Read on Twitter
The Cosmic Serpent posits that nature somehow communicates with itself, and that humans may also communicate with nature, via intuitive (as opposed to rational) methods. Pheromone studies seem to support his impression, while refuting “natural selection” and “random mutation”
Nearby seems unaware of work on pheromones, and the book was written based on research done in the 90’s. Pheromone studies had not gone quite as far or entered the mainstream by then. Pheromones account for much of the “communication” in nature, though nature does “speak”
Narbys speculation began when he asked South American tribesman how they knew to combine two specific plants to activate the psychogenic properties in ayahuasca. They said the plant “told” them. He also noted ayahuasca vines resemble serpents and DNA helixes
He decided to take them at their word, and eventually hypothesized that nature someone communicates its form via some intuitive process, and that the double helix form expresses itself through myth in the form of serpents and serpents entwined. Examples abound:
Nearby gives examples of scientists like Watson & Crick and Einstein experiencing breakthrough insights as a result of intuition, not laborious rational or mathematical processes, while bicycling or riding on the train (the scientists themselves state as much)
IRRC Narby leaves this open-ended, simply positing that nature communicates and understands the world around it in its specific and unique form, and DNA reshapes genetic codes to reflect the world around it. I contend that discoveries in pheromones support his hypothesis
The crucial element in “intuition” is the complete bypass or “shutting off” of the rational mind, which is the frontal cortex, and trying to “deduce” the form of the world around you. In other words, the impression that Life is simply a matter of “cause and effect”
This “cause and effect” is at the heart of Darwinian evolution; nature exerts “selection” pressure on an organism (cause) that results in the random cycling through forms (effect) until the ideal form is reached that reduces the selection pressure. In this way organisms resemble
...their surroundings “by accident.” Any idiot can see that this is incorrect, and example abound (next tweet). The improbability of this is explained by the sheer scope of time and population being on a scale of millions of years and organisms. This does *notI explain it
An elegant example is the Ophrys apifera, an orchid that grow to resemble a female bees that Eucera longicornis attempt to copulate with, thus covering themselves in the flowers pollen and pollinating other flowers (in northern climes, this same orchid self-pollinates)
We may accept that orchids cycle randomly through various pointless forms until suddenly they hit on one that happens to resemble a bee in its immediate vicinity (or that often passes through its aura), or we may adjust our theory to account for pheromones.
It is already known that Ophrys apifera *also* emits pheromones mimicking sexual pheromones of female Eucera longicornis, *in addition* to physically resembling her. And pheromones, like intuition, bypass the rational brain to effect the hypothalamus, which stimulates
....hormone secretion. We may even say “pheromones *are* intuition. Pheromones are the “language” in which nature “speaks.” Random mutation would mean the orchid happened to emit female-bee pheromones *and* looks like her *by chance*
Where’s Narbys speculation, and the actions of pheromones in general, posits that entities communicate not just their presence but their *form* and that receiving entities react to that form, in some cases through mimicry. This is far too specific for Darwinian Ev. to entertain
However it’s *already* been proven that pheromones effect the growth process of plants, eg trees emit pheromones that tell their brethren that certain areas of soil are moist and rich in nutrients, but tell different species of tree the same soil is bereft of nutrients
As a digression: it has also been “proven” that birds communicate through chirping where food is bountiful or when predators are nearby
I would argue that Dawkins himself helps refute the explaining away of random mutation and natural selection in his book “The Greatest Show on Earth” in which he makes the case that evolution is a real phenomenon (which it most certainly *is*) by giving observable examples:
Milking cows and peppered moths. While these are in fact wonderful examples of evolution existing, they are also refutations of the argument that random mutation occurs over eons and cycles through many inefficient forms before landing on the appropriate 1 for environment
The peppered moth in particular occurred (in the scientists own words) “over one human lifetime,” & was the result of a gene “switching...color schemes.” This is the *same gene* that changes moths to other colors in other regions https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36424768
Evolved forms do not take “eons” to make them fluent with their environment, or do they cycle though “randomly” as a result of environmental pressure: they switch on and off in response to messages sent to them by the Life around them
This thread, by the way, was initially conceived of as have several tweets about the effects of psychedelics and the way they enhance the reception of pheromones, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Suffice it to say, DMT and shrooms physically widen pheromone receptors
This example serves as well as the Bee Orchid, however I just learned this moth exists and don’t know enough to speak on it. To me, this *proves* that there’s more than “random mutation” https://twitter.com/stevestuwill/status/1360355632201625605
