The Stoned Ape Theory of Human Evolution - Terrence Mckenna

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

I don't have to. FIrst, i never claimed often; that's your straw. Second, I don't know any exact numbers. But this apparently is something that hasn't been considered in this theory, therefore it's unknown. As such, the theory can't be considered proven or valid unless all possibilities are taken into account.

In other words, data needs to show that there is a net beneficial effect, rather than a net detrimental one.

I have supplied a net beneficial effect in the previous posts. You either can quote them directly to argue against them, or you can not.

Quote:

Great! So you're saying that none will ever make mistakes. Wonderful. DO you have evidence for this utopia you've discovered?

I never said that no one will ever make mistakes. I said that the people that did make mistakes will likely die out and the more informed members of the population will tend to out breed the others.

Quote:

That means that while the data presented so far may be logically consistent, is there any evidence that this is what actually happened?

Yes. The evolution of humans from apes is necessary evidence for the theory. Unless you have an alternative theory for the most drastic evolution of the the human neocortex, the sudden tranformation and evolution of which is unprecedented in the fossil record.
(I stand to be corrected by Dinwar shortly!, no doubt )

Quote:

There are an abundance of just-so sotries about why paritcular things evolved, or what advantage they would give, but unless there's evidence of it, they're just stories.

All scientific theories are first just stories.

After-which people can back up these stories with empirical evidence.

Quote:

Okay, I'm done. If your level of reading comprehension is this abysmal, or your level of dishonesty this low, then I have no further interest in discussion.

Nice call. Please elaborate.

Quote:

I DID NOT bring religion into this. I simply pointed out that if ingesting these mushrooms provides advantage in the form of mating and hunting ability, then why isn't it used for that? Instead, the cultures where these (and other) substances are used tend to reserve them for ceremonial uses, not practical ones.

Do you have evidence for this proclamation?

Quote:

AS I stated before, I don't know if the theory is correct or not. I have no dog in this race. But there are a LOT of considerations that just don't seem to be covered, and that need to be addressed before I'm willing to make a judgement.

As is evident from your posts.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Have you tried 4-HO-DMT mushrooms in a social situation where other people are not on them Dinwar?

If so what did you notice about your reaction times and visual acuity vs non 4-HO-DMT people?

It's hard to put into text the change in consciousness it produces, but I have numerous subjective stories that can verify the train of thought in the OP.

When you find evidence that this actually occurred, rather than rampant speculation, I might bet tempted to try it. Until then, you're speculating at best--as I said, it's a Just So Story. Here's a clue: look at coprolites and bone chemistry.

And you haven't addressed a single criticism I've given, other than a Creationist-worthy "Were you there?" equivalent. If that's all you've got, you cannot be surprised when serious researchers ignore you.

Quote:

Can you cite empirical evidence in scientific literature that ingestion often leads to death?

Obvious double standard is obvious.

Quote:

The theory is exactly that. Just so.

You're obviously completely ignorant of the terminology of the field you're attempting to discuss. The term "Just So Story" is an insult. It means that while the idea (it IS NOT a theory, by any stretch of language) isn't obviously contradicting any known data, it's also nothing more than putting pieces together and creating a story to justify them. This is bad, because reality is really, really, REALLY weird. A classic example of the problem of Just So Stories is the whole argument over why we have 5 fingers (most tetrapods do, which is weird). People came up with many stories for why this is the case, only to find out that the real answer is "Random chance". Our ancestor happened to have five fingers per limb, but the major selective force was something else entirely.

Basically, in evolutionary sciences you are required--not requested, not suggested, but REQUIRED--to provide evidence that your idea is true before we take you seriously. And it needs to be much more than "It doesn't contradict any data", which is all you've provided thus far. That makes it plausible, but many plausible things aren't true.

Quote:

This is a scientific thread grounded in empirical evidence of psychopharmcology and it's potential role in evolution

Not even a little. It's rampant speculation based on anecdotal claims about drugs. These are fun, but they're at the level of a bull session--something useful MAY come out of it, but it's more useful as a way to hone one's analytical skills than anything else. I've told you a number of times where your idea falls critically short, meaning that I'm required to reject it (I really have no choice in the matter--I CANNOT accept it, even if I agree with it). And it's quite telling that you're completely ignoring the sciences that can answer your question--anthropology, archaeology, and the like. You're focused on things that do not--and necessarily CANNOT--provide definitive answers. Congratulations: you've created an untestable hypothesis.

Quote:

Improving hunting capability and mating ability will always be an evolutionary advantage over other species.

ALWAYS?! Okay, hot-shot: how about for sponges? Or trees? Or zooxanthelae? And SPECIES? That's not the level of biology you should even be considering--we're talking POPULATIONS here.

[Zeuzzz]

Wow only two minutes after my previous post.

Someone is on the ball.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I have supplied a net beneficial effect in the previous posts. You either can quote them directly to argue against them, or you can not.

Obvious double standard is obvious.

I'm done playing. Put up or shut up. Please provide ACTUAL DATA supporting this notion--meaning proof that ancient humans DID IN FACT ingest these mushrooms in sufficient quantities to impact evolution--or admit you can't. Because right now, you sound like a typical Creationist/Conspiracy Theorist. You have a nice, neat, impossible-to-disprove notion that you belligerently are demanding we (and it IS we--I'm one of this group) take seriously, while spewing nonsense that proves you don't in fact know what you're talking about.

This is science. EVERYTHING you say must be backed by data. And it's not enough to say something COULD happen; you must demonstrate that it DID happen. When you do that, get back to us. Until then, it's really not worth our time.

[quarky]

Yeah, Soapy Sam.

Psychedelic drugs are notorious for being mostly unpleasant.
This is why they remain at the bottom end of addictive.

Those whom handled that well, and even enjoyed it, quite possibly, managed a higher degree of reproduction.

I sense a time, in our not too distant future, wherein lsd will have no discernible effect.
There will simply be no zone of consciousness that is off limits.
The big deal of it will be swallowed whole by the zeitgeist of the new times.

I'm already seeing this happening, as per marijuana.
When I first encountered it, in the 60's. it was a fairly big deal

IMHO, what enabled this anomaly, was the background state of human consensus.
That old pot, that got us stoned enough to define a counter-culture, was almost a homeopathic version of today's pot.

We get used to it. Bars get raised. Balance happens.
Hot chicks get pregnant.

(Bless their hearts.)

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Wow only two minutes after my previous post.

Someone is on the ball.

Actually, you posted after I started typing. Someone doesn't understand how forums work.

[Zeuzzz]

Why the hate Dinwar?

I fully respect your input to most threads. You have provided me with invaluable education in numerous threads. And I would fully respect your input to this thread if you had not made it personal.

I'm not a creationist. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

[quarky]

Ya'll should be jumping my ass.

Instead, I'm invisible.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by quarky

Ya'll should be jumping my ass.

Instead, I'm invisible.

You are cumulatively legendary in your posts.

If people can't argue with your posts that means you have won, not lost.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

Why the hate Dinwar?

Because you're committing an error that has caused incalculable trouble and lost time, while at the same time dismissing every field related to your question other than those which seem to support you as irrelevant. Just So Stories are a cancer in evolutionary biology, and require being rooted out. Great scientists have wasted their lives chasing exactly the same type of error you're talking about.

Secondly, you're quite belligerent yourself. You don't even know the terminology, yet you expect to be taken seriously. When I said it was a Just So Story, that was--to anyone familiar with the terminology of the field we're discussing--a valid and complete counter-argument to your claims, and just cause for dismissing them without further consideration. You've yet to provide any data that even suggests I'm wrong. Now you're attacking ME, rather than addressing my arguments--even after I've provided you with a starting point for precisely the types of studies required to support this idea.

Quote:

I'm not a creationist. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Perhaps not, but you ARE guilty of the same errors in reasoning (by the way, NOTHING I've said is an attack against you personally. I've attacked your reason and your knowledge of the field in question, both of which are legitimate targets. You want to discuss science, grow a thicker skin). Specifically, you're focusing on evidence that apparently supports your ideas, ignoring requests for data, making vague statements that are utterly impossible to prove or disprove, etc. Your "Have you ever taken these drugs?" argument relies on precisely the same logic as the Creationist "Were you there?" argument--basically, that only personal experience can be considered data, and everything else is irrelevant. Your idea is almost custom-built to be undisprovable, which makes it something that scientists dismiss out of hand on a regular basis.

[Reivax]

I had a thread that went into this some time ago:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=216841

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by quarky

Ya'll should be jumping my ass.

Instead, I'm invisible.

I thought about saying something about the idea that eating shrooms and smokin weed leading to knocking up some broad means that the drug would somehow cross over genetically and result in an evolutionary change. But decided that you knew that this was akin to saying that eating a hamburger at 2 am ,then having some sexy time would result in a beefier baby.... and that this is a silly idea

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You are cumulatively legendary in your posts.

If people can't argue with your posts that means you have won, not lost.

Not even a little. It can also mean that quarky's posting history has proven that engaging with him (her?) isn't worth the effort.

You really, REALLY need to start examining alternative hypotheses. You seem to be getting into the habit of focusing on attempting to prove your pet hypothesis, which is the death knell for a scientist's credibility.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You are cumulatively legendary in your posts.

If people can't argue with your posts that means you have won, not lost.

Well,

I do have 3 grandchildren.
Doesn't mean I have a clue.

Dinwar and Stankape are mostly correct.

Yet, silliness itself may very well have a survival edge.

My beliefs are merely works in progress.
Mostly, I believe in the dialog.

I'm not on a team.

Engaging with me (she) might be worth some effort...not sure.

I'm no rock; I'm no island.

I simply dig the discussion.
Being vaguely removed from the outcome, puts me in a strange situation.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

You really, REALLY need to start examining alternative hypotheses. You seem to be getting into the habit of focusing on attempting to prove your pet hypothesis, which is the death knell for a scientist's credibility.

Please supply these alternative hypothesis here.

The floor is yours.

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Not even a little. It can also mean that quarky's posting history has proven that engaging with him (her?) isn't worth the effort.

You really, REALLY need to start examining alternative hypotheses. You seem to be getting into the habit of focusing on attempting to prove your pet hypothesis, which is the death knell for a scientist's credibility.

Nice post, to add to it:

I think people would be much better off presenting these types of ideas as "what do you make of this?" and being willing to listen to the varying points of view on the subject, than they are when they present it like "this sounds like a viable solution to me" and then arguing for 5 pages when others point out the various problems with the hypothesis.

Thinking about things is good (especially when you are wrong as it eliminates possibilities and this allows greater focus on the things that may be the truth), but presenting a "belief" under the guise of being "undecided" or "I don't know" isn't productive. It just ends up like a "Is Jesus real?" thread.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Have you tried 4-HO-DMT mushrooms in a social situation where other people are not on them Dinwar?

If so what did you notice about your reaction times and visual acuity vs non 4-HO-DMT people?

Conversely, have you ever tried being one of the straight ones in a social situation where other people are on mushrooms? What did you notice about their reaction times and visual acuity?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by quarky

That old pot, that got us stoned enough to define a counter-culture, was almost a homeopathic version of today's pot.

Boy, did you get ripped off in the 60's. So you never came across Durban Poison?

[StankApe]

lol Squeegee, I noticed that they were highly annoyed(and amused) by all the freaked out folks!

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Enough to know what they are about.

What is the point of this question?

To find out if you have any personal experience. If you have never ingested any then you have no idea of what you are talking about.

[quarky]

So,

Is Jesus real?


P.S.

I suspect Zeuzzz has ingested plenty.


(Not a narc)

quarky

[quarky]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Boy, did you get ripped off in the 60's. So you never came across Durban Poison?

No, I didn't.

The leaf we bought for $10/ounce seemed adequate.

I did come across some other odd molecules. Describing those times will only add to my lack of credibility.

In the bell shaped curve, it's important to dump the various quarkies in the equation.

I don't even say that with irony or cynicism.

I'm a science guy.

Do I have to prove it?

[Reivax]

The main problem with the 'theory' is that the type of mushroom Mckenna suggests is the best candidate, simply wasn't around homo erectus.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by dafydd

To find out if you have any personal experience. If you have never ingested any then you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Numerous personal experiences. I can link you to the database of subjective 4-HO-DMT experiences in the erowid archive that have been written by me if you need further evidence.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Numerous personal experiences. I can link you to the database of subjective 4-HO-DMT experiences in the erowid archive that have been written by me if you need further evidence.

Thank you.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by quarky

I'm a science guy.

Do I have to prove it?

No. What is a ''science guy'', by the way?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Please supply these alternative hypothesis here.

The floor is yours.

As far as quarky's posts and our response goes, I already did.

As far as your pet mushroom theory goes, okay. My alternative hypothesis: These mushrooms were not consumed in sufficient quantities to impact human evolution.

My second: If these mushrooms were consumed in large quantities, the positive impacts were overcome by negative impacts. (I've already presented that one, which is where you went all "Have you tried it?" on me.)

Your first step in disproving my alternative hypotheses (I'm using Strong Inference, if you're wondering) is to prove that these mushrooms WERE consumed. You've failed to do so, so we're at the Multiple Working Hypotheses stage. Occam's Razor therefore is applicable. My hypotheses require fewer assumptions than yours (I assume that these mushrooms were consumed like all other food sources, where as you postulate entire social structures), so until further evidence is presented my first alternative hypothesis is the most logical one to (admittedly tentatively) support.

Originally Posted by StankApe

I think people would be much better off presenting these types of ideas as "what do you make of this?" and being willing to listen to the varying points of view on the subject, than they are when they present it like "this sounds like a viable solution to me" and then arguing for 5 pages when others point out the various problems with the hypothesis.

I fully agree. I'd love for someone to do some microchemistry analysis on some human remains and find out of this is true or not. It should be relatively simple, after all (we can do similar tests for other foodstuffs), and if Zeusss is right it'd be a major shift in the way we view the past. It also wouldn't be the first time we've recognized a drug as making a major contribution to human civilization--it's been argued that beer, in part, led to farming, and it certainly made a heavy (and quantifiable) contribution to artificial refrigeration. Looking at the impacts of other drugs on human evolution certainly isn't ridiculous. It just needs to be gone about properly. It's not enough to say "These things do X"--you also have to demonstrate that humans actually ingested them.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Conversely, have you ever tried being one of the straight ones in a social situation where other people are on mushrooms?

Not 'shrooms specifically, but other drugs, yeah. I do NOT want to be around a guy that's both stoned and armed. And remember, we're not only talking about wolves and bears and the like that can eat you here--we're talking about Pleistocene megafauna. Sloths with claws the size of daggers (I've measured them--small daggers, but daggers none the less). Bears that make grizzlies look small. Mammoths. A number of dog and cat groups that make today's look downright peaceful and tame. Ever try to take on a horse? Or a camel? Imagine taking on a HERD of them. Humans spent the youth of our species in a different, and demonstrably more violent, world.

[gumboot]

I haven't watched the video, but does the person presenting this theory address the fact that Psilocybin mushrooms are not found in the environments where early humans evolved?

[StankApe]

*High Fives Dinwar for his good thinking and goes to buy some beer!!!*

[Hellbound]

Hmmm.

I'm out. Dinwar is stating the arguments I had in a much better manner, and adding some I didn't hink of, as well. I yield the floor to him.

And oddly, I didn't read his posting of the "Just-So Story" comment initially...must have missed it when I was browsing. So when I saw him responding to Zeuzzz I was confused about who I was for a second there

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I haven't watched the video, but does the person presenting this theory address the fact that Psilocybin mushrooms are not found in the environments where early humans evolved?

+1,000,000 to you for skipping all the nerd stuff and going straight to the dadburn geography! (I never would have even thought to check that)

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I haven't watched the video, but does the person presenting this theory address the fact that Psilocybin mushrooms are not found in the environments where early humans evolved?

100% in agreement with StankApe. This is pretty much the only counter-argument needed. Well said!

[quarky]

Gee-wiz, fellas.

Can't we all get along?

(Joking, joking...I know that we can't.)

Which is why I'm throwing a huge party at my place.
It's the "Put up or shut up" of all parties.

A science guy is a guy (oops, I did imply that I was female) that understands the method, and the righteous reasons for it.

Science guys engage decent debate.
I don't think it is essential to have science background to become a 'science guy'.

That I do, is a mere conundrum.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

As far as your pet mushroom theory goes, okay. My alternative hypothesis: These mushrooms were not consumed in sufficient quantities to impact human evolution.

Do you have evidence for this proclamation? Or is this just subjective retrospection?

Quote:

My second: If these mushrooms were consumed in large quantities, the positive impacts were overcome by negative impacts. (I've already presented that one, which is where you went all "Have you tried it?" on me.)

Fair enough. I will not go all "Have you tried it" on you any longer.

What are these "negative impacts" then ?

Quote:

Your first step in disproving my alternative hypotheses (I'm using Strong Inference, if you're wondering) is to prove that these mushrooms WERE consumed.

Cave art. Numerous archaic art portrays mushrooms as a pivotal influence in human evolution. You only have to look at the artwork in ancient caves and the morphological drawings they chose to draw to portray the importance of mushrooms, and other related psychedelics, to the human record. I can supply voluminous evidence of this if you require it.

Quote:

You've failed to do so, so we're at the Multiple Working Hypotheses stage. Occam's Razor therefore is applicable. My hypotheses require fewer assumptions than yours (I assume that these mushrooms were consumed like all other food sources, where as you postulate entire social structures), so until further evidence is presented my first alternative hypothesis is the most logical one to (admittedly tentatively) support.

That very well may be true. But until you clearly state your hypothesis here openly I can not begin to evaluate it's veracity vs the theory this thread is about.

Quote:

I fully agree. I'd love for someone to do some microchemistry analysis on some human remains and find out of this is true or not. It should be relatively simple, after all (we can do similar tests for other foodstuffs), and if Zeusss is right it'd be a major shift in the way we view the past.

Agreed. It would, wouldn't it?

Quote:

It also wouldn't be the first time we've recognized a drug as making a major contribution to human civilization--it's been argued that beer, in part, led to farming, and it certainly made a heavy (and quantifiable) contribution to artificial refrigeration. Looking at the impacts of other drugs on human evolution certainly isn't ridiculous. It just needs to be gone about properly. It's not enough to say "These things do X"--you also have to demonstrate that humans actually ingested them.

So you say I have to demonstrate that humans ingested them to prove my point.

I agree.

But first, can you demonstrate that humans could not have ingested them in the past?

The half life and pharmacological profile of 4-HO-DMT is similar to that of DMT. It's pretty much a natural neurochemical. DMT is found naturally in the blood of humans, and is a ubiquitous scientific fact throughout the entire mammalian world.

This will, unfortunately, not show up in the fossil record by any measurable means. It is metabolized and disposed of so quickly it makes scientific traces of it impossible to trace.

Quote:

Not 'shrooms specifically, but other drugs, yeah. I do NOT want to be around a guy that's both stoned and armed. And remember, we're not only talking about wolves and bears and the like that can eat you here--we're talking about Pleistocene megafauna. Sloths with claws the size of daggers (I've measured them--small daggers, but daggers none the less). Bears that make grizzlies look small. Mammoths. A number of dog and cat groups that make today's look downright peaceful and tame. Ever try to take on a horse? Or a camel? Imagine taking on a HERD of them. Humans spent the youth of our species in a different, and demonstrably more violent, world.

Psychedelics, such as the ones I have pointed out in this thread, tend to decrease the "demonstrably more violent" nature of life.

Sure, you get people sketching out and doing silly things every now and then on 4-HO-DMT and related psychedelics, as they battle with their ego and environment.

But the trend of psychedelics is not of violence, not of harm to fellow people, but of respect and care for nature and fellow people.

I challenge you to prove otherwise, without going down the government road of anti psychedelic drug propaganda.

[quarky]

Lest Zeuzzz gets himself a good suspension, with the appearance of an impropriety, as in promoting the use of various halucinogens, I would like to remind us all of the unfortunate souls that leaped out of windows, in the 60's, believing that they could fly.

(Christ, don't ask for evidence on this one.)

[quarky]

Focus on the splat.

[StankApe]

Quote:

Psychedelics, such as the ones I have pointed out in this thread, tend to decrease the "demonstrably more violent" nature of life.

Sure, you get people sketching out and doing silly things every now and then on 4-HO-DMT and related psychedelics, as they battle with their ego and environment.

But the trend of psychedelics is not of violence, not of harm to fellow people, but of respect and care for nature and fellow people.

I challenge you to prove otherwise, without going down the government road of anti psychedelic drug propaganda.

it doesn't matter what LSD or mushrooms do to people NOW. It has NO BEARING ON THE STATED HYPOTHESIS.

What's important are the following :

Can man have survived living in the wild while taking sufficient mushrooms/psychedelics to cause an evolutionary change in his brain?

Could taking these drugs have made him any better at survival?

What are the advantages of taking these drugs if you are a primitive man/ape?

[dafydd]

I would like to state that I do not advocate the use of illegal drugs.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by StankApe

What are the advantages of taking these drugs if you are a primitive man/ape?

They didn't have Disneyland.

[gumboot]

Something else that has occurred to me is that all prehistoric evidence of drug-taking by early humans indicates that the drug-taking was a very special ritualised activity, often restricted to important spiritual figures such as wise men/holy men, or used in special ceremonies such as the crowning of a new God-King.

This evidence would tend to strongly argue against the idea of the mushrooms being such an important part of the general population's diet that it caused a dramatic and very rapid evolutionary change.