I am wondering why a plant would produce alkaloids like psilocybin, mescaline, and THC. Is it just part of their individual, unique cellular metabolism reactions? Do they use they alkaloids or are they essencially waste products?
-
PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |
why do plants produce alkaloids?
- Thread starter GFunk02
- Start date
CreativeRandom
Ex-Bluelighter
The plants/fungi/animals evolved these chemicals, most of the time, as a defense mechanism. Most animals and insects avoid these "poisons". Though they may not be harmful to all undesirable lifeforms to the plant/fungi/animal, the mind alterations they cause are undesirable to the predators of them.
Other plants and fungi have them more or less used as desirable traits to it's predators, so that it will aid in reproductions (spreading of seeds).
Psychadelic animals, i think its safe to say, do not have them for reason 2.
Sometimes it was just a needless evolution. Perhaps the lifeforms would be fine or better off without these mutations.
Other plants and fungi have them more or less used as desirable traits to it's predators, so that it will aid in reproductions (spreading of seeds).
Psychadelic animals, i think its safe to say, do not have them for reason 2.
Sometimes it was just a needless evolution. Perhaps the lifeforms would be fine or better off without these mutations.
fizzacyst
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2003
- Messages
- 4,921
I read an interesting hypothesis that THC is produced by cannabis to prevent sunburn to the plant. THC is pretty good at absorbing UV rays, and these plants typically thrive is very high-light places. I wish I knew what I did with that paper.
As far as mushrooms, as said above, they are most likely 'poisons' to keep the wrong animals from eating them.
What I think is interesting, is that's exactly why we are interested in them. Just like with peppers, we eating an organism basically because it evolved a defense mechanism that we are fond of. Kinda strange.
As far as mushrooms, as said above, they are most likely 'poisons' to keep the wrong animals from eating them.
What I think is interesting, is that's exactly why we are interested in them. Just like with peppers, we eating an organism basically because it evolved a defense mechanism that we are fond of. Kinda strange.
fastandbulbous
Bluelight Crew
Design through evolution
Sometimes it was just a needless evolution. Perhaps the lifeforms would be fine or better off without these mutations
If it was a pointless exercise to produce these compounds, the plant with the mutation to produce them would have become extinct. This is because anything that causes an organism to use up resources to produce something useless is at an evolutionary disadvantage to the ones that don't, and natural selection is a very efficient, but utterly ruthless means of selecting the organism that is best for a certain enviroment. Even the slightest disadvantage will take its toll in the end (that's why you don't see us sharing the globe with neaderthal man)
Sometimes it was just a needless evolution. Perhaps the lifeforms would be fine or better off without these mutations
If it was a pointless exercise to produce these compounds, the plant with the mutation to produce them would have become extinct. This is because anything that causes an organism to use up resources to produce something useless is at an evolutionary disadvantage to the ones that don't, and natural selection is a very efficient, but utterly ruthless means of selecting the organism that is best for a certain enviroment. Even the slightest disadvantage will take its toll in the end (that's why you don't see us sharing the globe with neaderthal man)
fizzacyst
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2003
- Messages
- 4,921
^ True.
A good example is that of cave-dwelling creatures. Insects, salamanders, and some fish that dwell in caves have no eyes. They certainly had them to begin with, and you can see vestigial reamains of such, but having eyes requires the material and energy resources to build, maintain and use eyes. This caused those with less developed eyes to get selected for.
Some traits to do appear which have no evolutionary use... slight change in protien structure that doesn't affect function, or color, or whatever. A complete metabolic pathway for a poison doesn't just randomly appear though, it was developed over time.
A good example is that of cave-dwelling creatures. Insects, salamanders, and some fish that dwell in caves have no eyes. They certainly had them to begin with, and you can see vestigial reamains of such, but having eyes requires the material and energy resources to build, maintain and use eyes. This caused those with less developed eyes to get selected for.
Some traits to do appear which have no evolutionary use... slight change in protien structure that doesn't affect function, or color, or whatever. A complete metabolic pathway for a poison doesn't just randomly appear though, it was developed over time.
BilZ0r
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,675
I don't agree, a complete metabolic pathway could happen over one generation. One new enzyme pops up, and now you've got a pathway that you didn't before. That isn't likely with the case of psilocybin, because it's been concerved over a large varity of species. But with DMT, I think it is very likely. DMT is a hell of an easy compound to make. Nearly all life of earth has the enzymes neccasary to produce it, all that needs to happen is that they get enough substrate close enough to each other.
But I'm from the school of thought that DMT isn't a neurotransmitter.
But I'm from the school of thought that DMT isn't a neurotransmitter.
the title of the thread was merely "why do plants produce alkaloids"
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
honestly i believe that all organisms and their abiotic environment are ment to live in a complete state of symbiotic homeostasis. call me crazy, but i believe plants grow psychoactive agents for us, just as they grow nutrients for us. its a gift. there is no need to question why we are given these gifts when you have experienced them and the wonders they can teach us.
course that doesnt answer the question at all, just some crazy hypothesis i have inthe back of my mind.
so i say that plants produce alkaloids to aid in the photosynthetic process and food storage/energy breakdown process.
honestly i believe that all organisms and their abiotic environment are ment to live in a complete state of symbiotic homeostasis. call me crazy, but i believe plants grow psychoactive agents for us, just as they grow nutrients for us. its a gift. there is no need to question why we are given these gifts when you have experienced them and the wonders they can teach us.
course that doesnt answer the question at all, just some crazy hypothesis i have inthe back of my mind.
so i say that plants produce alkaloids to aid in the photosynthetic process and food storage/energy breakdown process.
flegmato
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 41
BilZ0r said:
"The Corvair spacecraft has been taken over – "conquered," if you will – by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earthmen or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords."
That's right, I went there.
tunedOut
Bluelighter
^^^
What was that?! What inspired that quote?
What was that?! What inspired that quote?
Morninggloryseed
Bluelight Crew
GFunk02 said:
Just for common knowledge, THC is not an alkaloid. Alkaloids are nitrogen-containing organic compounds. THC is said to be related to di-terpines. Cannabis does however (according to a really detailed book on cannabis growth I have) a trace quantity of a nicotine-like alkaloid. But the cannabinoids are not alkaloids.
fastandbulbous
Bluelight Crew
You said it
call me crazy, but i believe plants grow psychoactive agents for us
OK, I'll call you crazy. Any organism is evolving for itself not for some vaguely related other organism. I keep plugging this book about evolution, but only because it makes sense of all of the apparent quirks of natural selection. The book is "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins. Do yourself a favour and give it a read.
Then re-appraise your statement about plants doing things for us
flegmato:
How do we appease these mighty overlords so they will not smite us? (Answers on a postcard to...)
call me crazy, but i believe plants grow psychoactive agents for us
OK, I'll call you crazy. Any organism is evolving for itself not for some vaguely related other organism. I keep plugging this book about evolution, but only because it makes sense of all of the apparent quirks of natural selection. The book is "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins. Do yourself a favour and give it a read.
Then re-appraise your statement about plants doing things for us
flegmato:
How do we appease these mighty overlords so they will not smite us? (Answers on a postcard to...)
FisheyeLens
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 408
^ good point...
...makes me think of domesticated dogs...a Shihtzu could never survive in the wild and is completely dependant on humans unlike the wolf which is came from...but think of it this way, what wild wolf has a human family to care for it and ensure that all its offspring be cared for and such? Pretty cool how we think of it as selective breeding but its really a new sort of evolution. The farmer uses his Blue Heeler to move the herd but exactly who is using who here?
FisheyeLens %)
...makes me think of domesticated dogs...a Shihtzu could never survive in the wild and is completely dependant on humans unlike the wolf which is came from...but think of it this way, what wild wolf has a human family to care for it and ensure that all its offspring be cared for and such? Pretty cool how we think of it as selective breeding but its really a new sort of evolution. The farmer uses his Blue Heeler to move the herd but exactly who is using who here?
FisheyeLens %)
They don't produce psilocybin or mescaline for "protection" from predators. If that was the case then vulnerable young peyote and san pedro would contain more mescaline than the old ones.
No-one knows why mushrooms and cacti devote so much energy to producing these alkaloids. Just seems to be one of the mysteries of life.
No-one knows why mushrooms and cacti devote so much energy to producing these alkaloids. Just seems to be one of the mysteries of life.
^^^Not necessarily...
What you're forgetting is that mescaline and psilocybin are very stable substances. They don't break down easily. So, the mescaline will collect as the plant ages.
That basic fact doesn't at all take away from the idea that they are defense mechanisms.
Also, in the future I would be wary of dismissing anything as a "mystery". That's a cop-out for people too lazy or stupid to find an explanation.
What you're forgetting is that mescaline and psilocybin are very stable substances. They don't break down easily. So, the mescaline will collect as the plant ages.
That basic fact doesn't at all take away from the idea that they are defense mechanisms.
Also, in the future I would be wary of dismissing anything as a "mystery". That's a cop-out for people too lazy or stupid to find an explanation.
It doesn't matter how stable they are if the predator has eaten them does it?
If they were a defence against predators it's absolutely no use the most suculent young plants (which are the most attractive to predators) having zero mescaline. Think about it.
If they were a defence against predators it's absolutely no use the most suculent young plants (which are the most attractive to predators) having zero mescaline. Think about it.