genes for psilocybin production and they simply aren't expressed?
I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing.
Many species produce small molecules. Those small molecules also happen to drive predators away, by convincing them not to eat the substance. Perhaps there is a more generalized pathway in organisms for altering metabolism so as to produce new small molecules essentially at random.
When humans reproduce, this is done with the immune system. Changing the molecular thumbprints of the immune system has an advantage. In a parallel way, changing the small molecules that build up during metabolism (or those built by metabolic processes) also has an advantage: prospective predators can't adapt to them.
I'm saying that psilocybin could have been a metabolic intermediate. The genes in the pathway producing psilocybin were altered so that psilocybin was allowed to build up, instead of being processed to something else quickly.
Clearly, what I propose requires that psilocybin have some other known function. Since we don't know the function of psilocybin, due to such harsh restrictions on possesing this organism, testing my hypothesis will have to wait. I think perhaps your reasoning has wandered off course and become unreasonable.
Fair enough, but I don't anything logically inconsistent with my hypothesis. You must bear in mind that it is just a hypothesis at this point. I don't have evidence to back me up. This is simply a possibility that I am proposing. There's nothing unreasonable about it.
|
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: Chemiker]
#6409969 - 12/30/06 05:24 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|

this is great entertainment, and thanks for keeping it gentlemanly, fellas. much appreciated
-------------------- buh
|
VampireSlayer
killing ghosts,zombies andvampires forlife


Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 2,529
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#6410067 - 12/30/06 08:33 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
they say psilocybin is about as toxic as caffiene and caffiene kills lots of mamals if they eat enough so maybe it kills animals just not humans...
-------------------- I Don't come to fight flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness in high and low places
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: VampireSlayer]
#6437170 - 01/08/07 01:50 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chemiker said: Psilocybin is definitely toxic.
From: "Rebuttal to french article on mushroom poisoning" by J. Gartz, G Samorini, F. Festi
"Several decades of basic and psychiatric research around the world - involving thousands of human subjects as well as animal experimentation - have led to the recognition that psilocybin is a substance of remarkably low toxicity, with a safety margin of several hundred times between a psychoactive dosage and the LD 50 dosage. [LD 50 = "lethal dosage 50" or the dosage that is fatal to 50% of the test subjects]"
"Even though hundreds of thousands of laypersons around the world - from Australia to Europe and the United States - have experimented with using some of the most *diverse* mushroom species of *highly variable* alkaloid content, there has never been a SINGLE fatality as a result of these experiments." -----------------------------------
I don't think your citation holds up. As to the rest of your arguments I respectfully call bullshit.
-FF
|
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: fastfred]
#6438027 - 01/08/07 11:59 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
nice citation.
i agree, psilocybin does not show the properties of a toxic substance, and is generally pretty safe so long as it's respected, and people are around if needed to catch you when you fall, and talk to you when you think your skin is dissolving.
-------------------- buh
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#6438385 - 01/08/07 02:01 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Psilocybin is highly toxic to organized religion and authoritarian governments. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
Liquidkick
H2O
Registered: 05/03/02
Posts: 2,635
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#6440010 - 01/08/07 10:16 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
KAZZAM!
|
MajorDick
notbeingadick


Registered: 10/14/06
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Westchestertonfieldville,...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Liquidkick]
#6451343 - 01/12/07 06:52 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'd like to toss the word 'Neurotoxin' in. Is there any reason that any psychoactive substance doesn't fall into this category? How can you argue about the word toxic? A lot of stuff is "toxic" in many different ways.
As to WHY the mushrooms produce psilocybin: They just DO! As to WHY any fungi or plant may produce a psychoactive substance: Coincidence.. I'm just glad they do!
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MajorDick]
#6451372 - 01/12/07 07:13 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
To be neurotoxic it would have to be toxic to neurons, which is not the case.
> As to WHY the mushrooms produce psilocybin: They just DO!
You have such deep insight into evolution and biochemistry...
If only you were there on the HMS Beagle back in 1831 you could have saved Darwin all that trouble.
-FF
|
MajorDick
notbeingadick


Registered: 10/14/06
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Westchestertonfieldville,...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6451411 - 01/12/07 07:43 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah I wasn't sure if neurotoxin was gonna be the right. There are several blahblahtoxicitys tho I'm sure hallucinogens fall into one of them.
I don't think psiloc(yb)in has anything to do with a defense mechanism. As stated above several times that would be illogical and rather pointless. Sorry, I can't offer any theory as to what the hell it's actually there for. I'm not even really sure you could call it an 'evolutionary bi-product'.
|
creamcorn
mad scientist


Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 2,962
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MajorDick]
#6451869 - 01/12/07 11:08 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MajorDick said: I'm not even really sure you could call it an 'evolutionary bi-product'.
If you believe in evolution, is not everything involving life an evolutionary by-product? Not being a smart-ass with you, I certainly don't have a good answer to offer up either... and maybe its splitting hairs even more (which seems to be a theme in this thread), but would a random mutation still be considered evolutionary? Maybe not the instant it happens, but whether or not it persists over time I believe would be. There's obviously a huge variety of species containing these actives and they've all evolved to generally have different amounts and ratios of them... so time and evolution certainly must have shaped it, even if it was a fluke occurance to begin with?
Perhaps insight can be gleaned from this fact that it does vary, a study into maybe why some species contain different amounts would be a first step back, including how these species are related to one another and other factors such as their geographic distributions and such, rather than trying to jump all the way back to the beginning to see where it came from first. If we are to make the assumption that whatever purpose it serves the organism is the same across the board, then the different concentrations would be an excellent question to ask first I'd think. I.e., though I personally don't feel its simply a defense mechanism, if it were, then we must question what threats the organisms face to defend against - why would some need (or have evolved) stronger defenses than others?
Edited by creamcorn (01/12/07 11:15 AM)
|
MajorDick
notbeingadick


Registered: 10/14/06
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Westchestertonfieldville,...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: creamcorn]
#6451881 - 01/12/07 11:13 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I was thinkg that in the shower a thismorning.
But also this.. How do we know the mushrooms HAVE evolved at all. Are there fossils.. Have we observed any real evolutionary change in them. A few creatures on this planet have actually been thought to have not evolved sense before the dinosaurs. Perhaps fungi is the one and only perfect species.
Just food for thought.
EDIT: Perhaps fungi's are the one and only perfect specieses'. How the hell do you make that sentence work? fuck it im tired
Edited by MajorDick (01/12/07 11:15 AM)
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MajorDick]
#6452073 - 01/12/07 12:35 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe this belongs in its own thread, but oh well...
How about this: Humans are an evolutionary by-product of psilocybin.
The basic thought is that more complex brains, more intelligence, and more complex social structures, are going to benefit more from psilocybin. In a way, psilocybin accentuates the evolutionary advantage of intelligence, providing better social connectivity and allowing the consumer to more effectively understand him/herself and their connection to others.
Those who consume psilocybin mushrooms from time to time would likely, on average, have better social standing. And the more intelligent the person is, the greater the effect.
This thought came to me while on a recent trip, when I noticed an instinctive response (can't really describe it) to the letter "T" that was formed with rounded edges, making it look like a mushroom. That instinctive attraction and fascination with that shape made me wonder if it had somehow been important in our evolution.
|
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: fastfred]
#6452458 - 01/12/07 02:47 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
hey don't be snippy FF, you were doing so well!
does anyone here have a link to the theory about fungal spores arriving on earth from outside the solar system? i've only heard about it, and am pretty keen to exercise my skepticism muscles on that one.
-------------------- buh
|
MajorDick
notbeingadick


Registered: 10/14/06
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Westchestertonfieldville,...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: pokermush]
#6453935 - 01/12/07 10:11 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pokermush said: The basic thought is that more complex brains, more intelligence, and more complex social structures, are going to benefit more from psilocybin. In a way, psilocybin accentuates the evolutionary advantage of intelligence, providing better social connectivity and allowing the consumer to more effectively understand him/herself and their connection to others.
Those who consume psilocybin mushrooms from time to time would likely, on average, have better social standing. And the more intelligent the person is, the greater the effect.
That sounds good.
Although if you delete the word evolutionary from it you could also call it an argument for 'Psilocybin as a part of Intelligent Design'. And I know we're all open minded enough to consider the possibility that God(s) placed mushrooms here FOR us, or to test our temptations, or as a 'greater plan'. No? Me neither. Life is a big ass puzzle of chemical coincidences.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MajorDick]
#6454475 - 01/13/07 01:51 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
> does anyone here have a link to the theory about fungal spores arriving on earth from outside the solar system?
Google transpermia and panspermia... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=transpermia http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=panspermia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia "Panspermia is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already in the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies."
"The first known mention of the idea was in the writings of the 5th century BCE Greek philosopher Anaxagoras."
"Panspermia per se does not remove the need for life to originate somewhere, but does extend the time frame and environments available."
"Interplanetary transfer of material is well documented, as evidenced by meteorites of Martian origin found on Earth."
"A second prominent proponent of panspermia is Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, who along with Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. This suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Crick argues that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, fired randomly in all directions is the best, most cost effective strategy for seeding life on a compatible planet at some time in the future. The strategy might have been pursued by a civilization facing catastrophic annihilation, or hoping to terraform planets for later colonization."
"The Precambrian fossil record indicates that life appeared soon after the Earth was formed. This would imply that life appears in several hundred million years when conditions are favorable."
Crick believed that DNA came about naturally, but that it would have taken a much longer time than the short time from the formation of the earth until the appearance of life. (several hundred million years)
Crick pointed out that there are many millions of stars that are thousands of times older than our solar system. He suggested that life would have had plenty of time to spring forth in that timeframe and then travel to our solar system.
He thought that perhaps an advanced civilization facing destruction might have gathered up their toughest and hardiest forms of life, and possibly even engineered them to be even tougher, and then fired them out into the cosmic abyss, hoping to preserve life itself in some form or another.
"After ribozymes were discovered, Crick became much less interested in panspermia because it was then much easier to imagine the pre-biotic origins of life as being made possible by some set of simple self-replicating polymers."
It's a very interesting idea. You really only have to get a single self replicating molecule (like DNA or RNA) to land in a good environment and life will spring forth in all it's amazing diversity within a short timeframe.
I think that even with our current primitive space technology we would try the same thing if we were facing destruction. There might be thousands of years notice of cosmic disaster, but even if we had only 20 years notice I bet we would try firing off some DNA to seed the universe.
It should also be noted that Crick discovered the structure of DNA under the influence of LSD. It's a fact that he insisted not be made public while he was still alive.
"In the late Sixties, Crick was a founder member of Soma, a legalize-cannabis group named after the drug in Huxley's novel Brave New World. He even put his name to a famous letter to The Times in 1967 calling for a reform in the drugs laws."
Anyways, sorry for the crazy cut-and-paste job, but I hope it was informative.
-FF
|
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: fastfred]
#6455554 - 01/13/07 01:21 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
very much so. especially that bit about Francis Crick being one of us: right on.
thanks FF, you're a real asset to the shroomery these days
-------------------- buh
|
creamcorn
mad scientist


Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 2,962
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#6455735 - 01/13/07 02:13 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
i've still had this thread on my mind, kicking around thoughts based on my previous comments, and thought of another question
do we even have proven scientific answers as to why members of the plant kingdom contain the alkaloids they do, insofar as the purpose they serve the plant? i.e. some easy ones might be what does caffeine do for coffee? what does THC do for marijuana? maybe we can take some hints from the plant kingdom. i'm having a hard time looking into it, any sort of searches including words like "purpose" only returns results for the purpose it serves man when ingested 
i wonder how many yet undiscovered compounds are present in animals as well could be isolated and found to be psychoactive... there's the obvious example of toad venom, and i seem to recall a psychoactive fish as well though i can't remember the species or the active it contains...
just a little more food for thought
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: creamcorn]
#6456404 - 01/13/07 06:25 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I forgot to mention that there was an experiment in 2005 that bolstered the idea of panspermia quite a bit.
http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8297
"In an experiment led by Leopoldo Sancho from the Complutense University of Madrid, two species of lichen – Rhizocarpon geographicum and Xanthoria elegans – were sealed in a capsule and launched on a Russian Soyuz rocket on 31 May 2005."
"Once in Earth orbit, the lid of the container opened and the samples were exposed to the space environment for nearly 15 days before the lid resealed and the capsule returned to Earth."
"The lichens were subjected to the vacuum of space and to temperatures ranging from -20°C on the night side of the Earth, to 20°C on the sunlit side. They were also exposed to glaring ultraviolet radiation of the Sun."
"The experiment adds weight to the theory of panspermia – that life could somehow be transported between planets, perhaps by hitching a ride on an asteroid."
"'To our big surprise, everything went fine after the flight,' says Rene Demets, ESA’s project scientist for the Foton project. 'The lichens were in exactly the same shape as before flight.'"
ESA Foton M2 Mission Homepage http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/index.cfm?act=default.page&level=11&page=1769
Check out the links, the first one is a good read with links to other articles about speculation that we could put plant and microbial life on Mars.
So while these experiments are interesting and prove that space can be survived... 15 days is a long ways from the hundreds of thousands to millions of years it would take to cross interstellar space.
Even if we are the first life in the universe, which I think is highly unlikely, I think it would be worthwhile to find organisms that can survive space and start firing them out there.
Even if panspermia hasn't happened yet, I'm sure that it will happen within our lifetimes when we start sending life to Mars.
While it's no interplanetary flight, I always thought it would be a great idea to load a model rocket with spores which would then be ejected at the top of the flight by the chute ejection charge. You could easily blast millions or billions of spores out at 2,000+ feet. I bet those spores would be able to cover a huge area.
-FF
|
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: fastfred]
#6456489 - 01/13/07 07:07 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
While it's no interplanetary flight, I always thought it would be a great idea to load a model rocket with spores which would then be ejected at the top of the flight by the chute ejection charge. You could easily blast millions or billions of spores out at 2,000+ feet. I bet those spores would be able to cover a huge area.
-FF
me too. but if we are having these concepts in our consciousness now regarding possible future actions, then it follows that these events have already actually occurred, elsewhere, elsetime. by some viewpoints, anyway.
so does this evidence debunk the sporesfromspace theory, or not?
-------------------- buh
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#6456551 - 01/13/07 07:39 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shirley knott said: me too. but if we are having these concepts in our consciousness now regarding possible future actions, then it follows that these events have already actually occurred, elsewhere, elsetime. by some viewpoints, anyway.
Very astute. That's a very shroomy thought. 100% correct.
Quote:
so does this evidence debunk the sporesfromspace theory, or not?
If anything they lend credibility to the idea that it's possible. I don't think that it's really a viable theory though.
I guess it depends on how you look at things. But the idea that life was already trucking along and a mushroom spore wafted down and started growing is way to far-fetched.
If the panspermia theory is correct then the "spore from space" was the beginning of life on earth. All life on earth would have come from that spore, not just one organism.
Archea (primitive bacteria) were the first form of life on earth. Fungi have been around in almost the same form since (or maybe even before) life crawled up on land.
But who's to say? It could have been any type of life that started it all. Perhaps a mushroom spore from another planet or solar system landed on earth. It may have been burned up and been so damaged that only a few basepairs ended up surviving, but still enough to spawn all life on earth.
-FF
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MajorDick]
#6456583 - 01/13/07 07:57 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MajorDick said: How do we know the mushrooms HAVE evolved at all. Are there fossils.. Have we observed any real evolutionary change in them.
All life evolved, and all life continues to evolve.
There are plenty of evolutionary changes going on to this day. We have the redspored cubes' and the albino cubes. These have appeared in the last decade.
People seem to get caught up in the idea that you need fossils to prove evolution or that it takes massive timescales to see it happen. Evolution is a constant process and you can observe it happen thousands of times even within the tiny timespan of a human life.
As for the fossil record... Fungi evolved about the same time as plant life, and have been important symbiots of plants as far back as the fossil record of plant life exists.
It is controvercial weither plants or fungi evolved first. Some claim that plants came first and fungi later formed a symbiotic relationship with plants. Others claim the opposite. Some say that it was only through symbiosis that plants became so successfull and so they must have evolved simultaneously.
The fossil record indicates that the earliest plants lived in symbiosis with fungi. Very early fosilized plant roots have been found with microrhizae attached. There have also been fosilized (mushtoom) fruits found which show that mushrooms have been present in much the same form almost as far back as plants.
So yes, mushroom form has changed very little since long before animals or even insects were around to eat them. Of course, I'm only talking about the standard mushroom shaped fruitbodies. All the tens-of-thousands of variations that you see today are the result of evolution.
-FF
|
MajorDick
notbeingadick


Registered: 10/14/06
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Westchestertonfieldville,...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6456593 - 01/13/07 08:00 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Damn.. That was a crazy read.
I'm all for Panspermia theory's. In fact, thats my only real explanation for life on Earth. Or at least catalyzing the existence of it.
If it's possible anything arrived on earth on a meteor or even brought by a space faring being then it very well would have happened several if not hundreds of times. "Multiple Panspermia"? Whatever.
It's just part of my "Life is a big ass puzzle of chemical coincidences" theory. The building blocks of life came about slowly over time from various carp landing on Earth. Most of it between the time the crust cooled and the atmosphere formed.
Our Universe is colonizing.
|
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: fastfred]
#6456595 - 01/13/07 08:00 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
ok, so tell me about the relationship, similarilities, differences, connections between archaea and fungi.
-------------------- buh
|
MajorDick
notbeingadick


Registered: 10/14/06
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Westchestertonfieldville,...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#6456627 - 01/13/07 08:19 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Things also in effect "de-evolve" that is to say they become a more simple form of life.
Quote:
The fossil record indicates that the earliest plants lived in symbiosis with fungi. Very early fosilized plant roots have been found with microrhizae attached. There have also been fosilized (mushtoom) fruits found which show that mushrooms have been present in much the same form almost as far back as plants.
That fully supports the theory of mine that I was typing at the same time 
It may have been difficult for the mushrooms to spread over our planet whenever they 'arrived' and so had to evolve away from a symbiotic relationship with the plant life. Whatever the case was it's obvious that plant life formed on Earth first. Thats what gave up an atmosphere. The atmosphere that the shrooms we know today need to survive. Not saying they didn't evolve into thriving on Oxygen, just saying.
And please note that what you quoted me up there were not questions. I know they sounded like questions, but questions end with question marks.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#6456816 - 01/13/07 09:54 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shirley knott said: ok, so tell me about the relationship, similarilities, differences, connections between archaea and fungi.
Wow! That's a tough one.
Archaea are believed to be the oldest forms of life. They were once classified as bacteria, but modern understanding of genetics shows them to be quite different. They have differences in cell membrane construction, ribosomes, and tRNA. The cell membranes are like nothing else, and some of the ribosomes and tRNAs are more like eukaryotic organisms than like bacteria.
It is believed that eukaryotic (cells with a nucleus) organisms evolved nuclei by consuming or somehow getting a prokaryotic bacteria or archaea inside them. AKA "the endosymbiotic theory". So the idea is that a bacteria might have swallowed an archaea or vice versa and they formed a symbiosis, eventually evolving into eukaryotes.
Fungi are the simplest of eukaryotes, they are much closer to archaea and bacteria than plants and animals are.
Archaea don't really have much of a relationship to fungi. They are just really strange microorganisms.
Archaea cell membranes are mostly made from isoprenoid chains, bacteria use peptidoglycan, fungi use chitin, plants use cellulose.
Archaea are often extremophiles (they like extreme environments). They are also the only organisms that form trans-membrane phospholipids.
People are still arguing about archaea quite a bit. There are a lot of strange differences in them. It's odd that all bacteria would use certain genetic mechanisms, all eukaryotic organisms would use another, yet the archaea use a strange mix of the two or have features that are similar to each.
Who knows? Perhaps they are the remnants of the original "spore from space".
Edited by fastfred (01/14/07 07:56 PM)
|
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: fastfred]
#6459234 - 01/14/07 04:15 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Archaea cell membranes are like nothing else ..... more like eukaryotic organisms than like bacteria. ..... believed that eukaryotic (cells with a nucleus) organisms evolved nuclei by consuming or somehow getting a prokaryotic bacteria or archaea inside them. .... the idea is that a bacteria might have swallowed an archaea or vice versa and they formed a symbiosis, eventually evolving into prokaryotes. ...fungi are the simplest of prokaryotes, they are much closer to archaea and bacteria than plants and animals are. .... archaea ..... strange .... odd ..... bacteria use certain genetic mechanisms, all prokaryotic organisms use another.... the archaea use a strange mix of the two..... perhaps they are the remnants of the original "spore from space".
wait, so fungi are eukaryotes, and eukaryotes are bigger/later/evolved from/upgrades compared to archaea? so fungi could have evolved into archaea? or from archaea?
Quote:
... archaea ..... strange .... odd ..... bacteria use certain genetic mechanisms, all prokaryotic organisms use another.... the archaea use a strange mix of the two.....
so why not: bacteria (father) + archaea (girlfriend) + fungi (mother) = first eukaryotes, start of possibility for creative growth and symbiosis ?
Quote:
the idea that life was already trucking along and a mushroom spore wafted down and started growing .....
what about a spore from one place, a bacteria from another, and perhaps archaea from a third origin? stands to reason that if all these places are firing off bizarre complex life-seeds into the universe, each one a survival specialist carrying a flick-knife and with a first in philosophy from Cambridge, there's gonna be a possibility of holiday romance?
shirley
p.s. they're getting nearer, look: new life form p.s.2 also check this from 1998, moves #11 by yours truly : corewave glass bead game .... this was at about the time i first discovered the shroomery while it was still hosted at the lycaeum. didn't register for a while, just lurked at first
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shirley knott]
#6460144 - 01/14/07 08:06 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It stands to reason that aliens would have fired off a good variety of types of life, hoping that one might survive.
Perhaps they were even advanced enough to fire off the spores into solar systems that were just forming so that the life would be present in the solar dust as it was forming into a planet. Then the spore would just have to wait until the planet formed and became suitable for life. That would avoid the problem of having to survive atmospheric entry.
The ultimate discovery would be to find one of these initial spores. If we could find that we could learn so much about the origins of life and maybe even find a message from the ancient alien civilization(s) that sent them out.
-FF
|
TheBotanist
Stranger
Registered: 03/02/06
Posts: 48
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6460462 - 01/14/07 09:37 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I always just thought of it as a byproduct of the plants metabolic pathways and it just so happens to be hallucinigenic.
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6468378 - 01/17/07 01:02 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The problem I see with the "spores from space" theory is that fungus is a decomposer of existing organic material. They would require an existing ecology to germinate and survive.
It is far more plausible, IMO, that simpler single-celled organisms have successfully made the journey from one planet to another.
Also, the planet would have to be already formed and cooled. When the dust collects to form the planet, it is far too hot for any life form to survive.
|
beatnicknick
The Innovator


Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1,074
Last seen: 13 years, 5 days
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Silven]
#6468632 - 01/17/07 06:55 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silven said: Schmoppy wrote:
Quote:
As to the tripping being a deterrent, I think that the only reason you were disgusted by eggs was the fact that you knew that it was eggs which made you sick. For an animal, I doubt they would be able to make the distinction if the action is any more than 15 minutes after ingestion, and even then, tripping is not really an obviously bad feeling. It would be a pretty pathetic line of defense if your deterrent could possibly be desireable.
I'd have to disagree about tripping being a pathetic deterrent. Say that something small, the size of a full grown raccoon, ate a few mushrooms and was having a level 3 trip by our definition. The woods could potentially be a VERY dangerous place for that little animal to be completely delerious and unknowing of what is going on.
Also, remember that some animals have a very good memory and I think it is very possible they could relate the eating of a mushroom to their sickness. I highly doubt that non-intellectual animals could find much enjoyment through being delerious or hallucinating. It could cause some serious problems to them when they need their heightened senses to navigate safely through their forest home.
Though for my theory, an animal would have to ingest more than just one mushroom, and the bitter taste of mushrooms could possibly deter that animal from eating any more, I think psilocybin is just a second defense for mushrooms from bigger animals that eat more than one mushroom, where-as the psilocin/psilocybin is more of a front-line for insects that are succeptible to it's effects.
----------------------------------------------------
I also saw an experiment with spiders that might be somewhat related to this thread. It showed the effects of multiple drugs on the same type of spider. It used marijuana, LSD, heroin, and a few other less known compounds. The THC caused the spider to make sporadic webs, lacking the intricate design that most spiders make when their webs are un-touched by something that could break it. The heroin made the web even more sporadic with large holes where there should have been web, and the LSD did basically the same as the heroin. The other drugs caused this to a lesser effect, but about the same as the THC.
(now I blow my hits on my spider friend that lives on my front porch )
Anyway, hopefully I said something atleast slightly intelligent or useful.
- Silven
Mountain lions trip for fun. A few other species do as well. Refer to the book "Botany of Desire." I read one part about mind-altering drugs, specifically Halucinogens. It described some species of sheep or goat type animal that would wear down its teeth from gnawing on a certain fungus on rock. The fungus was not nutritional whatsoever, but was psychedellic.
So yeah I'm sure it deters some animals, like insects, whos vastly different mind receives vastly different effects, but others just enjoy the pretty colors.
-------------------- 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.
|
beatnicknick
The Innovator


Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1,074
Last seen: 13 years, 5 days
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: pokermush]
#6468770 - 01/17/07 08:50 AM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pokermush said: It is far more plausible, IMO, that simpler single-celled organisms have successfully made the journey from one planet to another.
Also, the planet would have to be already formed and cooled. When the dust collects to form the planet, it is far too hot for any life form to survive.
They had to have come from outerspace, unless dirt suddenly sprouted life. BTW, who's to say what conditions are to extreme for life, when only have life on our own planet as a reference. It could have very well been during the creation stages of our planet that an asteroid containing microscopic life hit our earth. Afterall, in order for life to reach the earth, it had to travel the supposabley unliveable conditions of space, and my guess would be, for quite some time. Theres some food for thought.
This also tells us something else. If there is other areas where such microorganisms have evolved, its relatively not that far away, as our planet is not that old. Unless you counter in the possibility a very fast intelligent life controlled ship brought the evolutionary goods to us.
-------------------- 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.
|
evolprim
human


Registered: 05/07/06
Posts: 1,226
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: absolute zero]
#6469404 - 01/17/07 12:31 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
mushrooms came about so we could have the shroomery
|
nolongerinuse

Registered: 05/14/06
Posts: 947
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: evolprim]
#6471144 - 01/17/07 08:15 PM (17 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Mushrooms came about, so that i can have something to look foward to, besides Bonnaroo, so that i wouldn't take my own life.
|
LynxRufus
Stranger
Registered: 08/09/05
Posts: 99
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6533151 - 02/05/07 12:05 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: It stands to reason that aliens would have fired off a good variety of types of life, hoping that one might survive.
Perhaps they were even advanced enough to fire off the spores into solar systems that were just forming so that the life would be present in the solar dust as it was forming into a planet. Then the spore would just have to wait until the planet formed and became suitable for life. That would avoid the problem of having to survive atmospheric entry.
The ultimate discovery would be to find one of these initial spores. If we could find that we could learn so much about the origins of life and maybe even find a message from the ancient alien civilization(s) that sent them out.
-FF
Why? Why does that stand to reason? Aren't you assuming a lot? Why would they care to do this? Certainly not because they think like us. If they thought like us, they would be very concerned about contaminating other potential evo processes. Thats what NASA is concerned about. And if they don't think like us, then it certainly doesn't "stand to reason" because we couldn't understand their intents.
If life did start from spores, then multiple spores would have had to survive the process of drifting through space on some material, survive ENTERING OUT ATMOSPHERE AT GREAT TEMPERATURES and have food to eat after germination (ie, food that fungi eats = dead plant/animal tissue/wastes). Considering they started life.... what would they have had to eat? AND they would have not only evolved but also de-evolved (unless you can account for lesser forms being an evolutionary advantage, which then evolved into other higher forms of life. Which would then leave the original fungi and any higher life forms on a distinctly different path than all other life on the planet.)
I call bullshit.
|
89ford
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/07
Posts: 13
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: LynxRufus]
#6534878 - 02/05/07 09:03 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
why dont we just believe what many people before us believed, they are made this way by god, end of story. Dont take that answer seriously
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: 89ford]
#6535843 - 02/06/07 01:55 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> Why does that stand to reason?
It stands to reason because the very nature of life is to replicate, procreate, and spread. You can imagine any form of life based on chemical processes that we can't even yet imagine, but it will still have some of the same basic traits like the ability to replicate and spread. No matter how different alien lifeforms were they would still have to have those same basic traits.
> Aren't you assuming a lot?
Obviously. That's kind of the nature of a currently unprovable theory. If you make a number of reasonable assumptions and then follow them to their logical end you come up with theories like this one.
It's certainly at least as good as the other prevailing theories. I mean it's not like we're suggesting that some sort of magical ghost just snapped his fingers and life came into being. There is at least logic and reasoning based on scientific evidence to support panspermia.
> If they thought like us, they would be very concerned about contaminating other potential evo processes.
Obviously if they were smart enough to seed the universe then they would be smart enough not to contaminate places they were searching for signs of life on. That's just common sense.
It seems like you're assuming that some sort of "prime directive" is at work. That's just sci-fi foolery. NASA has no problem sending out life to other planets. We've sent men to the moon, lichens into orbit, and there are ongoing experiments relating to terraforming mars and a manned mission to mars.
> If life did start from spores, then multiple spores would have had to survive the process...
Now it's you who's assuming. You don't have any idea what the nature of the life they sent out was. You continue on to suggest various problems that specific forms of life might have trying to survive.
It obviously wasn't a modern cubensis spore that started life on earth, nobody is suggesting that.
> I call bullshit.
Then you are calling bullshit on James Watson's theory. He has possibly contributed more to the advancement of human society than any other man, alive or dead. To simply call his theory "bullshit" is a pretty shallow response. I doubt he would be impressed.
-FF
|
MajorDick
notbeingadick


Registered: 10/14/06
Posts: 1,202
Loc: Westchestertonfieldville,...
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6535955 - 02/06/07 03:30 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
|
LynxRufus
Stranger
Registered: 08/09/05
Posts: 99
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MajorDick]
#6544123 - 02/08/07 01:25 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"Then you are calling bullshit on James Watson's theory."
When you give credit to James Watson (and your right, he was awesome) you are probably meaning to credit Francis Crick. But Panspermia began in Greek philosophy dating to the BC period. So it wasn't even really Crick's theory.
"No matter how different alien lifeforms were they would still have to have those same basic traits."
Your basing that on the way our carbon based life performs here on Earth. We can't assume all systems are like that. Even if they were exactly like us biologically, we still couldn't assume they would want to spread their kind across the galaxy. That would be silly. Because you would necessarily be assuming things about their morals, ethics, culture, faith, beliefs, intelligence, technology- if they even had such things. You are essentially saying:
*If they exist, and then have evolved enough intelligence, and then have reached technological significance, and there are not moral or ethical or cultural or faith-based objections (all independent evolutions in and of themselves), and there was an idea about it, and there is a desire, then they would spread spores.*
Of course that also assumes that they are trying to only spread the basic genetic sequences with no guarantee that it will result in any life, regardless of intelligence. As hypotheses go, that one is pretty darn complicated.
"the nature of an unprovable theory"
All theories are unprovable, thats why they are theories. Lol. Seriously though, there are levels to theories, aren't there? Good, bad and 'just about proven'. Again, you assume this is all logical. I simply disagree. However, I don't believe it is impossible. Just very unlikely and lacking any solid evidence- so a bad theory. Can you link to the 'scientific evidence' of which you speak?
"contaminate"
Um, putting unnatural spores on planets that already supports life would be contaminating it. So unless you are saying they flew to earth and physically planted life on a dead planet, then they certainly wouldn't be too concerned about contaminating other worlds (ie, spore dispersal in space). If you are saying that, then you really are touting a baseless theory.
"mars"
Yes, there are people discussing 'terraforming' mars. But at this time its all way in the future and full of 'maybes' and 'ifs'. All talk and ideas- far more than planning. And if you think they are going to terraform it before establishing whether life exists there, you are mistaken. Sending people to the moon is not the same as sending LIFE to the moon. If there is no life there, then there is no worry about contamination, is there? And if NASA is indeed contaminating a living planet, they will stop doing so.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_mars_life.html
"assuming"
I did actually think you were referring to fungi spores (not necessarily cubensis). If thats the case, I'm not assuming. Even in most cases of bacteria, I'm not assuming. I based my answer on your discussion of spores coming in from space. The issues I presented would all be considerations. While I do *think* the theory is bullshit, I don't assume to know its not a reality. However, regardless of whether or not this happened, the issues I presented are valid. Are there ways around it? Sure. Chemotrophic and extremeophiles, for example, are example of creatures that could have survived.
|
Xtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: creamcorn]
#6544206 - 02/08/07 01:50 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
creamcorn said: do we even have proven scientific answers as to why members of the plant kingdom contain the alkaloids they do, insofar as the purpose they serve the plant? i.e. some easy ones might be what does caffeine do for coffee?
I don't think so, but as far as I understand, we're only really aware of what the function of about 30% of our own genes are for. How are we supposed to infer the function of genes, enzymes, small molecules and the like for organisms that haven't had their genome sequenced?
Bear in mind that "function" can be a misleading term in that it implies intent. What we're really interested in, if we're to explain the presence of a small molecule like psilocybin, is answering the question, "How could the presence of this substance have been selected for?" That is, what evolutionary pressure prefers the presence of psiloc(yb)in. At this point, it's pretty hard to say, but jumping to the conclusion that these molecules exist in order to enlighten humans isn't valid, precisely because there isn't any evidence for it.
The idea that aliens seeded mushrooms on earth is, of course, not impossible. But as others have point out, theories are evaluated on the basis of corroborating evidence. We don't accept theories merely because they haven't been disproven. Theories must stand up to rigorous tests and must be noncontradictory with experience. The hypothesis that aliens planted mushroom spores (or say, some evolutionary ancestor of mushrooms) has no evidence corroborating it.
We could probably speculate all day and night about why psiloc(yb)in is naturally selected for, but while many of those suggestions could be consistent with the theory of evolution, the specific suggestion regarding psiloc(yb)in will just be speculation until further studies are done on these mushrooms.
|
Xtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: MajorDick]
#6544243 - 02/08/07 02:02 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MajorDick said: I'd like to toss the word 'Neurotoxin' in. Is there any reason that any psychoactive substance doesn't fall into this category? How can you argue about the word toxic? A lot of stuff is "toxic" in many different ways.
Fastfred seems to think that his singular citation is absolute proof that psilocybin is not toxic. Albert Hoffman, R. E. Shultes (and one other author) can be quoted as saying that psilocybin is definitely toxic (see their book Plants of the Gods - the authors open the book up by saying that there is no way around it: hallucinogens are toxic). Others say that these drugs are non-toxic.
What bothers me is that fastfred seem to be siding with only those papers that are consistent with his point of view. One paper in all of the scientific literature can hardly be considered the ultimate definition of the term. If you want to maintain your bias, go ahead, but don't pretend like one paper means jack.
Shirley Knott,
it would be just as trivially easy to dig up a large number of papers defining "toxic" in a manner that would include psilocybin. Would you also call those good citations, or would you reject them in favour of one, single paper? The bias here is sickening.
|
Xtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6544291 - 02/08/07 02:17 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: If you make a number of reasonable assumptions and then follow them to their logical end you come up with theories like this one.
It's certainly at least as good as the other prevailing theories.
I am absolutely astonished by how many totally ridiculous things you can say and yet people here credit you with credible and/or well thought out ideas.
The hypothesis that life on earth originated due to aliens firing off DNA, spores, whatever is nowhere near as good as the hypothesis that life originated here, out of random chemical reactions.
There is one major missing peice in the "aliens did it" hypothesis: extraterrestrial life is not known to exist. On the other hand, the hypothesis that random reactions on earth may have produced the first biomolecules doesn't require other life forms to initiate life here. The "aliens did it" hypothesis still just begs the same question that you're trying to get around: "How did that alien life begin?" Did other aliens do it? And on and on.
|
deeptraveller
Stranger

Registered: 10/21/06
Posts: 102
Loc: russia
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Xtals]
#6544349 - 02/08/07 02:42 PM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I can tell to you than pscn is... there is a theory, that the brain of the monkey has been advanced up to human levels with the help of magic mushrooms. Exist ancient figures on rocks of magic mushrooms.
I want to tell a little bit more: the person has receptors. Some from them are capable to accept in themselves molecules from an external world which perform work of our molecules, but make it in own way.... by it I explain effect of influence on the person (molecules of morphine, TGK, MDMA, speed......, pscn and psbn........ and till now unknown substances) will consist. You have caught? For me psbn is the end of a a feeler by means of which external world tries to cooperate with me completely in a new fashion (now I think it very useful)
Academician Vernadsky has stated the theory about a noosphere. The essence of this theory: sometime the persons will learn to cooperate with the world surrounding they with efficiency = 100 %. It means that the persons will learn to not harm to the world surrounding they.
I am confident that mushrooms do not want to harm to anybody with the help pscn and psbn........ to think thus - is a paranoia, isn't it? bu-haha)
Well and actually, I think that mushrooms simply like to synthesize pscn and psbn and they is pleasant to share these substances with all: ^)
p\s\ is somebody liked my reasons?
-------------------- we makes only that we makes...... this is very amusing idea if you under mushrooms_try this if you are not afraid I have told it or have thought?
|
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]
#6549882 - 02/10/07 07:24 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LynxRufus said:Your basing that on the way our carbon based life performs here on Earth. We can't assume all systems are like that. Even if they were exactly like us biologically, we still couldn't assume they would want to spread their kind across the galaxy. That would be silly. Because you would necessarily be assuming things about their morals, ethics, culture, faith, beliefs, intelligence, technology- if they even had such things.
The only assumptions I'm making are based on the nature of life itself. I'm not assuming anything about alien life except that it is alive. If you reduce life down to it's one very most required aspect that is the need to replicate.
So don't try to straw man me by saying that I'm implying certain things about alien morals, ethics, culture, faith, or beliefs. Every conceivable form of life has a desire to fuck, divide, budd off children, form spores, regenerate from tissue pieces, or practice whatever form of replication that lifeform employs.
I'm not even saying that directed transpermia is how it happened. It could have just as easily been undirected transpermia. I'm sure that you are aware that the moon was once part of the earth. If an event like that happened to a planet teaming with life it's easily possible to see how life could be sprayed across large regions of space.
Directed transpermia is just another reasonable explanation of how transpermia might have occurred.
Quote:
All theories are unprovable, thats why they are theories. Lol.
A theory is explanatory, testable or provable, an abstraction, and related to the real world. That's a good way of putting it. Since we are discussing science here your slang concept of theory is not appropriate.
From wikipedia... "The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion."
"In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation."
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech."
"...a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."
Quote:
However, I don't believe it is impossible. Just very unlikely and lacking any solid evidence- so a bad theory.
As opposed to the other theories which are soundly based on solid evidence?
What would you like... an alien under oath, on the stand, in front of the supreme court saying "Yes your honor, several billion years ago I fired off a bunch of biological material into space,"?
Quote:
Sending people to the moon is not the same as sending LIFE to the moon.
??? Oh, really?
> If there is no life there, then there is no worry about contamination, is there?
Despite accusing me of making unfounded assumptions about the motivations of alien life you somehow seem to think that aliens would, for some strange reason, have an aversion to "contaminating" solar systems hundreds to millions of light-years away? That really doesn't make much sense. There are obvious reasons to avoid contaminating the very place that you are searching for life with biological material, but there's no point to worry about that if you either already know there is no life present or have no hope of ever getting there to investigate.
-FF
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Xtals]
#6549993 - 02/10/07 08:45 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Xtals said:Fastfred seems to think that his singular citation is absolute proof that psilocybin is not toxic.
Good to see you back Xtals. I don't claim that any singular citation is absolute proof that psilocybin is not toxic. That was just an example. The proof is in the enormous body of work that establishes the pharmacokinetic properties of psilocybin.
Honestly I'm amazed that we are even debating this. It's not a debatable subject. You simply look up the LD50, then you compare that to the effective dose and/or the dose that you might reasonably be exposed to via consuming it's natural sources.
[Note the LD50 is the dose at which 50% of the subjects die.]
Here we go... I'll walk you through it.
LD50 (in rats) = 280mg/kg. (from the National Library of Medicine) The LD50 in humans is, of course, undetermined because NOBODY HAS EVER DIED FROM INGESTING PSILOCYBIN. (That might be a hint that we don't really need to continue any farther, but hey why not?)
The average human is around 150 pounds. 150 pounds is about 68 kg. 68kg * 280mg/kg = 19,040mg.
So that gives us an estimated LD50 of about 19 grams for an average human.
Erowid says that a "light" trip is 4 mg and a "heavy" trip is about 35mg. So let's assume the worst and say someone decided that 70 mg (twice the heavy trip dosage) was their idea of an "effective dose". 19,040mg / 70mg = 272!
So how about that? A 272X safety margin! That is an EXTREMELY high safety margin. Far safer than Tylenol.
So obviously from a medical standpoint psilocybin is highly non-toxic. But what about accidental ingestion?
Well let's see... Psilocybin/psilocin content ranges up to about 1% in active mushrooms. It's usually closer to .5%, but let's just assume that you came across some very potent mushrooms in the woods and decided to eat a large amount of them.
1% is 10 mg per gram of dried mushrooms. Mushrooms are 90% water so that works out to about 1 mg per gram of wet mushrooms.
1 mg/g * 19,040 mg = 19,040 grams
So to get the LD50 dose of psilocybin from fresh mushrooms you'd have to eat 19,040 grams of mushrooms.
19,040 grams is about 42 pounds!
I don't know about you, but I don't think I could eat 42 pounds of mushrooms! Is that even possible?
So obviously you can't accidentally eat a lethal dose of mushrooms. Even assuming that you have superhuman eating powers and that somehow you gathered 42 pounds of active mushrooms from who knows how large of an area and then sat down and ate them all at once you'd still only have a 50% chance of dying from it!
Maybe you are curious about dry mushrooms... Well then 42 pounds works out to 4.2 pounds. Due to the carrier weight factor eating dried mushrooms has an even higher safety margin. You'd have to eat 381 times a "double heavy" dose to hit the LD50. Again, I don't think that it's reasonable that a person could even physically consume enough to die. 4.2 pounds sounds like an almost eatable amount, but dried mushrooms are pretty light so it would still be a very large volume to consume.
So there we have it. Psilocybin is one of the safest and most non-toxic substances around.
You can argue all you want, but trying to call a substance that you can't even physically consume enough of to kill you "toxic" is rather foolish in my opinion.
Around 100 people per year die from unintentional Tylenol overdose. I don't hear too many people trying to claim that Tylenol is toxic.
> Albert Hoffman, R. E. Shultes (and one other author) can be quoted as saying that psilocybin is definitely toxic
I don't care who you claim has called psilocybin toxic. I haven't seen any citation of what you claim to have been said, but it doesn't really matter. Jesus Christ himself could have said it, but it doesn't change the fact that nobody has ever died from consuming psilocybin and nobody ever will.
-FF
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Xtals]
#6550048 - 02/10/07 09:18 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Xtals said:I am absolutely astonished by how many totally ridiculous things you can say and yet people here credit you with credible and/or well thought out ideas.
I like your spunk Xtals.
Quote:
The hypothesis that life on earth originated due to aliens firing off DNA, spores, whatever is nowhere near as good as the hypothesis that life originated here, out of random chemical reactions.
That's one possibility. If you accept that possibility then you must accept that life has arisen in many other places in the universe also. Given that many other solar systems and galaxies are much, much older than ours it's highly likely that somewhere, over the billions of years that life must have existed throughout the universe, life managed to make it from one planet to another.
So on that basis you would have to assume that transpermia has happened somewhere at some point. And there you go.
Quote:
There is one major missing piece in the "aliens did it" hypothesis: extraterrestrial life is not known to exist. On the other hand, the hypothesis that random reactions on earth may have produced the first biomolecules doesn't require other life forms to initiate life here.
That seems like a no win argument to me. If you accept that life can spontaneously arise, then you really must assume that it has happened in other places also. Given the current understanding of the universe it's generally considered a given amongst scientists that there is alien life elsewhere in the universe. Check out the Drake equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Quote:
The "aliens did it" hypothesis still just begs the same question that you're trying to get around: "How did that alien life begin?" Did other aliens do it? And on and on.
The theories are not in conflict, and neither theory excludes the other. I say that your theory is less probable than transpermia. Transpermia only requires that at some point in the 13.7 billion years of the universe's existence life randomly arose at some place in one of the 10^20 (100 billion billion) solar systems that exist. Your theory requires that life randomly arose in the last 4 billion years, in this galaxy, in this solar system, and on this planet.
-FF
|
Xtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6556671 - 02/12/07 12:18 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: Every conceivable form of life has a desire to fuck, divide, budd off children, form spores, regenerate from tissue pieces, or practice whatever form of replication that lifeform employs.
Not quite correct. Every form of life does reproduce, which is different than saying that every form of life desires to do so.
Quote:
I'm not even saying that directed transpermia is how it happened. It could have just as easily been undirected transpermia.
Sure, it could have, but there's no evidence either way, so why are we even bothering to discuss this?
Quote:
If an event like that happened to a planet teaming with life it's easily possible to see how life could be sprayed across large regions of space.
Again, the speculation doesn't mean anything without evidence. There are a lot of possible explanations for the existence of psilocybe species or the presence of psilocybin in mushrooms, but I don't see how we can give serious thought to ideas merely because they're possible.
Quote:
Since we are discussing science here your slang concept of theory is not appropriate.
No, what he said about all theories being unprovable is correct and is not slang. What you're suggesting about transpermia is NOT science.
Quote:
What would you like... an alien under oath, on the stand, in front of the supreme court saying "Yes your honor, several billion years ago I fired off a bunch of biological material into space,"?
Some evidence rather than no evidence would be nice. The thing is that I don't think Lynx is making any suggestions as to how life arose on earth. We're criticizing you for implying that this kind of thing is reasonable or probable; yes, it's possible, but so what? There isn't any evidence to back it up so why take it seriously?
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Xtals]
#6556718 - 02/12/07 12:29 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There is really no hard evidence to directly support ANY theory on the subject, so if you're only interested in evidence then you should avoid any discussion on the subject at all.
If you take that attitude then that puts a very large portion of important questions out of the realm of discussion. Many important questions have little hope of being solved by direct evidence dropping into your lap.
-FF
|
Xtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6556739 - 02/12/07 12:33 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: The proof is in the enormous body of work that establishes the pharmacokinetic properties of psilocybin.
No, you're missing the point: you're misunderstanding the definition of toxic.
Quote:
Here we go... I'll walk you through it.
Don't patronize me. I'm a scientist and I'm familiar with the idea. I'm arguing that you simply don't understand what the term "toxic" even means.
Quote:
So obviously from a medical standpoint psilocybin is highly non-toxic.
Toxicity is not defined in terms of its therapeutic ratio.
Quote:
Psilocybin is one of the safest and most non-toxic substances around.
You don't understand what the word means.
Quote:
you can't even physically consume enough of to kill you "toxic" is rather foolish in my opinion.
Well, you can say that the definition of "toxic" is foolish if you want, but that's probably because you don't understand the definition of the term.
BTW, you went over the "accidental ingestion" scenario. Isn't it possible to accidentally ingest pure psilocybin?
Quote:
I don't hear too many people trying to claim that Tylenol is toxic.
Most people don't know what the word "toxic" means.
Quote:
I don't care who you claim has called psilocybin toxic.
So I guess you only care about the claims of people who back-up the definition of the term "toxic" according to you? As long as you can cite sources agreeing with you, then you care about the source, but if I provide a source that disagree with you, then you don't care? So, you can just arbitrarily agree with whatever definition you like and claim that you're right?
Medicinal plants are useful in curing or alleviating man's illnesses because they are toxic. The popular interpretation tends to accept the term toxic as implying poisoning with fatal results. Yet, as Paracelsus wrote in the sixteenth century: "In all things there is a poison, and there is nothing without a poison. It depends only upon the dose whether something is poison or not." The difference among a poison, a medicine, and a narcotic is only one of dosage. Digitalis, for example, in proper doses represents one of our most efficacious and widely prescribed cardiac medicines, yet in higher doses it is a deadly poison. We all realize the meaning of the term intoxication, but it is popularly applied primarily to the toxic effects from overindulgence in alcohol. In reality, however, any toxic substance may intoxicate. Webster defines toxic as "Of, pertaining to, or caused by poison." It might be more specific to state that a toxic substance is a plant or animal substance or chemical ingested for other than purely nutritional purposes and which has a noticeable biodynamic effect on the body. We realize that this is a broad definition - a definition that would include such constituents as caffeine: while employed in its usual form as a stimulant, caffeine does not evoke truly toxic symptoms, but in high doses it is a very definite and dangerous poison. Hallucinogens must be classed as toxic. They induce unmistakeable intoxications. There are likewise, in the broad sense of the term, narcotics.
(bold emphasis my own - original text not in italics; used for quotation effect here)
that comes from:
Schultes, R E.; Hofmann, A. & Ratsch, C. _Plants of the Gods (Their Sacred, Healing and Hallucinogenic Powers)_ Revised and Expanded Edition. Healing Arts Press. Rochester, Vermont. 1998.
specifically, see page 10.
Quote:
but it doesn't change the fact that nobody has ever died from consuming psilocybin
Irrelevant. Again, you simply don't understand the meaning of the term.
Quote:
and nobody ever will.
Now that's just stupid of you to say.
|
Xtals
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/07
Posts: 207
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Xtals]
#6556836 - 02/12/07 12:57 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
BTW FastFred, despite my many criticisms, I do think that you're one of the better thinkers around here.
I do think you misunderstood Lynx. Even though he said that theories are unproveable and that this can sound like the lay-definition of "theory", I think he was still speaking in the scientific sense. Even our best theories (and "laws" for that matter) can't be proven. They can be tested and corroborated, but never proven.
Edited by Xtals (02/12/07 01:00 AM)
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Xtals]
#6556967 - 02/12/07 01:27 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Xtals said:The popular interpretation tends to accept the term toxic as implying poisoning with fatal results. Yet, as Paracelsus wrote in the sixteenth century: "In all things there is a poison, and there is nothing without a poison.
So you won't accept the common definition of toxic, or Webster's definition, or a medical definition based on therapeutic index... But instead I'm supposed to accept a 16th century definition of toxic that claims that everything is toxic?
I guess you are right then. Everything is toxic. Water is toxic, food is toxic, medicines are toxic, and so on.
I must admit, I find much humor in your posts Xtals. I really don't know if you're pulling my leg or trying to get my goat or what.
I'd be happy to debate the definition of toxic, but the only definitions I've seen posted are 16th century philosophical definitions. I've tried to look up what definition you might be using, but I really can't figure out where you're coming from.
If you want to make a statement like "Psilocybin is toxic," then you really should mention that you are not using the standard definition of toxic and provide what definition you are using.
Just to be clear, when I say "toxic" I am using the standard definition that is in common usage in the english language. If I say "toxic" in a medical context then I am using a definition based on the therapeutic index.
The word "toxic" is from the late Latin "toxicus", or from the Latin "toxicum" meaning poison. It's also from the Greek "toxikon" meaning poison, poison for arrows, or from neuter of "toxicos" meaning of a bow, or from "toxon" a bow.
Just to be totally clear here... I'll post some of the standard definitions that come up in online dictionaries and other online sources...
Constipation is Toxic The most common sign of a toxic colon is chronic constipation. www.gcnm.com
Definition: (TOX-ick) Having to do with poison or something harmful to the body. Toxic substances usually cause unwanted side effects. See myelotoxic.
tox·ic (answers.com) adj. Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison: a toxic condition; toxic hepatitis. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous: food preservatives that are toxic in concentrated amounts; See synonyms at poisonous. n. A toxic chemical or other substance.
tox·ic adj. 1. Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison: a toxic condition; toxic hepatitis. 2. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous: food preservatives that are toxic in concentrated amounts; a dump for toxic industrial wastes. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
Definitions of Toxic on the Web:
Harmful; having to do with poison. aspin.asu.edu/geneinfo/glos-t.htm
a poisonous substance. www.gla.ac.uk/services/seps/chemical_emergencies/090.html
Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life. www.buzzardsbay.org/glossary.htm
Having to do with poison or something harmful to the body. Toxic substances usually cause unwanted side effects. www.stjude.org/glossary
Harmful; poisonous. science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/chemicals/other/glossary/glossary3.htm
having the characteristic of causing death or damage to humans, animals, or plants; poisonous. www.wef.org/publicinfo/newsroom/wastewater_glossary.jhtml
Relating to a harmful effect by a poisonous substance on the human body by physical contact, ingestion or inhalation. www.connyankee.com/html/glossary.html
Toxic means able to cause harmful health effects. Toxicity is the ability of a substance to cause harmful health effects. Descriptions of toxicity (eg low, moderate, severe, etc.) depend on the amount needed to cause an effect or the severity of the effect. ccinfoweb.ccohs.ca/help/msds/msdstermse.html
This is the adjective applied to any substance able to cause injury to living organisms as a result of physicochemical interaction. See toxicity. www.bio.hw.ac.uk/edintox/glossall.htm
poisonous, everything, including water and oxygen is toxic in sufficiently high doses. www.medaus.com/p/147.html
Harmful, destructive or deadly to living things. www.education.melbournewater.com.au/content/glossary/
Of, relating to, or caused by a poison. [url=http://anonym.to/?http://www.deh.gov.au/settlements/industry/finance/glossary.html]www.deh.gov.au/settlements/industry/finance/glossary.html[/url]
A chemical that can harm or kill you (like pesticides). www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/envirokids/Glossary/default.htm
The ability to have a harmful or deadly effect on individuals, animals, plants, or the environment, in general. www.ecohealth101.org/glossary.html
refers to the ability to kill or damage cells. www.ariusresearch.com/glos.html
Producing or containing a poisonous substance that may be harmful or deadly. www.pca.state.mn.us/gloss/glossary.cfm
Any substance that can cause death, abnormalities, disease, mutations, cancer, deformities, or reproductive malfunctions in an organism. ohioline.osu.edu/b873/b873_8.html
The kind and amount of a poison or toxin produced by a microorganism or a chemical substance not of biological origin. www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/BTRI/btriterms.htm
Substance which causes adverse effects in the body like a poison. www.howtocleananything.com/hca_glossay.htm
harmful, poisonous, deadly [url=http://anonym.to/?http://www.fws.gov/midwest/mussel/glossary.html]www.fws.gov/midwest/mussel/glossary.html[/url]
Poisonous; having the ability or property to produce harmful or lethal effects on humans or the environment. One of the four hazardous waste characteristics. (See also reactive, corrosive and ignitable.) www.moea.state.mn.us/ee/glossary.cfm
Harmful (adjective). (Compare with toxin - a harmful chemical produced by living things). www.mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/science/glossary.shtml
having within 50 cm from the soil surface concentrations of ions other than aluminium, iron, sodium, calcium or magnesium which are toxic for plant growth. www.fao.org/docrep/W8594E/w8594e0d.htm
poisonous; a substance that is "very toxic" or "highly toxic" can harm your health, even if you only take in very small amounts. [url=http://anonym.to/?http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb/HESIS/SOLV8.HTM]www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb/HESIS/SOLV8.HTM[/url]
Poisonous; for example, cytotoxic drugs poison cells www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Cancertype/Childrenscancers/General/Sometermsexplained
of or relating to or caused by a toxin or poison; "suffering from exposure to toxic substances" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Toxicity is a measure to the degree to which something is toxic or poisonous. The study of poisons is known as toxicology. Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as a human or a bacterium or a plant, or to a substructure, such as the liver. By extension, the word may be metaphorically used to describe "toxic" effects on larger and more complex groups, such as the family unit or "society at large". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic
So there you go. Now that we have a handle on where the word toxic comes from and it's normal definitions as in common usage, and it's medical usage, please enlighten me as to why you feel that there is some context where it is proper to call psilocybin toxic.
-FF
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: Xtals]
#6557025 - 02/12/07 01:52 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Xtals said: that comes from:
Schultes, R E.; Hofmann, A. & Ratsch, C. _Plants of the Gods (Their Sacred, Healing and Hallucinogenic Powers)_ Revised and Expanded Edition. Healing Arts Press. Rochester, Vermont. 1998.
specifically, see page 10.
So it looks like Schultes is saying this in response to Hoffman?
Schultes was a great man, but in this case it seems like he has either confused the definition of "toxic" with "intoxicant" or he is trying to expand the definition of toxic to include every substance that has any effect on the human body or mind. In either case in is quite clear he is completely wrong or wishes to muddle the definition of toxic with 16th century philosophical discussions.
> BTW, you went over the "accidental ingestion" scenario. Isn't it possible to accidentally ingest pure psilocybin?
It might theoretically be *possible*, but I don't really see it being within the realm of probability. That is to say that I don't think I'll ever see it happen in my lifetime. Considering that it would take careful intent and good amount of work to produce it I doubt that it would be accidentally ingested. Also in light of the high cost or value of that much pure psilocybin I think it would be carefully handled. The only case I can see it happening in is if someone with a large quantity of psilocybin was getting busted by the cops and tried to dispose of the evidence. I think even in that case it would be much easier to just let it blow out the window or to just throw it and let it scatter.
Also if you took that much, I'm sure that you would make fast tracks to a hospital. Under hospital care you should be able to withstand much, much larger amounts than the LD50 would indicate. With LSD death is caused by respiratory failure. If the same is true with psilocybin then respiratory support (a ventilator) would probably let you withstand much higher amounts.
It also wouldn't be accidental if you took that amount on purpose, and I don't think it would right to include the potential for intentionally caused damage to classify a substance as more dangerous.
> BTW FastFred, despite my many criticisms, I do think that you're one of the better thinkers around here.
Likewise. Disagreement is often the impetus to do further research. Knowing your points better makes you better able to express why you think a certain way. OTOH it's even more valuable to be forced to discard an erroneous position.
-FF
|
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.
|
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 (17 years, 1 month 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: 13 years, 5 days
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: shroomydan]
#6768739 - 04/10/07 05:06 AM (17 years, 1 month 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, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: beatnicknick]
#6799971 - 04/17/07 02:23 PM (17 years, 1 month 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, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: figgusfiddus]
#6801038 - 04/17/07 06:42 PM (17 years, 1 month 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 (17 years, 1 month 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, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: fastfred]
#6806167 - 04/18/07 08:40 PM (17 years, 1 month 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, 10 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: figgusfiddus]
#6806508 - 04/18/07 09:50 PM (17 years, 1 month 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, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: mrmackey]
#6806546 - 04/18/07 09:57 PM (17 years, 1 month 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 (17 years, 30 days 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, 7 months
|
Re: Psilocybin as an evolutionary bi-product? [Re: virus1824]
#6833801 - 04/25/07 06:30 PM (17 years, 28 days 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)
|
|