It is well known that Castenada just made up Don Juan, and all the stories in the books. I used to date a girl whose mother knew him well. She confirmed he just made it all up for financial gain.
I am sure that the imagination of Carlos Castenada was endless, nothing more though.
It is well known people, ex wife in particular, have spoken against him. Nothing more.
I think he just failed at his task, the one Don Juan assigned him but he succeeded at another.
Try finding your hands in your dreams one night and you’ll know what I mean.
Update on treated and untreated Tiger Jack clones.
As one who has never mastered the art of cloning cannabis, less than half of clones I attempt succeed.
Most of the ones I do succeed with take upwards of 21 days before I see roots. I looked at plenty of techniques from many different sites and tried aerocloning, 4 different types of rooting hormones, willow branch tea, perlite, vermiculite, combos of both, rooter plugs, coco and plain water with equal non success.
Since some contributors of whom I’ve read set the bar at clones showing nubs in three days, that would my idea and criteria for a superior method.
So I doubled that time anyway and decided that a week would be just as acceptable as a second best method, I decided to take a peek.
Here are the treated and control clones. Treated on left.
^^^ The treated clone looks more lively against the somewhat shriveled control. The control was clipped soon after snipping as it was wilting.
Removed from the media, neither clipping shows any root development.
Upon magnification the white flecks seen below are just perlite stuck on the surface and washed off, sorry no pics.
Without a definite advantage shown by the EFG and still wanting those clips to succeed, I have scraped both clips, applied rooting hormone and replanted in the same containers.
Now this has never worked for me before but I have more optimism than good sense and they still look healthy enough to try this again. (Didn’t use the lube as a binder, just dusted with the brushes)
GrowingHigher’s link Chapter 11 mentions brief exposure to the electrostatic field producing results yet the cutting seemed to thrive in it, I fully expected some root development.
I consider this test a fail.
So now on to the fresh seed side by side test…
EFG treated Golden Tiger X Blue Dream seed and control side by side update.
For me this is the heart of this experiment.
Below are 4 each treated and control sprouts, T 1-4 and C 1-4 respectively.
Upper left is treated 7/8 year old seed, the only one to sprout from either group, more evidence showing this device’s one demonstrable effect, … so far.
Upper right we have #2 from the first treated group and below her is “F”, the only one from the first test’s control group that survived.
I’ll try to post update pics of treated #'s 1 and 2 soon.
He made up Don Juan, that is the point. There was no task assigned because the person (Don Juan) did not exist.
By the way, don’t take these posts as criticism of your thread, but I will correct incorrect statements especially if used to support another argument.
10 yr old treated seed update:
#1 on left and #3 on right.
#1 is showing asymmetrical leaf production and a decided swirl or twist to the clockwise when seen from above.
#3 has presently shown no unusual development.
Clones still alive and looking well. 
Update.
First, we have #1 from the 10yr, treated group.
This one had primary leaf deformation and a clockwise swirl.
I have seen this same type of deformation on other poster’s images here so it probably a more common occurrence than I’ve noticed before.
The leaf symmetry is still weird but less of the clockwise swirl.
No. 3 from the 10 yr treated group looks normal, wider leaves.
The treated seed, only survivor of the 7yr group.
#2 from the 10yr treated group, the one that had a contorted youth. Looking quite robust.
Here is “F” from the 10yr control group. The leaves are less wide than the treated group.
I have seen this before with other sativa/indica crosses.
Now here is the Golden Tiger/Blue Dream seed. Treated group T1 shriveled up and perished.
T2 is a runt that stopped growing. T3 and T4 are somewhat normal but not as robust as the control group.
The clones taken 1/19 are still thriving, waiting to see some roots sticking out.
That’s all for now.
Update on clones
So, I was trying to count backwards from Jan 19th to get to 21 days(the usual time it takes me to get roots) but I was stoned so I took a peek yesterday and what did my red eyes spy?
The untreated, control clone was showing her stuff!
I figured the treated clone, if this EFG made an obvious difference, would be bursting with roots.
Not a damn one. Huh.
I can’t figure why this one is still alive. Def outside my experience.
Repotted it and it is still kicking.
Normally when taking clones I strip off large, lower leaves but not this time. All the leaves were left on because of the wilting that hit the control. Yet this cutting looks like it’s still attached to the mom.
I’ll have to brood over this with a bowl.
holy shit science is happening
i am ignorant to most of this thread when it gets into the finer points of biology and such, but if a random mutation can occur as you admitted, then how can you be assured it is also nonfunctional? wouldn’t the term random mutation at least allow for a viable evolutionary like mutation that is succesful? isn’t that kinda how evolution works. if you don’t mind correct me in laymen’s language
also, @spaceman, how would one determine the difference between a prehistoric expression and a new mutation? why drag the acestral part into it. you may be on to something, but ig the only point the other guy made that rings true to me is there is no way to connect the phenomena to long lost traits even if the experiment has sucess, not just your experiment even a broader one by a university? for example we don’t know what prehistoric cannabis looked like so again i don’t see how it would ever be possible to show a successful mutation as a prehistoric expression. i read yoru 12 ear corn etc… example,but did corn used to have 12 ears or is that a new mutation? are two headed fish near chernobyl a prehistoric expression? i wouldn’t think so
…look forward to your reply
hey man you say you have a llot of trouble cloning usually. i hate cloning lol, but i have always had close to 100% sucess at it so i’ll pass along a few tips that i think make a huge difference. first of all overspraying clones and keeping them wet keeps them alive but slows or prevents rooting in my experience. it is best to dampen the rapid rooters which i highly recommend using, and then spray the fuck out the dome and the leaves cover it and literally don’t open it for a week, not even a peek as you let the humidity out, and it is humidity you want not direct wetness. the only time i would open it is if you notice the rapid rooter drying whcih means check em allot. now i don’t always follow this protocol as i can’t help myself from “playing” with my plants lol, but the main point remains the same. humidity not wet 24/7 all this spray 3 times a day shiot is wrong imo, i made a quick yt vid a while back showing me doing this and th crazy roots i get in under a week. outliergenetix is the channel, don’t laugh at my ghetto gorws and channel, i don’t even post on it. i did for liek a month and was like the heck with yt
I was specifically talking about the accumulation of random mutations among a gene sequence for a protein that is no longer expressed in a hypothetical lineage. It is highly unlikely that mutations that have accumulated in a non coding region would retain functionality of the protein, or randomly create a new adventitious protien, if it were to be expressed again in the line (although, it it were and was beneficial, selection could act on the expressed gene).
In coding genes, random mutations are selected for or against when they affect the organisms phenotype. Most mutations are detrimental and are quickly selected against. Beneficial mutations may be selected for. They then may spread in a population and become fixed. That is how evolution works.
wouldn’t some nonfunctional mutations still be beneficial if not the the plant to us? for example wouldn’t sterile females aka aborted pistils be an example of this? i have read a study that they replicate this in other plants using a true hermaphrodite and pollinating it with a male. the key was a true intersex plant and not seeds from selfing itself. i think it was turnips in the one study. is that a different type of mutation? from what i understand is it caused infrtility by mutatng some key feature of the pistil causing it to be sterile. if that is a nonfunctional mutation then it still has merit given open pollintaion issues in farming
I will apologize to everyone here right now for having even mentioned the claims of “prehistoric” attributes made by the originators of this process. I did try to speculate what those claims may have meant or could have been caused by should they be true.
The goal of this “experiment” was a side by side test to determine if my crudely made EFG and extremely limited range of test subjects would show marked differences in growth, appearance and potency, not rewrite genetic theory.
The trial with clones was done on my own hook to see if the EFG affected non embryonic tissue.
I know of no source that one could refer to for information on prehistoric cannabis. The closet thing I have are the landraces and my own experience from weed in the early 1970’s.
I enjoyed a wide variety of cultivars from differing parts of the world, mexican, central and south american, thai, hawaiian but never found the fun trip that “jamaican” provided.
Also none of the weed back then had the skunky dank of today’s couchlock weed, an aroma I can’t stand because of up close and personal experiences with real skunks.
When I became aware of this process and the original claims offered in the links at the top of this thread, that it removed hybridization and could even reverse the effects genetic engineering, I had to give it a try.
Images of 12 ear corn stalks, a feature that did not exist in the known development of maize from teosinte, means that if true, something else must be happening. As long as the plants I’ve started out with cooperate, we shall see if any unusual features or expressions show.
Stay tuned.
btw, I own a bugout place off the beaten path in case TSHTF. For some reason, over the years, several skunks have ended up dead at the foot of my driveway that I’ve had to dispose of.
There is no odor that can inspire retching quite like a putrefying skunk yet I smell traces of it in dank bud.
Thanks for those tips.
Most of the success I’ve had with clones has been using humidity domes but 2+ weeks and nothing near 100%.
I think I read in TLO by the Rev that he didn’t use humidity domes and it didn’t seem wise to try and use one with this electrical device. I kept the control out of humidity to keep the test close but it still has outperformed the EFG clone.
Ooops, I just realized that should read:
All the leaves were left on yet wilting hit only the control.
i cannot speak for the 70s but the 80s was more skunky than today. that was my experience. i also speculate cannabis was selected over thousands of years to become male/female plants. i would guess it was an intesex plant originally., like hemp i think i read something about that once but i could be making it up to lol
i tried once without a humidity dome and it did not go well. the main thing for me is humidity needs to be high, like 99% high. how you can do that with no dome idk, but i was really referrign to the fact many articles and videos say to mist em under the dome min 3 times a day or some shit and i discovered leaving them alone not misting as long as the dome is damp and temps warm it will root asap. you are popping some old genetics tho so maybe allot of those are simply harder to root. i have had a strain or two that seemed more troublesome than others
No. Whatever you are describing is not related to what I am talking about (it also sounds more like male-sterile lines used for breeding hybrids of monecious plants, not applicable to Cannabis). A loss of gene function could have a useful effect, but that is not what I am explaining. I am talking about genetic drift of sequences that are not expressed.
Cannabis is dioecious naturally, not due to artificial selection. Monecious hemp varieties are maintained by artificial selection.
In every wild population of cannabis there are herms. I have heard several people claim, cultivated dioecy seeds, once brought into the wild and left alone, will also start developing some herms again.
