Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrRiplEy[H] on December 15, 2013, 11:24:22 AM
-
Researchers say that they've unlocked a whopping 100% more information that's hidden in DNA on top of the protein controlling layer. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6164/1367
That's all fine and dandy, but what does that say of the people who were calming us down on geneticly modified crops and telling people they 'knew' what the effects of the modification were, while being totally oblivious of 50% of the information attached to the said DNA lol.
-
I thought we have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years. why is it such a big deal now?
semp
-
I thought we have been genetically modifying crops for thousands of years. why is it such a big deal now?
semp
There is a big difference between the cross breeding of crops in old times compared with the genetic engineering that goes in today.
-
Cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli all came from the same plant. Maize (American corn) came from a grass that had a an ear with about 10 kernels on it. The list goes on and on.
Penn and Teller did a good show on genetically modified food. Without it, there would be a huge food shortage. It's been going on since the 1960s (actually manipulating the genes), whereas earlier forms of modifications just involved breeding for desirable traits.
Some people say "natural is better". Well, plants don't want to be eaten. Certain plants have been eaten so much that they have evolved to let their seeds survive the gastrointestinal tract of animals. Other plants produce chemicals to keep from being eaten (apple seeds have cyanide in them, peppers have capsascin, certain tubers have cellulose crystals very similar to shards of glass).
If Monsantos or some other company can develop a disease resistant, drought resistant, complete protein, essential fatty acid producing crop by manipulating the genes, I'm all for it.
-
There is a big difference between the cross breeding of crops in old times compared with the genetic engineering that goes in today.
cross breeding is the original genetic manipulation.
semp
-
there's a lot of misinformation from both sides of the genetically engineering thingy. both sides want to prove they're right and the other is wrong.
it's like the "organic" food controversy. a lot of it comes from china. milk anybody? I hear they have lots of protein.
semp
-
Yes there IS a big difference in cross breeding and genetic manpulation. In genetic manipulation they are looking at a specific outcome based on testing to define the parameters that are desired. Locking down as many spurious results as possible to achieve the goal.
In cross breeding they mix plant pollen with plants and look to see what happens. Then they hope to replicate the process in the field with virtually no controls, provided the results of the cross breeding were successful in the first place and not just a random nonreproducible fluke.
I suppose my sarcasm alert (tm) should have been posted first but you can probably figure out the crux of what I'm saying.
Both methods ARE gentic manipulation. One just uses far more precise scientific methods to do it.
-
I don't know all sides to this discussion though in simply looking at the broader picture...
The average life expectancy has gone up dramatically
Deaths by cancer, etc are flatlining proportionate to population
Overall, we are much healthier than we used to be
On the downside, processed foods and sugars are contributing to a morbid obesity epidemic. I don't believe this is related to genetically modified foods as much as simple food choices.
Proof is in the pudding?
boo
-
Yes there IS a big difference in cross breeding and genetic manpulation. In genetic manipulation they are looking at a specific outcome based on testing to define the parameters that are desired. Locking down as many spurious results as possible to achieve the goal.
In cross breeding they mix plant pollen with plants and look to see what happens. Then they hope to replicate the process in the field with virtually no controls, provided the results of the cross breeding were successful in the first place and not just a random nonreproducible fluke.
I suppose my sarcasm alert (tm) should have been posted first but you can probably figure out the crux of what I'm saying.
Both methods ARE gentic manipulation. One just uses far more precise scientific methods to do it.
so this means that you are acknowledging that blueberry is your shade account?
semp
-
so this means that you are acknowledging that blueberry is your shade account?
semp
:huh random
-
Amish popcorn specializes in non modified popcorn. BTW if you haven't tried really good popcorn you are in for a treat. His blues purple and red are delicious.
http://www.amishcountrypopcorn.com/ (http://www.amishcountrypopcorn.com/)
-
The genetically modified stuff is patentable and is big business. Farmers are being threatened to get on board and pay the man or else.
-
cross breeding is the original genetic manipulation.
semp
Nope cross breeding is natures own mechanism which will prevent non-natural outcomes. The GMA crops you guys are eating (and without which the majority of the rest of the world is doing just fine to the dismay of Monsanto who now owns PATENTS to your crop supplies) are modified by artificially snipping genes from competely other species in a totally unnatural way.
-
Nope cross breeding is natures own mechanism which will prevent non-natural outcomes. The GMA crops you guys are eating (and without which the majority of the rest of the world is doing just fine to the dismay of Monsanto who now owns PATENTS to your crop supplies) are modified by artificially snipping genes from competely other species in a totally unnatural way.
of course you know everything we eat right? have you ever been to one of our supermarkets? most of the stuff they sale is grown in other countries.
semp
-
of course you know everything we eat right? have you ever been to one of our supermarkets? most of the stuff they sale is grown in other countries.
semp
GM crops are big only in the US and are found in most US produced products. Which is why many of them are banned from sales in other countries.
The 'beauty' of Monsantos business model is that it bullies farmers into using their products and even the ones that refuse, will get their fields polluted with GM cross breeding from adjacent fields, after which Monsanto will hit with their lawyers. Twisted, twisted state of affairs.
-
you guys think they now know 100% about DNA?
I hope not.....
but this is one step closer to DNA coding....or should I say "quaying the population"....
-
GM crops are big only in the US and are found in most US produced products. Which is why many of them are banned from sales in other countries.
The 'beauty' of Monsantos business model is that it bullies farmers into using their products and even the ones that refuse, will get their fields polluted with GM cross breeding from adjacent fields, after which Monsanto will hit with their lawyers. Twisted, twisted state of affairs.
really? you gonna argue with me about what I buy and where it comes from when you live thousands of miles away? when was the last time you walked into the stater bro's two blocks from my house? or the local Chinese fish market?
but for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and the jalapenos with a made in mexico sticker are actually grown here in the united states. or the bananas with a sticker that says grown in some central american country (they keep changing). what exactly is wrong with with GM products? me being a dumb american, I would love to learn :rolleyes:
semp
-
Hell I eat pink slime burgers, what have I got to say in this matter :)
-
See Rule #4
-
[snip] Certain plants have been eaten so much that they have evolved to let their seeds survive the gastrointestinal tract of animals.
Some plants do want to have their seeds eaten because they evolved to survive the stomach acids. This is why some fruits and berries even exist, the plants create the tasty snack so that animal eat them and spread the seeds when they defecate
-
They evolved to have their seeds survive the ride through the gut of animals, because the plants who did not have extra tough-seed coats did not get their genes passed on. Same with certain trees that can only reproduce if there is a wildfire. It takes a lot of extra energy to produce specialized seeds.
-
The prize is to have sustainable, renewable food sources, with enough yield to supply the world's hunger. I see no problem with attempting to manipulate genetics in order to achieve this goal.
HOWEVER, i liken this case to a child running before learning to walk.... :old:
We may be on the right path, but we are trying to get there too fast... Not all of the ramifications to our long term health of this genetic alteration are clear. This is what scares me, in today's capitalistic driven world, if those scientists don't produce something that is marketable, they have failed and may be out of a job. This is creating a "rush" scenario in which the long term health affects are not properly documented in favor of getting the product to market.
Furthermore on the topic of Monsanto, being a farmer and growing up in that world, I understand the family farm concept and how big farming is destroying them with something I never thought possible; OWNING /PATENTING A LIVING ORGANISM!!!!
To give an example, this is like if I had the rights/patent to a Bull Cow, and I let that Bull cow loose in another mans herd of cattle. After my Bull has impregnated all the cattle, i then goto that farmer with my legal team and say, all of your offspring are belong to us. It's INSANE.
Genetic Modification and yield increases are required if we as a planet plan on feeding ourselves. I think we just need to be a bit more cautious in our approach as to ensure we're not running before we know how to properly walk.
my 2 cents....
-
They evolved to have their seeds survive the ride through the gut of animals, because the plants who did not have extra tough-seed coats did not get their genes passed on. Same with certain trees that can only reproduce if there is a wildfire. It takes a lot of extra energy to produce specialized seeds.
An important thing to consider from the plant's point of view is that the seeds should not fall right under the plant. If they did, they would compete for the growth resources with the mother plant. Some plants grow wings on their seed, some other make animals carry them around. As a bonus the latter get a free dose of fertilizer for their seed. If plants could think, I'd call that clever!
-
If Monsantos or some other company can develop a disease resistant, drought resistant, complete protein, essential fatty acid producing crop by manipulating the genes, I'm all for it.
Monsanto are outright evil.
-
Monsanto never sued anybody over small cross pollination. They aren't "evil."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted)
-
Monsanto never sued anybody over small cross pollination. They aren't "evil."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted)
Are you daft? They threaten with legal action and small farmers have no choice but settle or stop farming. They can't afford legal fees.
So no, nobody decided to risk their life and fight a losing fight against a huge corporation lol.
Also round-up is found to be toxic and accumulate in the soil. It's nasty stuff.
-
Are you daft? They threaten with legal action and small farmers have no choice but settle or stop farming. They can't afford legal fees.
So no, nobody decided to risk their life and fight a losing fight against a huge corporation lol.
Also round-up is found to be toxic and accumulate in the soil. It's nasty stuff.
a lot of farmers are being sued because they bought monsanto's seeds. then kept some of the seeds from the crop to replant next years crops and subsequent crops without paying royalties to montsanto.
semp
-
An important thing to consider from the plant's point of view is that the seeds should not fall right under the plant. If they did, they would compete for the growth resources with the mother plant. Some plants grow wings on their seed, some other make animals carry them around. As a bonus the latter get a free dose of fertilizer for their seed. If plants could think, I'd call that clever!
have you met the vileness pine tree yet? not only does he spike animals with thorns and nasty sharp edges he oozes gew to suffocate bugs and also spreads toxic growth hormones so nothing else can grow around him. What a grump. :(
Not quite as bad as monsonto who has enginered crops so that almost all the food we eat has also been sprayed by monsontos own death spray. furthermore he has added insecticides that slowly causes the dysfunction of any insect that decides to eat or pollinate that plant. :uhoh
-
Monsanto never sued anybody over small cross pollination. They aren't "evil."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted)
Not sure if you're plain stupid or didn't read the article you posted:
So why is this a myth? It's certainly true that Monsanto has been going after farmers whom the company suspects of using GMO seeds without paying royalties. And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
-
Not sure if you're plain stupid or didn't read the article you posted:
the thing is that Schneider did use monsants seeds. he even admitted to it in his explanation. even by his own tests his crop had over 50% of their seeds.
semp
-
Not sure if you're plain stupid or didn't read the article you posted:
I know you're from New Zealand so English isn't your first language, but perhaps it is you who needs to read it more closely? :neener:
-
I hope not.....
but this is one step closer to DNA coding....or should I say "quaying the population"....
what does quaying mean? :huh
-
only on the Aces High BBS can you actually find people dumb enough to defend Monsanto :rofl :rofl
-
well considering they helped create life as we know it, i think they are not that bad.
-
It's kind of like going in and using a terminal instead of a somewhat-training-wheelsy and less powerful GUI, but not actually knowing thoroughly how to use the terminal. Maybe, I don't know. I'm not great with text based user interfaces but I know it's easy to screw stuff up if you're to ambitious.
The artificial methods that chemists have of doing things that nature does... doing the work of enzymes and such with high heats, acids or bases, and toxic metals... are just not as well suited. They're clunky, imprecise, time consuming, and easily give you results that you certainly were not looking for. What nature is capable of doing with strings of amino acids is fairly roundabout and Rube-Goldberg-esque, but also takes place under amazingly gentle conditions and, more interestingly, is amazingly precise.
What's more, nature builds these things exactly how they're meant to be built without unintentionally screwing up things it didn't know was there. Obviously we have a long way to go in that department, and we should probably do a bit more poking around before we start blindly bulling around in things we don't understand.
-
the thing is that Schneider did use monsants seeds. he even admitted to it in his explanation. even by his own tests his crop had over 50% of their seeds.
semp
But there are only two ways he could have got monsanto seeds, brought them or had them cross-pollinate / blow onto his land. Monsanto say he didn't buy them. So monsanto effective contaminated his crops, his seeds then try to clean him out over it.
-
I know you're from New Zealand so English isn't your first language, but perhaps it is you who needs to read it more closely? :neener:
ah huh
And there are plenty of cases — including Schmeiser's — in which the company has overreached, engaged in raw intimidation, and made accusations that turned out not to be backed up by evidence.
I'm sure they're really nice people warhed.
-
DNA is a myth :old:
-
But there are only two ways he could have got monsanto seeds, brought them or had them cross-pollinate / blow onto his land. Monsanto say he didn't buy them. So monsanto effective contaminated his crops, his seeds then try to clean him out over it.
"Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year."
vulcan did you actually read the link? schmeiser wasnt an innocent farmer.
"This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money. (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's . contains other documents.)"
semp
-
what does quaying mean? :huh
placing people in "statuses"
IE "Predator" "prey" "neutral"
for instance "Bikers" would be in the "predator" status
while a Bank manager would be in the "prey" status
an old woman in a nursing home would be in "neutral"
this is how prison systems work.
-
interesting thing about farming with round-up is that many weeds are building up a resistance to the chemical. really, over a short period time. Nature is one tough sob and clogging up one enzyme will not stop her!
-
ah huh
I'm sure they're really nice people warhed.
I said they aren't evil. Like most companies in this country they want to protect their patents and research, there's no malicious intent.
-
for instance "Bikers" would be in the "predator" status
while a Bank manager would be in the "prey" status
I'd have to say that's a pretty mixed up view of the world
None of that is based on genetics anyway
-
I'd have to say that's a pretty mixed up view of the world
None of that is based on genetics anyway
I would say it is very messed up....
its the same as racial profiling....and everyone (except of course the ones actually in charge) in this whole world are victims of it.
-
Gibberish Ink
I am awesome because of genetics :old:
-
i don't know... that yellow skin does not scream genetic excellence. :ahand