exactlywatt
Active member
Man, sometimes it's nice to sleep on a thread, and then have 14 pages of great reading on Monday morning!
Is genetic diversity really that important?
- Thread starter theFLINTSTONERS
- Start date
PazVerdeRadical said:
PazVerdeRadical,
Do you really believe that people in the Americas Circa 400 BC were using hemp? I am pretty sure that no evidence would stand upto modern inquires as far as I know no Cannabis has been found in the Americas pre-1492. See: http://www.internationalhempassociation.org/jiha/jiha5208.html
Ancient pollen and seeds have been found in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, but not in the Americas, wonder why? Maybe because it was not there until 1492?
-SamS
Last edited:
Sam_Skunkman said:
fact is, after the conquest, the church destroyed all historical records as well as censored uses of many plants since the church believed were means through
which the demons possesed the amerindians. anyone who has studied any archeology knows central and south america are the
places out of which we know less about prior to the conquest, because the church made sure to erase the past of whole civilizations.
even tortured amerindians to 'get them out of their demonic habits', heck,in lima, peru, there's a whole museum dedicated to these sort of things...
basically, you can't prove that the first visitors to the americas were the spanish in 1492, in fact, evidence tells us many visitors were there a whole
lot earlier, not only were visitors there earlier, but pre-colombian civilizations sailed outside the americas as well, we know they reached the pacific
and colonized places such as rapaui/pascua. for these we have irrefutable physical evidence as well, for example, identical constructions. experiments have been done
as well, by effectively sailing from peru to rapanui using incan traditional ships.
therefore claming cannabis never reached americas prior to 1492 is just one more theory; thankfully each day new evidence is found to remind us
that we don't know as much as we thought we did... fact: coca and tabacco were found in royal ancient egyptian mummies,plants thought to be original to the americas,
and yet, egyptians had them prior to the roman era. as i said, the world is pretty big and a lot of information we still do not know, and trying to claim facts with the little
we think to know seems way hasty and unscientific to say the least.
also, if you want to find ancient pollen and seeds in the americas, you have to start looking; say, do you know what is the territorial area
not explored nor studied at all just in venezuela? we recently found our own versions of nazca lines in places the church told us
were uninhabited for example; a few years ago people claimed as fact that venezuela had no important acheological findings like
in other andinean countries.
jo ta ke!
This is a great thread, the way I see it is that nature made the building blocks and man has been trying to get the best out of them ever since, fiber, oil, medicine etcetc. and for some reason it looks like nature just keeps the genetic diversity for its reasons where man doesnt for a good reason also I guess. Have a great day all and love each other.
have a good day as well mr. farmer john, much peace
muddy waters
Active member
was cannabis being cultivated by man on the central asian plateau 12,000 years ago? most amerindians are genetically linked to mongolians and other peoples from central asia, and the most recent migration was probably at the end of the last ice age, 11,000-13,000 years ago.
i have a tough time believing that there were trade routes say between the americas and the old world in prehistoric times, but i consider it less far fetched to think that some of the original asian immigrants to the americas may have brought cannabis with them. if it had been a major part of any amerindian culture, though, i think more archeological evidence would've been found than just a single smithsonian finding from the 19th century.
just my 2 cents
i have a tough time believing that there were trade routes say between the americas and the old world in prehistoric times, but i consider it less far fetched to think that some of the original asian immigrants to the americas may have brought cannabis with them. if it had been a major part of any amerindian culture, though, i think more archeological evidence would've been found than just a single smithsonian finding from the 19th century.
just my 2 cents
I dunno, muddy... but the distribution of the 'clovis point' (a type of arrowhead), was used to show that man traveled to the eastern seaboard of the modern day US from europe during one of the Ice ages... And I have seen evidence as well that ancient Egyptians made voyages to the south american continent, Some guy even built a ship out of reed from the nile and used it to reproduce the journey... I think it was called the Ra II(the boat he built)...
muddy waters
Active member
thanks h3ad, i am doubtful though because we have mostly deciphered the written languages of the egyptians, maya, and other lost civilizations from 'prehistory', not to mention we have most everything the greeks and romans wrote, yet this intercontinental trade was never mentioned by anyone? i would think it would've been a very big deal.
the thing about the vikings on the other hand is definitely believable in my mind. the vikings couldn't have brought cannabis to the mound-builders in 400 B.C. however.
i would like to know if the resident scholars however believe that cannabis was already present as a cultivated crop in central asia around the time of the last ice age. sam alluded to findings in the middle east, africa, and asia, would any of those be sufficiently old enough to encounter the amerindians still in mongolia or eastern asia? is there any reputable published timeline for the spread of cannabis?
the thing about the vikings on the other hand is definitely believable in my mind. the vikings couldn't have brought cannabis to the mound-builders in 400 B.C. however.
i would like to know if the resident scholars however believe that cannabis was already present as a cultivated crop in central asia around the time of the last ice age. sam alluded to findings in the middle east, africa, and asia, would any of those be sufficiently old enough to encounter the amerindians still in mongolia or eastern asia? is there any reputable published timeline for the spread of cannabis?
A paper about the Ra expeditions
http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/RAX.html
http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/RAX.html
medjool
Active member
one other item of interest to me
and with the death of Dr Tod
and the decades of reefer madness
*how I hate that*
apparently
there used to be more than 100 specific medical conditions
that cannabis was helpful for
and not all of them would be looking at the THC content
I would imagine.
but at this point in history, I guess we'll never know.
I recently made a topical
and now I get to skip an Rx or two....
mrs m
PS thanks to superman for the exact beeswax directions...
and I have not used my albuterol in three years at least!
muddy waters said:
hola muddy, just to let you imagine how hard it is to find anything in the world, consider that in the state where i live, a long time ago a small community was founded on some far away mountain place;
the community built a small town there, and lived there for a couple generations (pop. about 350 people); the people of the town decided to abandon the town 50 years ago; after 50 years of the town being abandoned, the forest of the mountain simply ate the whole thing up.
couldn't find it from the air if you tried...
many people consider it a fact that many pre-colombian important archeological sites are yet to be found because of the above mentioned
phenomena; to complicate things further, our amerindians tell us many constructions and places during the conquest were hidden
in what they call another dimension hehehe...
also, as you know, marijuana today is part of amerindian and afro-latin-american religious movements; it is hard to know
exactly when mazatecos in mexico started to use marijuana as sacrament, schultes says they use it when no peyote can be found.
why don't they use another of the many entheogens found all over mexico? i know this isn't convincing enough, but nor is simply accepting
cannabis came only after 1492.
muddy waters said:
well, it is from the greeks that we have the information about atlantida we have today; recorded in plato's writtings.
there are plenty of ancient sources that speak of intercontinental travels, heck, even space travels where descriptions of the earth as seen from space are given; gilgamesh, a sumerian character, is a notorious example.
another example, the popul vuh, a mayan work, states that: "men came from the stars, knowing everything, and they examined the four corners of the sky and the earth's round surface."
man, i hope we haven't gone too far away from the original intent of the thread...
peace
the Viking/Norse people settled in N. America during the medieval period. but it had been "discovered" no-doubt many times before this... Atlantis is a myth.. lol
anyhow, anthropological evidence suggests that cannabis first reached the America's via Spanish/Porto/French settlers/sailors in the south... then later by the English in the north. where it was traded for tobacco n buffalo-skins with locals :wink:
cannabis diaspora follows the rope trade!!!
rope trade = male plants
hence, what Sam is saying about plants having low levels of THC seems to fit,, unless procreated to produce 'female' plants high in cannabinoids that is
bless up
anyhow, anthropological evidence suggests that cannabis first reached the America's via Spanish/Porto/French settlers/sailors in the south... then later by the English in the north. where it was traded for tobacco n buffalo-skins with locals :wink:
cannabis diaspora follows the rope trade!!!
rope trade = male plants
hence, what Sam is saying about plants having low levels of THC seems to fit,, unless procreated to produce 'female' plants high in cannabinoids that is
bless up
Last edited:
DocLeaf said:the Viking/Norse people settled in N. America during the medieval period. but it had been "discovered" no-doubt many times before this... Atlantis is a myth.. lol
anyhow, anthropological evidence suggests that cannabis first reached the America's via Spanish/Porto/French settlers/sailors in the south... then later by the English in the north. where it was traded for tobacco n buffalo-skins with locals :wink:
cannabis diaspora follows the rope trade!!!
rope trade = male plants
hence, what Sam is saying about plants having low levels of THC seems to fit,, unless procreated to produce 'female' plants high in cannabinoids that is
bless up
well docleaf, mythology, according to schelling and hegel, is philosophy told poetically. mythology understood as things that aren't likely to be true is a misunderstanding. atlantis is neither true nor false to us since we have no means to know for sure, just like we can't say for sure exactly where cannabis originated and how did it spread, at least we cannot know atm with the little info we have. the atlantis reference is just to show that plenty of stranger things than cannabis being here prior to 1492 can be recorded by what people consider serious folk like plato.
paz.
muddy waters
Active member
paz you are an excellent rhetorician and philosophical jouster! mythology is philosophy told poetically, not just a bunch of made up stories to give order to chaos!? who knew??
cheers
cheers
muddy man, some people may take offense if you called them that, i won't though peace!
yo Paz
we are talking about genetic diversity on this thread,,, if yo wanna chat Hegelian ethic or the Lotophagi (Lotus Eaters),,, please check out the smokers lounge,, or drop us a pm.
[edit: too long]
peoples have been farming and trading cannabis, for a-lot longer than ppl have been writing about! :wink:
bless,
we are talking about genetic diversity on this thread,,, if yo wanna chat Hegelian ethic or the Lotophagi (Lotus Eaters),,, please check out the smokers lounge,, or drop us a pm.
[edit: too long]
peoples have been farming and trading cannabis, for a-lot longer than ppl have been writing about! :wink:
bless,
Last edited:
I always considered mythology to be more of a set of metaphors used by cultures both to identify with and share with others who they are. Their customs, philosophies, history, artform and telling a story around the campfire all rolled in to one. The main function being to give a sense of identity as cultures mix and interact. IMO organized religion is a natural evolution of mythology and more engineered to assimilate others into one's culture, typically for subjugation.
Ok, now let me get this back on topic so noone can correct what I said above and make me feel stupid, lol.
Doc, I respectfully disagree that potency has always been strongly associated with female plants. In order to breed cannabis of high potency there has to be some use of male plants. The Santa Rosa cults of southern Mexico were known to mix male and female plants ascribing different effects to each in order to produce the desired effect.
If there was no evolutionary advantage to producing thc as opposed to cbd or vice versa then why do both the Bt and Bd alleles occur in both wide leafed and narrow leafed populations, wild plants and plants domesticated for fiber, seed, or drug content? I mean, if a mutation occurs and poses no evolutionary advantage why would it continue to spread to such a high frequency? There's only a few scenarios to explain this. Either both the Bd and Bt alleles are coded to produce enzymes which did have an evolutionary function in the ancestral species to cannabis, which seems unlikely that this trait would still exist unless cannabis was a cultigen species. The second alternative is that there is some evolutionary advantage to producing cbd thc or both. Whichever one occured later being more suited to a particular environment. The third scenario is that the Bt allele occured as a mutation after the genesis of cannabis as a species and its subsequent domestication. The mutation allowing for producing thc as the primary cannabinoid then being detected by man and propagated meaning that all cannabis possessing the Bt allele has selective breeding in its ancestry. Perhaps cannabis was selectively bred even before the breeders had developed agriculturally creating the paradox of a selectively bred wild species. There's only one allele which makes either thc or cbd the primary cannabinoid. Thc production is obviously extremely desirable by humans and until very recently humanity has been quite indifferent to Cbd production. So when I think about how both the Bt and Bd alleles occur about equally in the cannabis genepool and how as opposed to the Bd allele, only the Bt allele has been selectively bred for over the history of humanity's association with cannabis. It makes me assume the Bt allele was quite rare before humanity propagated it.
Ok, now let me get this back on topic so noone can correct what I said above and make me feel stupid, lol.
Doc, I respectfully disagree that potency has always been strongly associated with female plants. In order to breed cannabis of high potency there has to be some use of male plants. The Santa Rosa cults of southern Mexico were known to mix male and female plants ascribing different effects to each in order to produce the desired effect.
If there was no evolutionary advantage to producing thc as opposed to cbd or vice versa then why do both the Bt and Bd alleles occur in both wide leafed and narrow leafed populations, wild plants and plants domesticated for fiber, seed, or drug content? I mean, if a mutation occurs and poses no evolutionary advantage why would it continue to spread to such a high frequency? There's only a few scenarios to explain this. Either both the Bd and Bt alleles are coded to produce enzymes which did have an evolutionary function in the ancestral species to cannabis, which seems unlikely that this trait would still exist unless cannabis was a cultigen species. The second alternative is that there is some evolutionary advantage to producing cbd thc or both. Whichever one occured later being more suited to a particular environment. The third scenario is that the Bt allele occured as a mutation after the genesis of cannabis as a species and its subsequent domestication. The mutation allowing for producing thc as the primary cannabinoid then being detected by man and propagated meaning that all cannabis possessing the Bt allele has selective breeding in its ancestry. Perhaps cannabis was selectively bred even before the breeders had developed agriculturally creating the paradox of a selectively bred wild species. There's only one allele which makes either thc or cbd the primary cannabinoid. Thc production is obviously extremely desirable by humans and until very recently humanity has been quite indifferent to Cbd production. So when I think about how both the Bt and Bd alleles occur about equally in the cannabis genepool and how as opposed to the Bd allele, only the Bt allele has been selectively bred for over the history of humanity's association with cannabis. It makes me assume the Bt allele was quite rare before humanity propagated it.
Last edited:
Very well said, and an excellent additional evidence...zamalito said:
zamalito said:
has anyone else mentioned that maybe the allele that allows thc is an expression to secure
reproduction through man?. now that would really be cool.
Brownpants
Active member
zamalito said:
I like scenario three.
On another note, It appears man manipulated THCv levels. See statement below:
Small and Beckstead (1973b) also reported comparable levels of total cannabinoids in their "psychotomimetic" and "non-psychotomimetic" strains. Plants with enhanced levels of THCV were uncommon in most drug accessions, except those from southern Africa and an accession from Afghanistan. This suggests that humans may have selected against this trait in cultivated drug strains.
Imo....potency = high THC (chemotype 1) and low THCv with terpenes acting as a synergistic ally.
Terpenes to me are like dialing in a radio station, different terpenes result in different radio stations. Some are rockin, some are mellow and after a while you might get sick of listening to the same station. While, having High THC and low THCv ensures a strong radio signal.
Just some thoughts I wanted to share.
-BP-
