Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:57 am

Yet again I'm left in this weird twilight zone; where governments under the auspices of law enforcement and power grabbing have stifled much of the much needed scientific research into this area. And it leaves me with the above disparate studies that fleetingly got through the legal net, with any kind of scientific methodology; vs the vast and titanic realm of peoples direct experience reports.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:56 am

Didactical approaches to this subject are a double edged sword.

An edge I've been skirting proficiently for a while.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:02 pm

Dogs Wag Tails, not Tails Wag Dogs.

Genetics affects behavior, not behavior alters genes.

Environmental chemicals can place transcription factors, but transcription factors do not affect genes. Besides, they are more likely to be teratogenic than beneficial.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:43 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Dogs Wag Tails, not Tails Wag Dogs.

Genetics affects behavior, not behavior alters genes.


I agree. Larmakism as Lamark thought of it is not something I or Terence advocates. But changes to the expression of genes via methylation or histone modifications can be very rapidly inherited, based on environmental effects.

Environmental chemicals can place transcription factors, but transcription factors do not affect genes. Besides, they are more likely to be teratogenic than beneficial.


I agree. When an advanced (or 'higher') species comes under environmental and nutritional pressures that such new climatological circumstances force on them they will start to experiment with new foods in the environment. Many insects will just die in new environments rather than experimenting with new foods once their old food supplies are not available, it takes a certain level of cognition to adapt ones diet quickly enough to large environmental changes. They do this for obvious reasons, mainly to avoid ingesting mutational tertiary chemicals and toxins.

Most of these new tried foods and compounds will be lethal (or as you said teratogenic), some will be largely neutral, and a small amount of those will be beneficial. Differenciating between what is beneficial to the individual in terms of health (physical/mental) or to the society and culture is where this start to become tricky. And during the period between knuckle walking and bi-pedalism our ancestors no doubt tried and tested a vast array in the process as the environment changed and so did our ecological niche.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:46 pm

It's probably just my news feed but I have to keep editting my article about the effects of prehistoric shamanism on human emergence and evolution nearly everyday due to some new piece of evidence or data. This is a new one to me, but has added over four scientific references. One day old.

Founders of Western civilisation were prehistoric dope dealers
https://www.newscientist.com/article/20 ... e-dealers/

Since the human brain is essentially the same (in evolutionary timescales) now as it was some 100,000 years back the above is more just circumstantial evidence useful for extrapoltion into the past about how ancient cultures might have used such things, not evidence of it's role in the evolution of the human brain during prehistory.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:49 pm

zeuzzz wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Dogs Wag Tails, not Tails Wag Dogs.

Genetics affects behavior, not behavior alters genes.


I agree. Larmakism as Lamark thought of it is not something I or Terence advocates. But changes to the expression of genes via methylation or histone modifications can be very rapidly inherited, based on environmental effects.

By mitosis. That way, the daughter cells of a skin cell division already have the markers that will differentiate them as skin cells. No remethylation needed.

Meiosis strips away the markers. The inheritance is not transferable between generations of an organism, although they may be quickly replaced if the environment is constant.

Gene expression simply means that a little segment of DNA will code for a protein. It doesn't mean that it will paint the Sistine Chapel while singing an aria from La Traviata.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:31 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:Gene expression simply means that a little segment of DNA will code for a protein. It doesn't mean that it will paint the Sistine Chapel while singing an aria from La Traviata.

That made me laugh. :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:42 am

zeuzzz wrote:I agree. Larmakism as Lamark thought of it is not something I or Terence advocates. But changes to the expression of genes via methylation or histone modifications can be very rapidly inherited, based on environmental effects.


Zeuzzz. You need to reflect on time scales. If epigenetics introduces no new genes and is simply turning on or off existing genes, it really only matters over one generation. On the other hand the conversion of canopy forest to savanna took more than two million years.

What you should be looking at, is all the remarkable changes in other animals evolving and adapting to the new savanna environment as that will give you a understanding of the time scales and how evolution works.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1649
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Denying-History » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:04 am

Terence McKenna? Isn't this the guy who thought he pinned down the end date of December 21st 2012 based on looking at some Chinese symbol while being in some sort of drugged state from eating psilocybin mushrooms?
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:07 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:By mitosis. That way, the daughter cells of a skin cell division already have the markers that will differentiate them as skin cells. No remethylation needed.

Meiosis strips away the markers. The inheritance is not transferable between generations of an organism, although they may be quickly replaced if the environment is constant.

Gene expression simply means that a little segment of DNA will code for a protein. It doesn't mean that it will paint the Sistine Chapel while singing an aria from La Traviata.


Do you think that all varied behaviours are all one-to-one gene mappable? What import do you think genes have on ones psychological profile?

Many inheritable changes can occur outside of the species genes.

Recent studies into phylogenetic memory, where it was found that after just one generation of mice that disliked a new uniquely in nature created chemical coumpound, they passed on their trained aversion to their descendants, which were then extremely sensitive and fearful of the same smell, even though they had never encountered it, nor been trained to fear it.

Dias, Brian G; Ressler, Kerry J (2013). "Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations". Nature Neuroscience 17 (1): 89–96. doi:10.1038/nn.3594. PMC 3923835. PMID 24292232. Lay summary – New Scientist (December 1, 2013).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835/
Callaway, Ewen (2013). "Fearful memories haunt mouse descendants". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14272.
http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memo ... ts-1.14272
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:10 am

Denying-History wrote:Terence McKenna? Isn't this the guy who thought he pinned down the end date of December 21st 2012 based on looking at some Chinese symbol while being in some sort of drugged state from eating psilocybin mushrooms?


Yeah that guy.

The book was the I-Ching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching

What he says was that novelty between humans peaks in his 'timewave' at that point, and thus it makes no further predictions. He didn't run around espousing the appocalyspe.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1649
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Denying-History » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:26 am

zeuzzz wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Terence McKenna? Isn't this the guy who thought he pinned down the end date of December 21st 2012 based on looking at some Chinese symbol while being in some sort of drugged state from eating psilocybin mushrooms?


Yeah that guy.

The book was the I-Ching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching

What he says was that novelty between humans peaks in his 'timewave' at that point, and thus it makes no further predictions. He didn't run around espousing the appocalyspe.


:lol: Alright, I wanted to ask cause the name was familiar. The guy made a really accurate observation about conspiracy theories during a major point in his career... One would think that he would know better then to trust the word of a person on Drugs.
« Oral history is a complex field. After all, memory can be a distorting mirror, as anyone who has ever worked with memoir literature knows very well...They may be imperfect, and, at times, inaccurate as the narrator tries to cast himself in the most favorable light, but all sources are imperfect. Even an archival document reflects how the person who drafted it understood something and remains something less than the unvarnished truth. »
- James Mace

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:49 am

Denying-History wrote:Terence McKenna? Isn't this the guy who thought he pinned down the end date of December 21st 2012 based on looking at some Chinese symbol while being in some sort of drugged state from eating psilocybin mushrooms?


You got it! :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:59 am

zeuzzz wrote: Recent studies into .........
Read the paper again Zeuzzz. It's about turning on an already existing gene.

The mice are not evolving.



Dias, Brian G; Ressler, Kerry J (2013). "Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations". Nature Neuroscience 17 (1): 89–96. doi:10.1038/nn.3594. PMC 3923835. PMID 24292232. Lay summary – New Scientist (December 1, 2013).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835/
Callaway, Ewen (2013). "Fearful memories haunt mouse descendants". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14272.
http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memo ... ts-1.14272[/quote]

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
zeuzzz wrote: Recent studies into .........
[color=#000080]Read the paper again Zeuzzz. It's about turning on an already existing gene.


I think you have missed the point; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_m ... psychology)
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:18 am

zeuzzz wrote: I think you have missed the point.
Err no. That's why I read the paper.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:56 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
zeuzzz wrote: I think you have missed the point.
Err no. That's why I read the paper.


Lets try to explain the study a bit more then.

The paper 'inheriting the fears of fathers' (in 2013 issue of the journal nature) used acetophenone, which is a truly synthetic chemical that mice would never have encountered in nature, and made them inherit the fear of this chemical in a single generation in a way that current biological paradigms about inheritance can not really explain.

Even epigenetics finds it hard to account for, and can not really explain how all that information can be transferred so rapidly from the mind, into the neural circuitry, across the blood brain barrier, then into the transcription of gene expression and other proteomic systems; then (and most physiologically confounding) across the Blood-Testis barrier (an extremely electrochemically precise filter) and then into the sperm ... and even if, what kind of information is then being delivered?

What is the materialistic, end to end, point for point, reductive model for this?

Ascribing everything to genes is wrong ... there is often a strong genetic component to most inheritable traits, sure, and certain tests can be done by genetics to find the specific ones that effect many things; but people and organisms in general are much more that genetically deterministic systems. This is why I always emphasise neurology/neuroscience and inheritable cognitive effects.

If you want to define a species/organism by it's genes only in a kind of reductive ideological way then fine (Thanks Dawkins). But there is much more going on independent of genes. Genes can tell us a lot but not everything,
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Poodle » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:03 pm

zeuzzz wrote:...The paper 'inheriting the fears of fathers' (in 2013 issue of the journal nature) used acetophenone, which is a truly synthetic chemical that mice would never have encountered in nature ,,.


Straight from the Encyclopedia Skepticania which is Wikipedia ... "Acetophenone occurs naturally in many foods including apple, cheese, apricot, banana, beef, and cauliflower. It is also a component of castoreum, the exudate from the castor sacs of the mature beaver."

It may or may not have some bearing upon your argument, zeuzzz, but it doesn't help your case when you make huge statements like this which are false even though easy to check. Do your homework first.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:31 pm

Fair enough.

The google on this subject is awesomely amuzing, lot of confused people, using conflatory worldviews to explain the data on various pop-sci websites; all of them writing press releases trying to explain it in about five separate ways, heh https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei= ... athers%27+
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:50 pm

Dias, Brian G., and Kerry J. Ressler. "Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations." Nature neuroscience 17.1 (2014): 89-96.

Bril, Ramon. "Epigenetic inheritance strategies in evolution, a molecular view." (2015).

Geddes, Linda. "Fear of a smell can be passed down several generations." New Scientist 220.2946 (2013): 10.

What I can summarize from the above is that the chemical Acetophenone although can be found in nature is very different in it's raw form, which was one of the main controls in the experiment.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:33 am

zeuzzz wrote: The paper 'inheriting the fears of fathers' (in 2013 issue of the journal nature) used acetophenone, which is a truly synthetic chemical that mice would never have encountered in nature, and made them inherit the fear of this chemical in a single generation in a way that current biological paradigms about inheritance can not really explain.


That is not correct. The full paper discusses what the alternative known potential processes probably are for the 2 generations.

"How olfactory stimulation in the F0 generation comes to be linked to sperm is an intriguing question for which we can only offer speculation. Evidence exists for blood-borne odorants activating odorant receptors in the nose45. Thus, it is also conceivable that the odorants used in the F0 fear conditioning protocol enter the circulatory stream and activate odorant receptors that are expressed on sperm"

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:36 am

zeuzzz wrote: If you want to define a species/organism by it's genes only in a kind of reductive ideological way then fine (Thanks Dawkins). But there is much more going on independent of genes. Genes can tell us a lot but not everything,


Zeuzzz. The genes already existed in the mice. The scientists triggered it. It is the same species.

How many generations did the effect last in the mice?

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:32 pm

Quoted by expert biologist Mr Matthew Ellard

Matthew Ellard wrote:[color=#000080]"How olfactory stimulation in the F0 generation comes to be linked to sperm is an intriguing question for which we can only offer speculation. Evidence exists for blood-borne odorants activating odorant receptors in the nose45. Thus, it is also conceivable that the odorants used in the F0 fear conditioning protocol enter the circulatory stream and activate odorant receptors that are expressed on sperm"

Not at all perplexed by the mechanical complexities of what I above explained has to be a system that has to traverse a multitude of epidemiologically complex systems that when understood on an idividual basis make no sense at all (according to the genetically determinsic mindset at least) Matt quotes something a person wrote as a potential explanation out of many, an explanation that mainly serves a genetically determinstic paradigm, as if it is proof of genetic determism.

Even epigenetics finds it hard to account for, and can not really explain how all that information can be transferred so rapidly from the mind, into the neural circuitry, across the blood brain barrier, then into the transcription of gene expression and other proteomic systems; then (and most physiologically confounding) across the Blood-Testis barrier (an extremely electrochemically precise filter) and then into the sperm ... and even if, what kind of information is then being delivered?

The reason why this can not be understood properly is why the very scientists who published their paper in the journal nature said "we can only offer speculation"

Are you on board with genetic memory or not? If you are we can maybe start talking about it more productively.
Last edited by zeuzzz on Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:54 pm

I post that as I know that the the blood brain barrier (BBB) is an extremely precise electrochemical filter, and only allows a sparse amount of precise chemicals through.

And the Blood–testis barrier is even more precise. And rarely lets anything through, apart from what is essential.

These filters are extremely chemically adept and competant at what they do, evolutionarily. Failures lead to no progeny, thus they are quickly naturally selected against.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:53 pm

zeuzzz wrote:Quoted by expert biologist Mr Matthew Ellard
The quote is from the science paper you linked Zeuzzz. Didn't you read it? :D

"How olfactory stimulation in the F0 generation comes to be linked to sperm is an intriguing question for which we can only offer speculation. Evidence exists for blood-borne odorants activating odorant receptors in the nose45. Thus, it is also conceivable that the odorants used in the F0 fear conditioning protocol enter the circulatory stream and activate odorant receptors that are expressed on sperm"

zeuzzz wrote:Not at all perplexed by the mechanical complexities of what I above explained has to be a system that has to traverse a multitude of epidemiologically complex systems that when understood on an idividual basis make no sense at all.
Try to use simple words. This is why you are confusing yourself and not impressing anyone.

The scientists are speculating the fear trigger in F0 is possibly carried to F2 in a hormone in the sperm. It is bred out in the F3 generation as Oleg already pointed out. It does not introduce any new genes and does not cause evolution.

Now explain to us exactly how you think this paper relates to you bizarre claim magic mushrooms causing modern humans to evolve? :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:57 pm

zeuzzz wrote:I post that as I know that the the blood brain barrier (BBB) is an extremely precise electrochemical filter, and only allows a sparse amount of precise chemicals through.


Zeuzzz, the entire body works like that. Haven't you studied basic biology? :D

How Cell Substances Transport through the Plasma Membrane
The plasma membrane surrounding animal cells is where the exchange of substances inside and outside of cells takes place. Some substances need to move from the extracellular fluid outside cells to the inside of the cell, and some substances need to move from the inside of the cell to the extracellular fluid.

Some of the proteins that are stuck in the plasma membrane help to form openings (channels) in the membrane. Through these channels, some substances such as hormones or ions are allowed to pass through. They either are “recognized” by a receptor (a protein molecule) within the cell membrane, or they attach to a carrier molecule, which is allowed through the channels. Because the plasma membrane is choosy about what substances can pass through it, it is said to be selectively permeable.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/h ... sma-m.html

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:39 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:The scientists are speculating the fear trigger in F0 is possibly carried to F2 in a hormone in the sperm. It is bred out in the F3 generation as Oleg already pointed out. It does not introduce any new genes and does not cause evolution.


Lets do a weird thing (without evoking Oleg out of context of his post) ... lets assume that all biological behaviours are more neurological than genetic. A crazy idea, yea? And that parents can pass down such behaviours to the next generation through nurture over nature. Through culture.

How wrong is that above paragraph?

Leaving aside the genetic memory aspect for now.

relates to you bizarre claim magic mushrooms causing modern humans to evolve? :D


I dare you to find a post, not even on this page, but in the last five pages of this thread, where I claim this.

Should I just stop posting; or are we just perpetually going to talk past each other about this subject?
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:03 am

zeuzzz wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: It is bred out in the F3 generation as Oleg already pointed out. It does not introduce any new genes and does not cause evolution.


Infact I think this one quote deserves an entirely new thread, specifically about genetic determinism.

I will only start it if Oleg is game.

If he says meh then I say meh too.

As in my mind it's an important yet dated mental and reductive modality.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:03 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:The scientists are speculating the fear trigger in F0 is possibly carried to F2 in a hormone in the sperm. It is bred out in the F3 generation as Oleg already pointed out. It does not introduce any new genes and does not cause evolution.


The "Full on Crazy" Hypothesis
zeuzzz wrote:Lets assume that all biological behaviours are more neurological than genetic. A crazy idea, yea?
And that parents can pass down such behaviours to the next generation through nurture over nature. Through culture.

zeuzzz wrote:How wrong is that above paragraph?

It is fundamentally flawed for the obvious reason that we didn't evolve from a nurturing legacy. Your bizarre claim demands that magically the whole basis of evolution changed with the introduction of mammals and infant care.

You really don't have a clue about evolution at all, do you? :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:06 am

zeuzzz wrote: Infact I think this one quote deserves an entirely new thread, specifically about genetic determinism.
No Zeuzzz. Don't start new threads until you set out your theory for this thread. We have been waiting two years.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:15 am

Hey Matt. I've just had a long 12 hr day at work.

You all good? Being retired and all.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:17 am

ie, ^^ yawn ... rinse repeat ad infinitum x διπλό
Last edited by zeuzzz on Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:20 am

zeuzzz wrote:^^ yawn ... rinse repeat ad infinitum
Zeuzzz, you just made the most ridiculous claim ever. I spotted your error in 2 nano-seconds because I studied biology and you haven't.

You can yawn as much as you wan't but it doesn't make your latest insane claim true.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:22 am

zeuzzz wrote:You all good? Being retired and all.
Semi retired Zeuzzz. I still run some companies and consult to a TV network. I still fill in time sheets for about 30 hours a week. :D

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
zeuzzz wrote:^^ yawn ... rinse repeat ad infinitum
Zeuzzz, you just made the most ridiculous claim ever. I spotted your error in 2 nano-seconds because I studied biology and you haven't.


Argument from authority? Couched within a quotation parenthesis?

It has taken you quite a while to realize this, but I post here mainly to learn things via didactic intercourse.

Please go on.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:40 am

zeuzzz wrote:Please go on.
OK. :D
zeuzzz wrote:Lets assume that all biological behaviours are more neurological than genetic. A crazy idea, yea?
And that parents can pass down such behaviours to the next generation through nurture over nature. Through culture.

As I already explained, nurturing mammals evolved from earlier non-nurturing animals due to normal conventional evolutionary dynamics. In your current insane claim you are saying that there was some magical change over point when a whole new nurturing evolutionary mechanism, that you can't actually set out, took over.

When exactly was that Zeuzzz?

How did new genes get introduced Zeuzzz, in your current insane theory?

Why did other non-nurturing species continue to evolve normally, like lizards?

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:24 am

You are still reacting and not listening ... I dont know what else to say.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26370
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:48 am

zeuzzz wrote:You are still reacting and not listening ... I dont know what else to say.

You could answer my questions. That would be a start, wouldn't it? :D

The reason you won't is because your new insane theory makes no sense at all. You not even trying to justify your own claim. :D

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:53 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:[color=#000080]In your current insane claim you are saying that there was some magical change over point when a whole new nurturing evolutionary mechanism, that you can't actually set out, took over.


You read my spectra of the threshold to effective dosages, that I posted here before, yes?

When exactly was that Zeuzzz?


Most likely 100,000 or so years ago; it remains to be determined how psilocybin effects the brain. I have good faith that future scientific studidies will show numerous things now the legal barriers seem to be able to be traversed by a select few qualified neuroscientists. Finally. The initial results seem promising, as I have already posted here.

The main things that future studies will show is a dramatic decrease in habitual behaviours. We already have startling results (psychopharmcologically speaking) in terms of smoking, with pre-clinicasl psilocybin stuides showing an up to 80% smoking cessation rate.

To quote wiki

"A pilot study conducted by Johnson et al. demonstrated that psilocybin may potentially have use in treating nicotine dependence. According to the abstract of the study, "12 of 15 participants (80%) showed seven-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up" and "the observed smoking cessation rate substantially exceeds rates commonly reported for other behavioral and/or pharmacological therapies (typically <35%)."

No wonder the agent is legally banned. Think of the tax cut from that % ...

Johnson, Matthew W.; Garcia-Romeu, Albert; Cosimano, Mary P.; Griffiths, Roland R. (2014-09-11). "Pilot study of the 5-HT2AR agonist psilocybin in the treatment of tobacco addiction". Journal of Psychopharmacology: 0269881114548296. doi:10.1177/0269881114548296. ISSN 0269-8811. PMC 4286320. PMID 25213996.

How did new genes get introduced Zeuzzz, in your current insane theory?


Why does a drastic divergence in behaviour require a new genome or new genes?

Or is the one to one mapping as feeble as I suspect it is?

If you have already forgotten (would not be surprised, I started an entire thread about this neuroscience data before) the one to one mapping of neurons fails. This goes back to 1975, and the hasty Nobel prize, and 'the grandmother neuron' type mindset; a charicature of the actual complex system. The actual system is too complex, you run out of neurons too quickly.

To summarize; You can not solve the problem of recognizing faces in terms of reductive compartmentalized neurobiology.

If you take the dendritic trees that make up neurons they can look very magical, but the scale that they work at is far smaller than the cellular level. And this is where your reductive model starts to run into issues, as the genes are all the same. There are not enough genes in the genome to be able to code this way, in terms of a full theory of formative causation. You can not code for bifurcating systems in the body as the capillaries will break down fractally to millions upon million of neurons. Reductive point for point models break down totally when you look at the capillaries in the neocortex. Ultimately there are not enough neurons and there are not enough genes, is what I am saying.

You still have not answered this question, an issue I brought up originally in this thread based on Robert Salpolskys reserarch into how a troop of Baboons evolved a peaceful culture, drastically at odds with all similar troops, within just one generation due to the death of the dominant males. Click the link.

Why did other non-nurturing species continue to evolve normally, like lizards?


Due to standard natural selection, duh.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Terence McKennas "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution

Postby zeuzzz » Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:57 am

zeuzzz wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:[color=#000080]In your current insane claim you are saying that there was some magical change over point when a whole new nurturing evolutionary mechanism, that you can't actually set out, took over.


You read my spectra of the threshold to effective dosages, that I posted here before, yes?

When exactly was that Zeuzzz?


Most likely 100,000 or so years ago; it remains to be determined how psilocybin effects the brain. I have good faith that future scientific studidies will show numerous things now the legal barriers seem to be able to be traversed by a select few qualified neuroscientists. Finally. The initial results seem promising, as I have already posted here.

The main things that future studies will show is a dramatic decrease in habitual behaviours. We already have startling results (psychopharmcologically speaking) in terms of smoking, with pre-clinicasl psilocybin stuides showing an up to 80% smoking cessation rate.

To quote wiki

"A pilot study conducted by Johnson et al. demonstrated that psilocybin may potentially have use in treating nicotine dependence. According to the abstract of the study, "12 of 15 participants (80%) showed seven-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up" and "the observed smoking cessation rate substantially exceeds rates commonly reported for other behavioral and/or pharmacological therapies (typically <35%)."

No wonder the agent is legally banned. Think of the tax cut from that % ...

Johnson, Matthew W.; Garcia-Romeu, Albert; Cosimano, Mary P.; Griffiths, Roland R. (2014-09-11). "Pilot study of the 5-HT2AR agonist psilocybin in the treatment of tobacco addiction". Journal of Psychopharmacology: 0269881114548296. doi:10.1177/0269881114548296. ISSN 0269-8811. PMC 4286320. PMID 25213996.

How did new genes get introduced Zeuzzz, in your current insane theory?


Why does a drastic divergence in behaviour require a new genome or new genes?

Or is the one to one mapping as feeble as I suspect it is?

If you have already forgotten (would not be surprised, I started an entire thread about this neuroscience data before) the one to one mapping of neurons fails. This goes back to 1975, and the hasty Nobel prize, and 'the grandmother neuron' type mindset; a charicature of the actual complex system. The actual system is too complex, you run out of neurons too quickly.

To summarize; You can not solve the problem of recognizing faces in terms of reductive compartmentalized neurobiology.

If you take the dendritic trees that make up neurons they can look very magical, but the scale that they work at is far smaller than the cellular level. And this is where your reductive model starts to run into issues, as the genes are all the same. There are not enough genes in the genome to be able to code this way, in terms of a full theory of formative causation. You can not code for bifurcating systems in the body as the capillaries will break down fractally to millions upon million of neurons. Reductive point for point models break down totally when you look at the capillaries in the neocortex. Ultimately there are not enough neurons and there are not enough genes, is what I am saying.

You still have not answered this question, an issue I brought up originally in this thread based on Robert Salpolskys reserarch into how a troop of Baboons evolved a peaceful culture, drastically at odds with all similar troops, within just one generation due to the death of the dominant males. Click the link.

Why did other non-nurturing species continue to evolve normally, like lizards?


Due to standard natural selection, duh.

Oh ... I almost forgot

:D :D :D

Does that make me seem 'better' now?

Your point for point recuctionistic view of genes assumes linearity of additivity, that you can explain everything by breaking them down to constituent [axiomatic (genetic)] parts. That's a very old and out-dated viewpoint now. Read any recent neuroscience or psychopharmacology journal to assure yourself that I am not making this up.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest