Black Rabbit of Inle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 4,144
Still not a physical aspect.
Added tags for size:
And for posterity's sake here's an alternate view:
In the end, until there's hard data, this argument is never going to end.
Added tags for size:
NSFW:
Q: Did you know that there are similarities among different races of plants, people, and all living things despite the variation inherent in chromosome replication (breeding)?
A: Obviously. Look at skin color, eye color, hair color, breast size. Whatever it is, there's a genetic correlation.
Q: Do you know how organisms are created? Do you know what a clone is? This will help you understand genetics.
A: Think back to Jurassic Park. If you can look at all the coding regions of a genome (DNA), then, in effect, you could recreate the organism. The process of breeding makes this easy, since genetics from 2 parents combine to form offspring.
Q: Did you know that we can find our closest relatives through investigation of our DNA (mtDNA)?
A: Yes, we can trace your mitochondrial DNA all the way back to the genetic "Eve," or first mother. In effect, this means that there are similarities among our chromosomes that allow us to find a common ancestor.
Okay, now that you know this, let's look at some interesting facts about fungi genetics.
1. The fungi probably colonized the land during the Cambrian Period (542–488.3 Million years ago), long before land plants.
2. The major phyla (sometimes called divisions) of fungi have been classified mainly on the basis of characteristics of their sexual reproductive structures.
3. The use of DNA sequencing technologies and phylogenetic analysis has provided new insights into fungal relationships and biodiversity, and has challenged traditional morphology-based groupings in fungal taxonomy.
Let's look at what genetics are.
Organisms inherit traits via discrete units of inheritance called "genes." Genes hold the information to build and maintain an organism's cells and pass genetic traits to offspring.
Genes correspond to regions within DNA, a molecule composed of a chain of four different types of nucleotides—the sequence of these nucleotides is the genetic information organisms inherit.
DNA naturally occurs in a double stranded form, with nucleotides on each strand complementary to each other. Each strand can act as a template for creating a new partner strand—this is the physical method for making copies of genes that can be inherited.
The sequence of nucleotides in a gene is translated by cells to produce a chain of amino acids, creating proteins—the order of amino acids in a protein corresponds to the order of nucleotides in the gene.
This relationship between nucleotide sequence and amino acid sequence is known as the genetic code.
The amino acids in a protein determine how it folds into a three-dimensional shape; this structure is, in turn, responsible for the protein's function. Proteins carry out almost all the functions needed for cells to live.
A change to the DNA in a gene can change a protein's amino acids, changing its shape and function: this can have a dramatic effect in the cell and on the organism as a whole.
Tying it all together:
Mushrooms predate pangaea, wherein the world was one large continent. Mushrooms evolved separately over eons to create and maintain distinct genomes. These genomes give rise to coding genes that make mushrooms what they are.
The major active "ingredients" in cubensis mushrooms are:
* Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine)
* Psilocin (4-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine)
* Baeocystin (4-phosphoryloxy-N-methyltryptamine)
* Norbaeocystin (4-phosphoryloxytryptamine)
Many of you on this forum know that 2ci is not the same as 2cb. Well, the molecular difference between the two is just a switch of bromine for iodine at one position on the molecule.
Here's another example... Testosterone versus Nandralone. Can you tell me the difference between these two molecules?
One gives you male characteristics, the other gives you impotence. There's only a switch of a methyl group for a hydrogen.
Further, I invite you to characterize (identify) all active ingredients in a mushroom via HPLC, IR, C/H-NMR. To my knowledge, the complete chemical composition of Psilocybe cubensis hasn't even been deciphered, or published academically, yet. If it has, then please, by all means, tell me how many different compounds are present.
Here's what you would need to do to prove that "a cube is a cube."
1. Successfully identify all chemical compounds within each "strain" of cubensis
2. Trace each strain's chemical compounds back to the genes that coded for them
3. Show that each strain of cubensis contains the same genes
Here's why you can't do that:
Chemical composition directly correlates to genetics that directly correlates to heredity. In other words, since there are different genetics, there are different chemicals. No one can tell me that there aren't different genetics involved in the different strains.
My point is that there are many different chemicals in many different concentrations that give rise to the experience of a "mushroom trip." Even the slightest variation among the chemicals can create vastly different experiences. The chemical compositions of mushrooms are based on heredity, as are their physical appearances.
Quit spouting "a cube is a cube," please.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/13544288#13544288
And for posterity's sake here's an alternate view:
NSFW:
ndeed, fungi are older than plants, although both may be considerably older than previously believed, as fossil evidence is notoriously hard to interpret.
I agree genetics determine mushroom yield, potency, and distribution among active alkaloids - but a certain amount of what people attribute to differences between "strains" of any one species is down to expectation.
Differences between species themselves are far more pronounced, although there are (of course) people who claim there isn't really any.
There are people who claim you can't isolate for potency as well...which must be true. :wink: I've certainly never done it. :wink: :wink: Because it's impossible. :wink: :wink: :wink: I mean, why bother?
And even if you could you'd never be able to test the differences without a shed full of quantitative analysis equipment. :wink: Because nobody can do a valid bioassay on multiple samples. :wink: :wink: Because it's impossible, see. :wink: :wink: :wink: OK?
Suppose you just grow out a random isolate from each of a number of strains, and test these on yourself and your friends. And then you come to "conclusions" about strain differences, much like the original post. What you didn't (apparently) do was grow out an equal number of random isolates from just one strain, and test those on yourself and your friends - to establish a baseline of random variations.
And I'm not even going to speculate about multispore growing in this regard.
Though I suspect there may be differences, even replicable differences (because otherwise selection for valued characteristics doesn't work - although we generally know it does work, by narrowing the genetic variability) it's nigh impossible to prove. This is why both points of view survive.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/13545805#13545805
In the end, until there's hard data, this argument is never going to end.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
