Slashdot Mirror
Simpsons Fan Creates Real Tomacco Plant
An anonymous reader writes "So, according to a KPTV newscast, a Simpsons fan with too much time on his hands grafted a tobacco plant and a tomato plant and, ta-da: tomacco! Leaves and most likely the fruit (yes, tomato is a fruit technically) contain nicotine. Delicious AND deadly!" Simpsonschannel.com has a small news piece on the breakthrough, but in a Frink-like move, although scientists have found "nicotine in the leaves", it turns out "the lab hasn't tested if the actual tomato has nicotine in it yet, but they say it probably does."
I mean, just look at Skittlebrau!!
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
Intelligent Design explains these biological models so well because ID was created to describe them. It's basically some "scientists" way of saying "well, we don't know how it happened, it must have been done on purpose by some higher being!" - ie, basically giving up on scientific foundations and going for the easy out.
Sell the tomatos? Go to jail like the pharmacists who made stop-smoking nicotine lolly-pops.
Somehow he must have violoated some genetic experimentation ban.
What if a child ate the tomato? Child abuse!
Deny anything you are charged with? GUILTY...denial is the first symptom!
What do you bet that McDonald's will start using these tomatoes to make us all addicted to their salads and burgers? :P
Yeah, no kidding! And then I can sue them when I get really fat and my health turns to sh... oh wait, I can do that now.
"The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue growing as long as we live." - M.J. A
First:
I hate to be the one to point this out, but astronomical or not, there are thousands and thousands of these bacteria in every cup of water, and the pond is a lot bigger than that.
And so is the ocean.
And they've had literally millions of years to stumble upon it.
I'm not sure what your definition of Astronomical is, but maybe you don't see what I see.
Second:
The mutations didn't all need to happen at the same time. As long as the original mutations didn't give the organism some disadvantage, there's no reason why it couldn't have spawned thousands and thousands of other organisms with the same oddity, and one of those could subsequently have evolved into the bacteria we see today. Remember, selection pressure works in both directions: unless something is being selected against, it isn't selected out of the gene pool.
This theory is currently derided and discriminated against in favor of older theories
Are you trolling, or just entirely ignorant of human history? The OLDEST, most WIDELY ACCEPTED theory of biological diversity is creationism.
Evolution and natural selection are very new ideas (relatively), and are still not believed by most people on the planet.
As for "how much of our biological model it predicts", well of course it does. It's specious/circular logic:
"Something complex needs intelligence to make it, therefore something intelligent made everything that is complex."
"I don't understand the origins/purpose/design of something, so it MUST have been created by something even more intelligent than myself."
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design
So lemme get this straight. It couldn't possibly have been a 1 in billion chance, because we've been trained that "1 in billion" means "never happens", so it must have been a guy in the sky with lightning bolts, and that's the only "sane" thing you could come up with?
I know there are several other theories that explain how irreducibly complex structures could evolve through agencies other than "intelligent design". The only one I can think of at the moment is the "scaffolding" theory. According to this theory, there are intermediate elements that are developed during the evolution of the complex organ, but they are lost when the entire organ is created and the intermediate parts become redundant.
In an analogy, the intermediate pieces are the equivalent of the scaffolding that holds up an arch while the arch is under construction. When the arch is completed, the scaffolding can be removed, making it appear to people who don't understand arch-construction (but do understand physics) that the arch must have been created by magic.
I don't know anything about flagelli, so I couldn't give you an example of how there could be intermediate stepping-stones to a completed flagellum.
Also, it doesn't make the resultant complexity any less cool. It probably is even more cool because it was created by evolutionary pressure rather than intelligent design.
Thank you for that. Gradual transitions are pretty much accepted by science, and don't require miracles: something moderately useful can be selected for and adapted to high complexity very quickly *on the geological scale*. The difference from jumper to glider to flight isn't as big as the theologists would like you to believe. Good grief, we have flying fish, flying squirels and flying snakes. None of them actually fly (they glide) but if such diverse animals can independently become airborn, then it isn't much of a trick.
Similarly, the eye is often brought up as "but it wouldn't work if all the parts weren't there". Light sensitivity is useful unto itself, and the individual steps are simple once you have light sensitivity. Shutters for the light sensitive areas? Optical concentration of light? Each can be created independently, but surely those who get the combinations right are more "fit".
Of course, creationists come from the same school of thought as radical religionists everywhere: "don't think, don't make progress and whatever you do, don't argue with us. God told us were right."
Sig under construction since 1998.
The Solanaceae family also includes potatoes, chile peppers, and eggplants.
So not just tomacco on your sandwiches, but also tomatsup and a side of potacco fries. A trip to taco bell would be loaded with tobalsa, in addition to tomacco. Tomeggplant parmesan with tomacco sauce would be absolutely loaded with it.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
"Vegetable originally meant any plant, as in "the vegetable kingdom", or Twenty Questions' opening gambit, "animal, mineral, or vegetable?" And fruit meant any edible plant part. With the development of the science of botany, however, the meanings of the words have shifted. Vegetable is now used to refer to herbaceous (non-woody) food plants or their edible parts. Fruits are the reproductive parts of a plant, the ripened ovary of a flower and its contents and related parts; vegetables as well as other plants like trees can have fruits." Source.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
. This article brings up the point that this device, which is not exclusive to pond scum, is "irreducibly complex"
The rhetorical trick we see here is to slip a logical fallacy into the prelude, so it appears to be an indisputable axiom, rather than a challengable part of the argument.
In fact, those structures are not irreducibly complex. In the case of flagellum, scientists have already explained how incomplete organs were beneficial to microbes.
However, even if we do not have an explanation for how a complex structure could've evolved, that doesn't harm the theory of evolution. An inability to explain is not proof of falsehood. Just because you haven't seen a writeup walking through each and every little step of a process, doesn't mean that process can't work. (I don't think any human alive can truely understand all of the machines used for modern, daily life. Yet they carry on somehow.). In fact, given that primitive life was created so many billions of years ago in conditions that were so adverse to preserving evidence, it should be unsuprising that the precise details are unknown.
If one disgards arguments simply because one cannot personally comprehend every little detail, then creationism could be assailed with many more objections.
This was a good post.
This was interesting:
Thank you for that. Gradual transitions are pretty much accepted by science, and don't require miracles: something moderately useful can be selected for and adapted to high complexity very quickly *on the geological scale*. The difference from jumper to glider to flight isn't as big as the theologists would like you to believe. Good grief, we have flying fish, flying squirels and flying snakes. None of them actually fly (they glide) but if such diverse animals can independently become airborn, then it isn't much of a trick.
As was this:
Similarly, the eye is often brought up as "but it wouldn't work if all the parts weren't there". Light sensitivity is useful unto itself, and the individual steps are simple once you have light sensitivity. Shutters for the light sensitive areas? Optical concentration of light? Each can be created independently, but surely those who get the combinations right are more "fit".
Had you stopped there, you would have made an interesting and valid point about creationists. Alas, you proceed to destroy your credibility with an ad hominem attack:
Of course, creationists come from the same school of thought as radical religionists everywhere: "don't think, don't make progress and whatever you do, don't argue with us. God told us were right."
One could argue that you come from the same school as Slashdotters everywhere: "don't let your arguments speak for yourself; everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do is an idiot; and whatever you do, make sure your post includes at least one grammatical error". One could, but I won't.
You don't have to watch the show because I'm going to tell you how it ends: She will spend the whole show finding out how much each guy's got in his bank account, and pick the one with the biggest number. The End :)
-R
Goes great with a nicotini!
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
Alas, you proceed to destroy your credibility with an ad hominem attack:
There's nothing wrong about an "ad hominem" claim if it is both true and topical- it's actually a valid (though rare) part of formal philosophical debate. In this case, his statement is sufficiently true: creationists are religionists, who believe their position was Divinely affirmed.
An "atheist creationist" is not a contradition in terms; somebody could decide that life evolved by natural selection on some distant planet, from which bioengineers came to Earth in flying saucers. But you don't find people with those beliefs, because (virtually) all creationists are starting from a religious perspective, and then trying to squeeze science to fit the viewpoint they've already decided on.
You're missing the point. Evolution has no solution.
Evolution doesn't work towards an end result. That's part of what makes it so difficult to understand. Since there's no stable environment, there's no ultimate solution.
The number one flaw in the "complexity requires design" premise is that by the very premise, the designer requires a designer, who requires a designer, ad infinitum. So, either complexity has always existed, without a "first cause", which contradicts the premise, or the premise is false. Because of the self-contradiction, the former means the premise is false, and the latter of course just states it outright. Either way, the premise that complexity requires design is false.
This isn't rocket science, it's a simple logical deduction that has been well known for centuries. That people still try to use it says a lot about the state of education (or brainwashing) today.
This was what triggered the comment, although I admit it was poorly executed due to timing. Science is the application of a critical eye to everything, including the currently held concepts. But more than that, it proves its worth by providing predictions, and then having those predictions proven or disproved. Neither is worse than the other: a disproved theory is still progress in science.
If you are watching The Elegant Universe on PBS, you will see that the primary argument against the string theorists is that they theories they propose contain no testable (in the reasonable future) concepts. What made Einstein so amazing was he came up with the consequences for the rules of gravity and light virtually out of whole cloth in his head. But his theory made predictions: if they had proved wrong, he would be barely a footnote.
Creationists refuse to submit to the rigors of prediction and testing. If evolution predicts there should be an animal of characteristic X in the record, finding it after such a prediction helps bolster the theory. Working with fruit flys and bacteria have allowed many of the concepts of evolution to be tested, and have help refine the theory. Creationists point to a book and a failed understanding of complexity theory, with little else to stand on. That attitude, in the guise of being "scientific" infuriates me.
Sig under construction since 1998.
Ask her this:
If you take the corn, leave it on the cob for a few more weeks, then grind it up and make a tortilla or corn chips, does it still count as a vegetable ?
From a dietician's perspective, she's guiding you into general nutrition groups and helping you balance your intake of carbs, fats, proteins, etc. so in reality it's ok to count it as a vegetable.
Corn is a grass, so is sugarcane and bamboo shoots. Corn chips (fried in vegetable oil, of course) and corn syrup (Karo syrup brand around here) are certainly yummy ways to get your vegetables!
Now really, would it be that -bad- if most of America were addicted to salads? :)
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Furthermore, in an infinite universe, astronomical odds mean nothing. It had to happen somewhere in the universe; intelligent life just happened to happen here. Unfortunately for us, we're just as screwed when the sun burns out. It's a load of horseshit. It does not add to the predictive capacity of any scientific theory and is completely circular in its logic. If human beings were intelligently designed, do you think we'd be using the same pipe for breathing and swallowing solid food, thus introducing a potential choking hazard? Or would we have blind spots in our eyes? Wouldn't our bodies be robust, meaning that any part can fail with the rest continuing on? Any flaws of this magnitude in any modern piece of technology would be considered completely unacceptable and the result of inexcusable incompetence on the part of the designer. All of the glaring flaws in the human body are easily explainable by evolutionary theory, but intelligent design is helpless to explain them without assuming that the designer is a complete retard.
Intelligent design is simply creationism in a clown suit, just like Windows 3.1 was to DOS.
I'm sorry, but botanically, the tomato really is a berry, related to e.g. a strawberry. The botanical difference between a fruit and a berry is that a fruit has a large seed (or kernel, I don't know the correct botanical term in English) in the middle, while a berry has small seeds spreaded all around in the berry.
When you graft something, you'r not comgbining those plants are you? I thought grafting was taking a cutting and more or less implanting it into the stalk of another tree..
If you really wanted Tomacco fruits, wouldnt you want to cross polinate or genetically engineer it?
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
I agree that it is entirely possible to believe in both creationism and evolution. The problem that I have is that no one I have ever met who describes their belief as Creationism accepts evolution. The always chose to say that the Bible is literaly correct. They believe that the world was created in 7 days, 168 hours as we measure it. It would be so easy to back the Bible if they took the position that 7 days was a figurative measure and could have been as long as tens of billions of years.
It is entirly possible to reconsile science and a divine creator, but many Creationists actively choose to disbelieve science.
Yes, I know. It's a neurotoxin, just like Asparthame (Nutra-Sweet), only more people are affected by MSG than Asparthame.
The problem is that MSG is used in great quantities at fast food establishments and hardly at all in Chinese food (at least not anymore) -- but the Chinese food places have traditionally been the ones taking the heat for it. I know plenty of people who are unaffected by MSG that will refuse to eat at a Chinese food place without a "No MSG" policy, but they will happily go to McDonald's and wolf down some of that shit.
Hmm... I guess the Supreme Court has the power to overrule the laws of nature.
Not at all. What the judge determined is that the definitions for "fruit" and "vegetable" vary depending on context. To scientists and botanists, the tomato is a fruit as defined by its physical structure, but in commerce the tomato is a vegetable as defined by its use, acceptance, and general association with other "vegetables".
It's not like the judge ruled that gravity doesn't exist. He just made a legal distinction based on the context of a word.
but they will happily go to McDonald's and wolf down some of that shit
Wow, I was gonna call bullshit on you, but how wrong I was!
At least they admit it, but here's a list of McDonalds foods with added MSG:
Chicken McGrill
Hot 'n Spicy McChicken
Grilled Chicken Bacon Ranch Salad
Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad
Grilled Chicken California Cobb Salad
Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddles
Sausage McGriddles
Sausage McMuffin
Sausage Biscuit
Sausage Biscuit with Egg
Spanish Omelete Bagel
Sausage
Big Breakfast
Sausage Breakfast Burrito
The sad part is, a decent Sausage Biscuit with Egg would need no MSG at all, it's full of meaty favor, but apparently they can't help themselves.
I mean, 4 salads with MSG added?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)