Dhaeron

Plant evolution, not human evolution. The reason THC is found in cannabis and not, say, lycopersicon is called "coincidence".
There are pretty much unlimited possibilities for organic molecules that affect the human brain one way or another and it's not unlikely to find them in a plant that has some use for them. Given the ah, investigative nature of humans it's just a matter of time until someone finds out about those plants.
So, what do you want to diskuss? What evolutionary advantage cannabis gains from producing THC? How smoking pot affects human evolution? What's your point?

Integra96

"Using marijuana may cause:

Quote:
* Reduced abilities to do things that need concentration and coordination...

Nope. ."

Are you sure? Some of us think we've stumbled on an exception.

Arthwollipot

A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises. When there is a fallacy in an argument it is said to be invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

The logical fallacy in the argument is that every function or structure must be explained as an evolutionary advantage, otherwise it disproves evolution. That's just not true. What's the evolutionary advantage to blue eyes? What's the evolutionary advantage of our little toe? There are plenty of things which exist because (for example - like blue eyes) evolution is not affected by them.

Getting stoned does not have to be due to an evolutionary advantage in order to exist.

I can see your point. Everybody is asking for a point, but I can see it clearly. Let me state it for you:

Unless you can explain why getting stoned is an evolutionary advantage, evolutionism is false.

Is this not what you have been trying to say, V7?

Jet Black

why should the effect on humans be the evolutionary reason for the existance of THC? what doe the chemical actually do for the plant. answer that first. It's side effects on humans are principally irrelevant, since all chemicals will have some effect on body function, for example if you were to ingest a polar bear liver, it would kill you, however polar bear livers did not evolve in order to kill you, they evolved to keep the polar bear alive. killing you is just a side effect of you doing something that the liver was not principally intended for.

he does raise an interesting question though, what does THC actually do for the plant?

Sven

Well, that explains your posting style finally.
May I suggest to try discussing here without being stoned at some time? It's really much more fun!

Avatar

No wonder I can't understand a thing you say. That explains a great deal.

I'd suggest you try arguing with us when you are sober, but someone beat me to it...several times.

Jet Black

no personal attacks please.

Jet Black [EC moderator]

Oolon Colluphid

Aww, come on. The poor chap is clearly struggling with basic concepts already. Posting while stoned is asking for trouble... well asking to get the piss taken out of you, at least

Dean Anderson

On a more serious note, no-one has actually answered the basic question.

What biochemical role does THC provide for the plant?

Oolon Colluphid

Blimey, that's hard to find an answer to! Or rather, it's hard to weed out all the thousands of Google hits about thc's effects on humans. Have tried Pubmed to similar dismay. Finally I stuck 'what does thc do in a plant?' into Google, and found this one:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...5085.Bt.r.html

It protects the plant from herbivores. Which, having got stoned, then can't be bothered to eat the plant. Cows presumably don't get the munchies...

Seriously, what gives a primate brain a nice buzz might seriously mess up the neurological functioning of a herbivore, or more likely, insect pests.