Relationship between evolution and hallucenogenic drugs?

[Guest Skrying88]

I recently had a convorsation with one of my teachers about belifes on evolution... And I was wandering if maybe some hallucenogenic drugs helped guide us down the path of evolution that we currently travel. My teacher and I were both curious about the subject, and I have been searching all nite and this is the first thing that I have found that may give me some answers... When you look at some of the basic facts and opinions of history it does kind of make some sence... For example... You have the theory of Christianity... is it possible that maybe a neandrathol found some mushrooms thereby tripping up the the whole religion of christianity? The bible also speaks of Moses seeing a flaming-talking (the voice of God) bush... How often do people just see and talk to some bush that happens to be on fire? and how often does the bush talk back?... The bible could all be some giant shroom trip... Back to the topic of evolution. Is it possible That hallucenogents gave us self-reflection, language and religion (And every thing that branches from them)? And if all this is possible, is it possible that we can take hold and maybe controll our future evolutionary path? Please Respond... And maybe if some actual scientist come on to this page... Email me and give me some responces.

[YT2095]

perhaps if you attack the problem backwards, think of any notable people in history that were drug takers, and work that way

 

 

have a look around here: http://www.erowid.org/

there maybe some usefull info in there that might be of help

[Ophiolite]

I recalled hearing that the Neolithic (New Stone Age) painters of the cave art at Lascaux in the south of France, likely used hallucinogens. Similar claims have been made for ceremonies associated with stone circles such as Stonehenge and Orkney. Here are some links I turned up after a very quick check.

 

 

This one mentions the discovery that poppies (from which opium is derived) were being cultivated in Switzerland around 2600-3200B.C.

 

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi001a.htm

 

 

This article briefly mentions the possibility that one function of megaliths (e.g. stone circles) was to try to simulate the effects of drugs. (They don’t discuss why, but it is likely related to the recently discovered sonic properties of these constructions. That is worth reading up on.)

 

 

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Megalithic%20art

 

 

 

 

 

But if you really want to get into it have a read of this.

 

http://www.oubliette.zetnet.co.uk/Intro.html

 

It looks like it may be heavy going, but just dipping into it I found a lot of interesting obse4rvations. It’s a dissertation for an MA titled, Exquisitely Simple or Incredibly Complex: The Theory of Entoptic Phenomena. It is worth wading through the Introduction at least.

[Sorcerer]

For starters LOL at YT.... like the site, yay for mould of ergot.

 

I dont think that hallucinogenic drugs have influenced our evolution, this is because any hallucinogenic effects caused by these "drugs" is just a conicidence, it happens to fit with our biochemistry/neurology. The question is like asking if catnip has influenced the evolution of cats.

[YT2095]

I`m not so sure to be honest, it could be like Butterfly wings and a weather system half way around the world type of thing.

 

who to say some of the inventions or discoveries that we take for granted or litrature works, weren`t inspired by someone whacked out on something?

[Sorcerer]

Yes, cultural evolution perhaps, but genetic evolution, I doubt it, unless we were forced to eat hallucinogenic substances to survive, in which case the individuals that adapted so they were less effected would be the survivors, not the ones who can trip out.

[Mokele]

I dunno, given the tendency of people on hallucinogens to do things like claim they can fly and jump off buildings to prove it, there might be a bit of selection going on there...

 

Mokele

[Ophiolite]

Yes, cultural evolution perhaps, but genetic evolution,

Would you agree that a consequnce of our cultural evolution has been its impact on our environment and consequently upon what constitutes fittness in an evolutionary sense? And that feeds back to impact on our genetic evolution.

 

It could then be argued (and I do this as a thought exercise, not a statement of belief) as follows:

 

hallucinogenic drugs >> promote development of shaman and religous rituals >> encourage tribal unity >> more effective interaction with environment >> origin of civilisation

[LucidDreamer]

Although it’s a fascinating topic, I seriously doubt that hallucinogenic drugs have had much of an impact on evolution directly. First of all, any changes in mental functions due to a hallucinogenic drug would be limited to the individual taking the drug and it would not be passed down through the genes. Also, although hallucinogenic drugs can have some interesting effects, most of the effects would be harmful in the long run, except perhaps on creativity.

 

Ophiolite brought up an interesting point about a possible indirect relationship caused by hallucinogenic effects on the cultural evolution and in turn its effect on physical evolution. I certainly think its possible that hallucinogenic drugs may have had some minor effect on evolution in this way. There are many things that could similarly be considered evolutionary effectors in this way, such as meat eating, trade, and fishing. Though I doubt that hallucinogenic drugs had anywhere near the effect on evolution that those three did. If you are making an argument that hallucinogenic drugs have had an indirect effect on evolution then you could also make an argument that the discovery of the pain reducing effects of willow bark had a similar effect. Neither one probably had much real influence on evolution.

[YT2095]

geneticly??? I wouldn`t have thought so, other than those that died acting under the "influence" and thus had no contributory factor towards the gene pool.

[LucidDreamer]

Ya, any effects on evolution from hallucinogenic drugs would be very small I think. But you do see what I am saying about an indirect effect don't you? As an example take trade. Trade would have been an immensely valuable resource for pre-sapiens hominids. Any person that could communicate effectively and trade well would be more likely to survive. Any shaman or individual that could repeatedly take the hallucinogenic drugs at the primitive religious gatherings and not be permanently adversely affected would be more likely to survive. So you could say that the discovery and use of hallucinogenic drugs affected genetic evolution.

[Sorcerer]

Would you agree that a consequnce of our cultural evolution has been its impact on our environment and consequently upon what constitutes fittness in an evolutionary sense? And that feeds back to impact on our genetic evolution.

 

Not yet, when we need to evolve to breathe NO and SO2 and drink filthy water, then maybe.

 

Cultural evolution hasn't been around long enough to have any significant impact on our genes.... except maybe medicine/sanitation..... hallucinogenic drugs, no.

[LucidDreamer]

Not yet' date=' when we need to evolve to breathe NO and SO2 and drink filthy water, then maybe.

 

Cultural evolution hasn't been around long enough to have any significant impact on our genes.... except maybe medicine/sanitation..... hallucinogenic drugs, no.[/quote']

I don't really think hallucinogenic drugs have had much of an impact but I disagree about the cultural evolution. Well, maybe. It depends on what you mean by culture. Certainly early hominids and even present day Apes have social structures that affect their evolution. I think that's what was meant by cultural evolution--the change in the society of the hominids.

[Sorcerer]

I generally think of cultural evolution beggining with Homo sapiens and "true" language, I'd guess that this was about 200,000 years ago, this allowed an efficient mechanism for the spread of memes. However perhaps cultural evolution and language started back with Homo habilis or before ~2.5 mya. However I think the the spread of memes would be limited and have a limited effect on their environment. I guess there are examples of memes in all sorts of animals, e.g. lemurs chewing millipedes, chimps using twigs to fish for termites, song bird imitating songs. However the spread of memes is severly enhanced when you can show and tell, not just show, this is because discussion and imagination open up new possibilites and allow memes to mutate at a faster rate.

[Ophiolite]

I generally think of cultural evolution beggining with Homo sapiens and "true" language, ....about 200,000 years ago, perhaps cultural evolution and language started back with Homo habilis or before ~2.5 mya. .

I sense an ambiguity. Ealier you said 'cultural evolution hasn't been around long enough to have an impact on our genes', yet here you say its been around for at least 10,000 generations, maybe substantially more. We can pack a lot of evolution into 10,000 generations.

What part of your reasoning am I missing?

[Guest Skrying88]

What about the spinal chord? The primate back is arched over and We all know that these drugs affect the spinal collem... so after one uses these drugs in bulk... it leads to back problems...and these problems could have became hereditary. so do you think that the evolution of our back from primate to homosapian was caused by an attempt from the spinal chord to fix it self from all the chemicals?

[Sorcerer]

Well, look at the physiology of a homonid from 200000ya and you will see they are anatomically modern humans, I don't know if its been done but if we extracted the DNA from their marrow (if there is any left) then we could compare the genomes and I would guess they would be similar. 10000 generations is a split microsecond of evolutionary time when there is little selective pressure.

[Ophiolite]

Well, look at the physiology of a homonid from 200000ya and you will see they are anatomically modern humans, I don't know if its been done but if we extracted the DNA from their marrow (if there is any left) then we could compare the genomes and I would guess they would be similar. 10000 generations is a split microsecond of evolutionary time when there is little selective pressure.

I would disagree in some of the detail (call it nit-picking if you will, but not the last point).

 

By 'anatomically modern' I take you to mean Cro-Magnon. Are they not on the scene around 100kya rather than 200.

 

Yes, they would be closely similar, but similar is not identical and some of those differences would be the result of evolutionary pressures, which could in part arise from cultural devlopments.

 

10000 generations is a lot of genearations no matter how you stack them.

 

I fail to see the absence of selective pressures in the period we are talking about. Glacial/Intergalcial alternating, climate change, environment change on a huge scale. A continuation of the diversities of change that got us down from the trees in the first place. Have I misinterpreted your main thrust here?

[Sorcerer]

We removed those selective pressures with our intellegence, rather than our cultural evolution enhancing our genetic evolution, it deminished it. The ability to alter our environment (wear clothes, store food/water, use tools to enhance our pedatory ability, fire and the ability to construct shelters) allowed us to keep our original phenotype basically the same.

 

Medicine and santitation are exceptions to the rule however, this is because these make us "soft".

 

Edit: I actually think the reason why we dont become physically "soft" because of our other cultural adaption is sexual selection, we just dont find people who look less physically fit as attractive. On the other hand medicine and sanitation remove pathogens and allergens from the environment, the immune system requires these to become fully functioning.

 

Medical advances like immunisation are great because these use our immune system, but just removing the problem from the environment will remove our natural immunity and any return of a similar pathogen in the future could prove devastating if the medical technology isn't there to catch it. As long as we have this technology we are fine, but if we do suffer a "culture crash" we may find ourselves struggling unecessarily.

 

I actually realise how contradictory this is in parts, I say immunistation is good, but removal is bad, and the main path to removal of small pox and polio was immunisation...... however these are now bio-weapon candidates..... perhaps we need to immunise still..... na the drug companies would like that too much.....

 

Edit again: imagine the rapid selective pressure on our species if somehow all our technological advances were lost...... can u imagine how we would struggle and the population crash from 6-7 billion people down to a few 100000 say.

[LucidDreamer]

What about the spinal chord? The primate back is arched over and We all know that these drugs affect the spinal collem... so after one uses these drugs in bulk... it leads to back problems...and these problems could have became hereditary. so do you think that the evolution of our back from primate to homosapian was caused by an attempt from the spinal chord to fix it self from all the chemicals?

I highly doubt it. The upright posture was an adaptation resulting from the pressures of changing from a tree-climbing primate to a faster bipedal land animal. If you get anything out of this thread it should be that hallucinogenic drugs probably had little effect on the evolution of man. Any effects at all would be minimal and would have little to do with morphology.

[Ophiolite]

Edit again: imagine the rapid selective pressure on our species if somehow all our technological advances were lost...... can u imagine how we would struggle and the population crash from 6-7 billion people down to a few 100000 say.

I find myself in agreement with almost everything you say, except your conclusion. As a provisional hypothesis I'm ascribing this to sloppy thinking on my part. Help me out here Sorcerer, which part of the following sequence of linked statements is wrong? (Please don't say all of them, I don't wish to take up basket weaving.)

 

1. One way of defining evolution is that within a species the proportion of different alleles for a gene changes significantly.

 

2. Cultural development (in the sense we have been using it to cover clothing, fire, agriculture, community, etc) has made life 'easier'.

 

3. When pressures are reduced in this way alleles that might have been eliminated or reduced in proportion may actually increase.

 

4. Consequently we now have a different proportion of alleles in the popultation from what we started with.

 

5. Which is, by virtue of point1., evolution.

[Aardvark]

What about the spinal chord? The primate back is arched over and We all know that these drugs affect the spinal collem... so after one uses these drugs in bulk... it leads to back problems...and these problems could have became hereditary. so do you think that the evolution of our back from primate to homosapian was caused by an attempt from the spinal chord to fix it self from all the chemicals?

 

that sounds like Lamarkism. Why would a drug affecting a spinal cord be herditary?