Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Were Psychoactive Plants Designed for a Purpose or Just random evolution at work?
Kod
Junior Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 01-24-2008


Message 1 of 19 (450809)
01-24-2008 1:41 AM


Coffee, Cannabis (Marijuana), Coca, Poppies, Peyote / San Pedro, Kratom, Khat, Magic Mushrooms, Salvia Divinorum and many, many more. (There are 1000's of known plants that have a psychoactive effect)
Why would these be designed with these psychoactive compounds within them? One of the easiest to question is Cacti that uses Mescaline as a way of fending off insects. Yet many other plants use other compounds to do the exact same thing yet without the psychoactive effect! The simple practicality is also questionable, because mescaline isn't the most effective, wouldn't a god/designer use a more effective non psychoactive compound?
I see this as a problem for the advocates of Intelligent Design, because wouldn't God or a Designer, pick compounds that would have no effect on the mind or body? Unless there was a purpose for them being here in the first place?
I'm sure many chronic pain sufferers that use morphine or codeine on a daily basis would happily argue that Poppie plants which produce those two compounds have a purpose. To help them live a more functional life and enjoy the life God has given them.
I'm also sure advocates of Medicinal Marijuana would have a whole list of reasons why that plant would be here. I've heard the arguments many times before, but one statement made is that it's been perfectly designed for industrial production and has so many benefits not just medicinal, such as paper/cloth/soap/oil etc... This idea, although not the most common or popular, would seem as though it's in line with the idea of a designer for the plant against evolution. (I found this type of statement in books about Industrial Hemp)
Or is it all just a fluke? A lucky roll of the dice. Which is something the advocates of Evolution would argue, that it's mere coincidence.
So are these plants designed and put here for us to use and respect or mere coincidence they evolved that way?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2008 11:34 AM Kod has not replied
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 01-24-2008 3:09 PM Kod has not replied
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2008 8:04 PM Kod has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 19 (450848)
01-24-2008 10:41 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 19 (450854)
01-24-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kod
01-24-2008 1:41 AM


I see this as a problem for the advocates of Intelligent Design, because wouldn't God or a Designer, pick compounds that would have no effect on the mind or body? Unless there was a purpose for them being here in the first place?
I'm no IDist but I think the standard (non-)answer is that you have no way of knowing what the designer's plans include and to speculate on what they should or should not have designed is out of our scope of knowledge.
Pretty much: "The Lord works in mysterious ways."
As you said though, this actually means that the psychoactives, aka entheogens, do have a purpose.
So, what is the problem with psychoactive chemicals being intellegently designed for their purpose? (In the sense that them having a purpose is the problem)
I mean, sure, that would make arguing for their decriminialization a lot easier, but who wants them criminalized anyways? (if that's the direction you're going)
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : multiple inconsequencial changes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kod, posted 01-24-2008 1:41 AM Kod has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 19 (450882)
01-24-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kod
01-24-2008 1:41 AM


So are these plants designed and put here for us to use and respect or mere coincidence they evolved that way?
The plant secondary defense compounds that humans have labeled “psychoactive” were not “designed for human use”, or even primate use, for that matter. The very tiny number of these chemical compounds that humans find “useful” or “pleasurable”, represents an insignificant fraction of the vast array of chemical compounds plants use in their unremitting evolutionary arms race with those organisms which prey upon them. Most of these compounds not only are not “pleasurable”, but are anywhere from mild to deadly toxins for humans. An entire course in evolutionary ecology would be required to discuss the selection pressures that led plants to develop these compounds, so suffice that the few we like (whether legal like caffeine and nicotine, or illegal like cannabis) are more of a fluke of chemistry rather than design. They evolved for - and are extremely useful for - entirely different “purposes”.
If you’d like to get into specifics, let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kod, posted 01-24-2008 1:41 AM Kod has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 19 (451222)
01-26-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kod
01-24-2008 1:41 AM


Intent versus happenstance
There are 1000's of known plants that have a psychoactive effect)
Why would these be designed with these psychoactive compounds within them?
Well, the fact that it acts psychotropic to humans, as in having a mind-altering good time, was not the effect, whether by design or by happenstance.
Nicotene to the tobacco plant, coca to the cocaine plant, cannabis saptiva to the marijuana plant, opium to the poppy plant, etc, are all poisons to keep slugs, snails, locusts, beetles, etc, from devouring the plant.
Its the same thing with certain brightly colored frogs, much like those Quetzal may seen during his treks deep in to the Ecuadorian rain forest. Some Native American tribes have discovered that upon licking the frog, which secretes its neurotoxins, that it will induce in shamans a psychodelic response neurologically.
Human beings are much larger and can process these poisons better than smaller creatures, which for them, will kill them quickly. Instead of killing humans, it produces in them feelings associated with drugs.
When people say, "Drugs are poison," that's quite literally what they are!
The Biblical reference to such drugs is "pharmakia" in the Greek, which is where we derive the English word, Pharmacy. Regardless, it is spoken about scripturally as something to avoid, not to embrace.
One of the easiest to question is Cacti that uses Mescaline as a way of fending off insects. Yet many other plants use other compounds to do the exact same thing yet without the psychoactive effect! The simple practicality is also questionable, because mescaline isn't the most effective, wouldn't a god/designer use a more effective non psychoactive compound?
I have a better question. Why would natural selection produce this symbiotic relationship between plants and humans, since you seem to speak of it in terms of it being purposeful? What are the forces driving it that it would actually be necessary from an adaptational point of reference?
I'm sure many chronic pain sufferers that use morphine or codeine on a daily basis would happily argue that Poppie plants which produce those two compounds have a purpose. To help them live a more functional life and enjoy the life God has given them.
I have no idea how much God would be involved in nature and how much he left to happenstance. But I suppose there is that possibility. But answering one question about God often simply leads in to the next. For instance, did God create mescaline with the deliberate intent of having us use it for legitimate, medicinal uses? The next question could very well be, why does disease exist at all? The next question following that could be, well why do we live in the material universe?
It could just go on and on.
Or is it all just a fluke? A lucky roll of the dice. Which is something the advocates of Evolution would argue, that it's mere coincidence.
Overall I see so many lucky rolls so as to rule out the total possibility of random chance X natural selection. In the final analysis, all we can do is do the best we can to uncover these eternally difficult questions, and to have spirited debates about it.
Because at the end of the day, "I don't know for certain" just might be my answer.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kod, posted 01-24-2008 1:41 AM Kod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 01-27-2008 8:09 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 19 (451309)
01-27-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hyroglyphx
01-26-2008 8:04 PM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
Excellent response, NJ. The only part of your post with which I would disagree ("Overall I see so many lucky rolls so as to rule out the total possibility of random chance X natural selection."), would likely be too far off topic to address in this thread.
Because at the end of the day, "I don't know for certain" just might be my answer.
Which is the exact position of any scientist worthy of the name when the evidence available for any hypothesis is lacking, ambiguous, or equivocal. Well said.
Something you pointed out in your response which is quite apropos was:
NJ writes:
Kod writes:
One of the easiest to question is Cacti that uses Mescaline as a way of fending off insects. Yet many other plants use other compounds to do the exact same thing yet without the psychoactive effect! The simple practicality is also questionable, because mescaline isn't the most effective, wouldn't a god/designer use a more effective non psychoactive compound?
I have a better question. Why would natural selection produce this symbiotic relationship between plants and humans, since you seem to speak of it in terms of it being purposeful? What are the forces driving it that it would actually be necessary from an adaptational point of reference?
I think yours is an especially apt question when we're talking about chemical and physical defenses plants evolved in the New World tropics, where humans are relative newcomers to the scene. A mere 13,000 years (well, even if we postulate the 25,000 years some authors argue) simply isn't enough time for human-derived selection pressures to have caused this kind of adaptation - especially at the extraordinarily low level of "exploitation for psychotropic effects" and limited numbers of species humans find useful in that context compared with the vast numbers that have similar adaptations. If, as the OP suggests, these few organisms really WERE designed for human use, what is the explanation for all the OTHER defenses plants have developed? Isn't more logical, as you state, that the few species humans find useful were merely serendipitous?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2008 8:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2008 10:32 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-27-2008 11:54 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 19 (451336)
01-27-2008 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
01-27-2008 8:09 AM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
If, as the OP suggests, these few organisms really WERE designed for human use, what is the explanation for all the OTHER defenses plants have developed? Isn't more logical, as you state, that the few species humans find useful were merely serendipitous?
I got the impression that the symbiotic relationship he was alluding to between humans and plants that produce toxins, were of the same order as bees and pollinating flowers.
I just don't see the evidence to make a legitimate comparison.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 01-27-2008 8:09 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 19 (451351)
01-27-2008 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Quetzal
01-27-2008 8:09 AM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
Quetzal writes:
A mere 13,000 years (well, even if we postulate the 25,000 years some authors argue) simply isn't enough time for human-derived selection pressures to have caused this kind of adaptation
That's kinda debatable. For example, the samurai crab off the coast of Japan.
In only a few thousand years, the Japanese fishermen unknowingly created this crab with a samurai face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 01-27-2008 8:09 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2008 1:40 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 01-27-2008 5:42 PM Taz has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 19 (451369)
01-27-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
01-27-2008 11:54 AM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
In only a few thousand years, the Japanese fishermen unknowingly created this crab with a samurai face.
How did they "create" a samurai face, as opposed to it simply being an anomaly?
Or were you being jocular?

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-27-2008 11:54 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by molbiogirl, posted 01-27-2008 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 10 of 19 (451374)
01-27-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Hyroglyphx
01-27-2008 1:40 PM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
How did they "create" a samurai face, as opposed to it simply being an anomaly?
By choosing to throw back those that looked like samurai.
wiki writes:
Heikegani (samurai crabs) were used by Carl Sagan in his popular science television show Cosmos: A Personal Voyage as an example of unintentional artificial selection.
I should point out that in the case of psychoactive plants used by humans, artificial selection played a role, too. A big one.
And Juggs, it is not true that ...
Message 5 writes:
Human beings are much larger and can process these poisons better than smaller creatures, which for them, will kill them quickly.
Very small quantities of poison can kill us too. Black widow, Brazilian wandering spider, death cap mushroom, stone fish, golden poison frog, death lily, Japanese pieris shrub ... the list goes on and on.
Thru trial and error, we figured out which ones felt good and didn't kill us. Simple as that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2008 1:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2008 2:20 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 19 (451378)
01-27-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by molbiogirl
01-27-2008 1:57 PM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
By choosing to throw back those that looked like samurai.
Oh, so he means that by allowing those with anomaly to live, it increases their population because they haven't been killed, and now it becomes fixed in the population?
I get it now. Yes, I suppose that would qualify as artificial selection.
I should point out that in the case of psychoactive plants used by humans, artificial selection played a role, too. A big one.
How so? If they are killing the plants to extract the toxins from them, that would actually be hindering the plants survival. Unless of course you mean that since humans found a way to co-opt the plant, like cannabis saptiva, that humans now grow it as a form of artificial selection.
quote:
Human beings are much larger and can process these poisons better than smaller creatures, which for them, will kill them quickly.
Very small quantities of poison can kill us too. Black widow, Brazilian wandering spider, death cap mushroom, stone fish, golden poison frog, death lily, Japanese pieris shrub ... the list goes on and on.
I was speaking mostly about plants. Sure, there are various snakes deadly to us, jellyfish too, etc. But others, like certain kinds of scorpions, do not have enough toxins to kill an average-sized human where it would kill a field mouse.
Belladonnas, though, have been known to kill humans. Though in high school, I remember some students who actually planted some on school grounds and would get high off of them too.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by molbiogirl, posted 01-27-2008 1:57 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 01-27-2008 5:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 19 (451434)
01-27-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
01-27-2008 11:54 AM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
I was unclear, evidently. I meant that, at the level of selection an ad hoc, occasional use of a particular psychoactive species (not an intensively cultivated plant or animal - or one under constant deliberate selection like your Heikea japonica example) would generate, there would be insufficient time for and likely insufficient pressure for, complex chemical compounds to have developed as an adapation to that pressure.
Oh, and the heike/samurai story may in fact be an urban legend. There are a number of other crab species whose shells also resemble a human face, for instance Paradorippe granulata, Corystes cassivelaunus, and other "faced" or "marked" crabs. Something to do with the physical constraints of the shell during development.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-27-2008 11:54 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 01-27-2008 7:20 PM Quetzal has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 13 of 19 (451441)
01-27-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
01-27-2008 2:20 PM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
I was speaking mostly about plants.
There are plenty of those as well. In addition to the 3 I've already mentioned...
Castor bean
Yew
Buttercups
Boxwood
Hemlock
Strychnine tree
Oleander
Lily of the valley
Cyanide (in many seeds)
Wisteria
Mistletoe
Pokeweed
Rhubarb
Potato
Death cama
... and on and on and on.
As I said, psychoactives just happen to be poisons that don't kill us. They are in the minority. By a long shot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2008 2:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by bluescat48, posted 01-27-2008 7:37 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2008 10:08 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 19 (451456)
01-27-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
01-27-2008 5:42 PM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
Q writes:
Oh, and the heike/samurai story may in fact be an urban legend.
Well, duh. The legend may be untrue, but the fact remains that for thousands of years fishermen actually would throw the crabs with the face-looking carapace back into the sea. This gives an advantage to the crabs that look more and more like a samurai face. Artificial selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 01-27-2008 5:42 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 01-28-2008 9:22 AM Taz has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 15 of 19 (451463)
01-27-2008 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by molbiogirl
01-27-2008 5:55 PM


Re: Intent versus happenstance
Also plants containing irritants (poison ivy)& urticants (stinging nettles)although not truly toxic are nevertheless troublesome.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 01-27-2008 5:55 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024