Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Insects Develop Pesticide Resistance Through Symbiosis With Gut Flora

Posted by samzenpus on from the with-a-little-help-from-my-little-friends dept.

First time accepted submitter blinkin247 writes "The indiscriminate spraying of pesticides has probably caused as many problems as it has solved, but here's one that was not expected: some bacteria have decided that insecticide is a very tasty meal. Unfortunately for us, one of the strains of bacteria that has evolved the ability to digest the toxin happens to be able to find a home in an insect's gut. When it does so, it provides the insect with resistance."

144 comments

  1. Curses! by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Darwin strikes again!

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's stupid humans meddling with things they shouldn't be.

    2. Re:Curses! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      Why blame Darwin for something Monsato or Bayer dids? Poor chump, all he did was to set up a logical framework to predict what would happen if we spray chemicals indiscriminately.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Curses! by MichaelKristopeit498 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      you're an idiot.

      any evolution could be dismissed as such a small modification caused by an external force.

    4. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you retard.

    5. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what IS evolution?

    6. Re:Curses! by datsa · · Score: 1

      I find this story pretty hopeful, actually. "Life finds a way". Maybe we are also a more resilient species than we give ourselves credit for...

    7. Re:Curses! by multicoregeneral · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. The creationists will have a hard time explaining this one. My guess is that they'll choose to ignore it, just like they do with all the other proofs of evolution in action. What I find interesting about all this is how quickly these bacteria actually evolve into totally new organisms. I mean, it makes sense with their short lives and fast reproductive cycles, but it's just amazing to watch.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
    8. Re:Curses! by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes. The creationists will have a hard time explaining this one.

      My guess is they'll say that bacteria with this resistance already existed in the population, but spraying made it so only those bacteria survived.

      And for all I know, in this case they might be right.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Curses! by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My guess is they'll just say "meh", and shrug their shoulders.

      Most creationists don't have a problem with "evolution" as an adaptive mechanism, just the particular application of evolution that posits that trillions of iterations of evolution moved life from primordial sludge to sentient life.

      The idea that the species existed in a "perfect" unchanged state from the point of creation until the present time was rejected as religious dogma even before Darwin.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:Curses! by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      By standard Evolutionary theory, bacteria should actually have much less chance per unit of having a beneficial mutation than for more 'advanced' organisms. It's just they have a lot of both sheer numbers and fast reproductive cycles to make the individually unlikely collectively more likely.

      Details: any organism, from bacteria to blue whales, can be assumed to be pretty well adapted to its environment - wildly ill-adapted means dead. So small tweaks in genes are more likely to be beneficial than big changes. Big changes overshoot the beneficial range. (Imagine a giraffe that might be a bit better adapted if it was six inches taller, but it has only one gene controlling height, and so any mutation in that gene produces either a 3 foot tall or 45 foot tall giraffe in the next generation). Bacteria have so few genes that just about all mutations are drastically negative, like the one height gene giraffe. Instead of maybe 1 in 1000 being beneficial, it's 1 in 10,000,000 or worse odds, but have hundreds of offspring in a generation and a new generation every five hours, and ten million to one odds are something it can and will overcome.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    11. Re:Curses! by binarstu · · Score: 2

      Yes. The creationists will have a hard time explaining this one.

      My guess is they'll say that bacteria with this resistance already existed in the population, but spraying made it so only those bacteria survived. And for all I know, in this case they might be right.

      They would almost certainly be right. What you have just described is natural selection, in a nutshell. Natural selection can only work on existing variation in a population. If no resistant bacteria were present in a population, then the entire population would by wiped out by the pesticide.

    12. Re:Curses! by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Natural selection IS evolution in action. That was Darwin's whole point, that species will adapt to an environment, and those that adapt the best will overwhelm those that can't.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    13. Re:Curses! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's only half of it. The other half is that you need to have new variations, or in modern terminology, genetic mutations.

      There are few creationists who deny natural selection, at least if you are patient enough to explain it to them. And that's the doorway to getting them to accept the whole thing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Curses! by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Really? Adding a symbiont doesn't require insects to have modify their DNA.

    15. Re:Curses! by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Sorry: "... doesn't require insects to have modified DNA"

    16. Re:Curses! by sonamchauhan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Few creationists deny natural selection. (After all, Mendel was a creationist).

      Few creationists deny genetic mutations occur.

      Effectively, what we do deny is that these mechanisms can violate the second law of themodynamics (Best explained here: http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf)

    17. Re:Curses! by labnet · · Score: 2

      Natural selection IS evolution in action

      Rubbish.
      Natural Selection is the selection of pre existing characteristics. (Creationists agree)
      Evolution is the mutation/creation of NEW genetic information that produces new beneficial function that was not there before. (Creationists disagree)

      --
      46137
    18. Re:Curses! by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The symbiotic organism evolved against the pressure, and since it is symbiotic with the insects, fitness is acquired. Classic darwin in the true complexity of life.

    19. Re:Curses! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The *really* annoying thing is how smugly confident they are. Everyone knows that scientists lack the solid, down-to-earth common sense of the average man. Fuckwits.

      I'll bet there is nothing in your personality that would cause them to reject you as a teacher.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Curses! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They don't violate thermodynamics, they have an external energy source, the sun. When the sun is extinguished, so will life, and entropy will win.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen a number push the idea that no mutation is beneficial. Essentially, this seems to be their only alternative to accepting micro-evolution and denying *macro-evolution*. You tend to get awkward silences when you point out that there would be observable functional degradation in short-lived organisms such as bacteria were this the case.

    22. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not what the second law of thermodynamics means. That paper equivocates the meaning of order and disorder several times, dipping into the formal definitions to make the math work. Order and disorder are metaphors for thermodynamic entropy, but dS is not the change in chaos, it's the change in entropy. He defines order as the opposite of entropy, which is misleading to begin with and downright false when he starts using the word order to mean things other than the opposite of entropy (or X-entropy) in his paper.

      It doesn't make any sense to ask whether the increase in solar engery makes spaceships not extremely improbable. No matter what happened, it was extremely improbable because there's a huge timescale and the chances of everything happening the same way twice in a huge timescale are nil (if they did happen the same way twice, that would pretty much imply that there was little to no entropy from start to finish).

      He has this line:

      "If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is
      open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable."

      He's removed all precision from this. Undoing his re-definitions, this de-sugars to "if a decrease in entropy is a decrease in entropy when the system is closed, it is still a decrease in energy when the system is open, unless something is entering that has high entropy".

      As a counterexample: spaceships do happen. Unless you claim that God made cars, or something, it follows that this localized order did in fact come from an external source, for surely the spaceship did not assemble itself. And I guarantee that humans are inputting far, far, far, far less energy into their spaceship creations that the sun is inputting into the Earth. Life does happen. Following this rationale, unless you insist on a continually-active creator god which is continually inputting order to supplement the sun which is apparently insufficient, there's no way there can be population growth, since that's an "increase in order". Plants grow. They're creating "order" very specifically from the input of the sun.

      Not to mention he completely skips his proof that the "order" coming from the sun is strictly less than the "order" appearing on Earth.

      But aside from that. Genetic mutations plus natural selection = evolution. Or more precisely, inheritance with mutations, where the mutations are not always a net negative in every possible respect, plus some form of selection = evolution. Even if that did violate the second law you'd have to come up with a way to reconcile it, for it isn't enough to say "these things contradict", you have to figure out which is wrong and why, instead assuming thermodynamics always wins and that somehow like magic the other thing must be wrong even if you can't point out what's wrong about it (we know it doesn't actually win at the microscopic level, as indicated in that paper).

    23. Re:Curses! by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      No, evolution is the union of both things, although "beneficial" isn't strictly necessary, and "NEW genetic information" is ill-defined.

      Do you disagree that mutations happen: insertions, deletions, changes? All have been observed.

      If so, we can walk down the road of those proofs. If not, what mechanism do you propose that prevents these things from producing "NEW genetic information". be sure to define "NEW genetic information".

    24. Re:Curses! by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's the part about disagreeing with them that does it more than anything else.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    25. Re:Curses! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No doubt that's it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon mods, I can't believe this is modded +5 insightful!
      There's no violation of thermodynamics in evolution! Duh: the sun is an external power source. The cited paper is crank science at its best.

    27. Re:Curses! by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Genetic change by a non-sentient living organism is still evolution, nimrod. Did the genetic change give us any useful advantages?

      Thank you, ancestral survivors of the Black Plague, for bestowing genetic immunity against 95% of known HIV upon me, through knocking out my CCR5 receptor.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    28. Re:Curses! by labnet · · Score: 1

      Yes, I believe insertions, deletions, changes occur, but I also believe that random changes produce increased disorder not order.

      Changed DNA can result in
      - reduced function (on a scale from death to barely percieved)
      - no change in function.
      - increased function

      If I have a billion self replicating programs, and randomly change the object code in all of them every second, they all won't suddenly die, but I will see the entire population gradully LOSE information and thus FUNCTION. Beneficial mutations are possible, but will be far outweighed by the gradual increased disorder . (how often will a beneficial mutation occur vs non beneficial mutation occur)

      --
      46137
    29. Re:Curses! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Thank you, ancestral survivors of the Black Plague, for bestowing genetic immunity against 95% of known HIV upon me, through knocking out my CCR5 receptor.

      Hey! My ancestors survived the Black Plague too, and all I got was an immune system that kills most stuff at the cost of going apeshit at the drop of a hat and giving me allergies. Not that I'm complaining, but suddenly I feel ripped off.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    30. Re:Curses! by rwven · · Score: 1

      It's not evolution. It's symbiosis. Certain bacteria can eat the pesticides. The bugs ingest the bacteria which live in bugs gut. Bug eats pesticide. Bacteria eats pesticide, bug lives.

    31. Re:Curses! by rwven · · Score: 1

      Except the person you're replying to didn't rtfa and thought there was a genetic change...which there wasn't. It's just symbiosis. The same way we have bacteria in our guts to help us digest things.

    32. Re:Curses! by rwven · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they will (rightfully) say that this isn't evolution, it's symbiosis. People need to rtfa, and not trust a poorly written intro paragraph.

    33. Re:Curses! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Few creationists deny natural selection. Few creationists deny genetic mutations occur.

      Great! Then few creationists would deny evolutionary theory! Because natural selection + mutations explains the diversity of species very, very well!

      Effectively, what we do deny is that these mechanisms can violate the second law of themodynamics

      Creationists always try to use the second law,
      to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
      The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
      only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
      The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
      so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
      - MC Hawking, "Entropy"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    34. Re:Curses! by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      My guess is they'll just say "meh", and shrug their shoulders.

      Most creationists don't have a problem with "evolution" as an adaptive mechanism, just the particular application of evolution that posits that trillions of iterations of evolution moved life from primordial sludge to sentient life.

      The idea that the species existed in a "perfect" unchanged state from the point of creation until the present time was rejected as religious dogma even before Darwin.

      I will agree. One of my coworkers (who's a great worker, just a bit too religious but at least keeps it to himself unless you ask) explained it to me one day. He believes in "micro evolution" where species adapt to their environment. He doesn't believe in "macro evolution" where humans descended from apes and from sea creatures, etc.

    35. Re:Curses! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I have a billion self replicating programs, and randomly change the object code in all of them every second, they all won't suddenly die, but I will see the entire population gradully LOSE information and thus FUNCTION.

      You should actually try this. I have. So have many others. What we've learned by doing it is that if you just randomly modify your billion programs with an external program and use this same program to do the copying (so none of the population of programs you're "evolving" can ever fail to reproduce), and nothing else then yeah you'll just get a big mess of programs that mostly don't work.

      However if you constrain those that are allowed to be copied in some way, for example by running them through some tests to see if they have the desired functionality and only copying the best-working programs then randomly modify them, you prevent regression and select for enhancement. Iterating on this process, you'll find that you can achieve order and you can increase function. Dramatically so, and faster than you would think, too.

      There's a whole field of computer science on the subject: genetic algorithms. They're only like biological evolution in principle, but it's the principle of random changes resulting in increased order that you have an issue with. Well, genetic algorithms provide a mathematical description of how that is not only perfectly possible, but a common, expected outcome.

      We call the criterion we use to decide what solutions will be allowed to propagate the "fitness function", and it is the main thing that guides what the solution looks like, so defining it well is the major issue when you're a human trying to solve a specific problem. Even if you do a good job, you can still get solutions that are wildly outside what you assumed the solution should look like -- which is one of the strengths of genetic algorithms.

      In nature, the "fitness function" is the same as the problem to be solved: Survive to reproduce. And what we see is the incredible number of ways that problem can be solved.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    36. Re:Curses! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring the effect of natural selection. It is true that mutation, by itself, tends to result in individual organisms less-adapted to survive and reproduce in their environment then their predecessors. However, while the organisms with harmful mutations die out, the ones with beneficial mutations out-compete their peers. As a result, the beneficial gene is passed on to an increasing share of the population with each generation until it becomes dominant.

      There is more to evolution than random mutation.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    37. Re:Curses! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Their certainly was genetic change in the bacteria.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    38. Re:Curses! by hajus · · Score: 1

      Yet there is a whole field of AI called genetic algorithms. It doesn't randomly change the object code, but the 'dna' of the algorithm used to solve a specific problem does change via mutations generation to generation. Most of the offspring generate mutations that are unhelpful and get discarded via natural selection, but the rare helpful mutations tend to stick around and combine together. It doesn't matter how often it occurs unless you are worried about how fast evolution needs to happen.

    39. Re:Curses! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yet there is a whole field of AI called genetic algorithms. It doesn't randomly change the object code

      Most of the time because the problem you're trying to solve can be parameterised more simply, but it's certainly possible to "evolve" object code, even object code that is responsible for its own replication.

      I do like how the GP presented this concept of billions of self-replicating computer programs as if it was a hypothetical, but one that would obviously result in disorder.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    40. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never said it was evolution. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. This is another aspect of natural selection - a survival advantage gained through symbiosis. 100% Darwin.

    41. Re:Curses! by reasterling · · Score: 1

      The earth may not be a closed system, but the universe is. Energy alone is not enough to increase order. If energy could overcome entropy then we should be living on the sun not on earth. I am confused about what is actually being claimed by evolutionist. Wouldn't cause and effect dictate that all the order that we see in the universe was present in the beginning.

      On a side note, I personally think that all of this gives a nice, if not a little superficial, definition of life. That is that life is the organized resistance to entropy.

      --
      "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
    42. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution is not "order". It's differentiation, moron. The universe isn't fucking Pokemon where organisms are "more evolved" than others.

    43. Re:Curses! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you could read the article and miss that the bacteria's ability to process toxin was gained through an evolutionary process.

    44. Re:Curses! by reasterling · · Score: 1

      quote/ Evolution is not "order". It's differentiation

      I never attempted to define what evolution is or is not but rather was refering to the apparent order found in biological systems and in the world around us. I am confussed by your aparent dislike of the word "order".

      quote/ moron

      Tushay, your stunning whit and eloquent use of the english language have certainly proved me to be in error.

      quote/ The universe isn't fucking Pokemon where organisms are "more evolved" than others.

      I see now were the problem is in our communications. Your familiarity with Pokemon indicates that you are either a couple generations younger than me (In which case, GET OFF MY LAWN) or that you never fully matured into adulthood and still have a likeing for mindless dribble.

      I am almost persuaded that prayer does not work. I have been praying for you, Mr Anonymous Coward, for quite some time. Perhaps though, I haven't been getting your name right. I assumed based on your bad temper, poor gramer, and fondness for stupid things like pokemon that you were a Mr, but maybe you are a Mrs. It does not matter to me if you really are a girl, but I would like to be acurate in my prayers.

      --
      "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
    45. Re:Curses! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. Except you've forgotten the next step: natural selection causes a quick end to the reduced function ones, and amplifies the increased function ones.

      Mutation DOES increase "disorder" and decrease the mean fitness of a population, if left to itself. When paired with natural selection, the opposite happens - mutation introduces variation and natural selection selects only the fitter side of the distribution.

      Funny how in your post you basically describe how to test the hypothesis with a simulation... yet you obviously haven't done the simulation.

    46. Re:Curses! by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      For next time, it's "touche", with an accent on the e.

    47. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we

      Oh boy...

    48. Re:Curses! by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      The non-beneficial mutations tend to die out, therefore not propagating. Over time, the beneficial mutations accumulate. Your system will tend towards increased order. Your premise is basically how evolutionary algorithms operate. If things happened as you predicted (gradual increased disorder), genetic algorithms would be useless for solving problems. Obviously untrue.

      --
      Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
    49. Re:Curses! by somersault · · Score: 1

      That doesn't explain anything, it just shows how stupid the author is. We are not in a closed system, and he admits that. So we're not violating the second law. Duh.

      Who cares how "improbable" it is for life to have started up randomly and evolved? All it takes is for it to happen one time in any of the perhaps billions of Universes that have existed or do exist, and here we are asking the questions and making up thousands of gods that are suspiciously similar to ourselves.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    50. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chemosynthesis does not depend on the sun.

    51. Re:Curses! by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      I think I can sum up your argument with this:
      http://i.imgur.com/5Nad9.jpg

    52. Re:Curses! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Your species is "a strain of bacteria that lives in the gut of insects" ?
      Yet you've mastered the art of using slashdot ?

      Well let me be the first to say: I for one welcome our new intelligent bacterial overlords.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    53. Re:Curses! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      They have a stock response for these: "adaptation within a species is not evolution. Species can adapt and change, both from human choices (breeding) or natural pressures, but they cannot change into an entirely different species".

      I don't agree in the least, but I've heard the argument so I know how it goes.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    54. Re:Curses! by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Aaah, but your experiment has no natural selection.

      When you add a selective element that actively culls the population of bad mutations the good ones not only win out but become dominant.
      In fact this exact process is the mechanism we use to do evolve learning into neural networks. Your exact experiment - only with a selective pressure added.

      It gets better we've used the process to evolve HARDWARE using programmable logic chips. The chips were initially programmed with random junk. Then a criteria was chosen, the chips that were best at the task were kept and replicated while those that were worst were discarded.
      Within just 1000 generations we had circuits that could complete complicated tasks.
      One specific experiment I know of used the task of distinguishing two frequencies. The interesting thing is ... nobody has a clue how the result works ! It does work. But we don't know HOW exactly. No electronic engineer would try to build a frequency differentiator with 100 logic chips (they'd build an oscilator) but it was evolved from them. Then it was found that 24 chips could be removed, they weren't electrically connected. Voila... but now get this, there is another 18 chips that are not electrically connected to the circuit EITHER - but if you take any of those out, the circuit stops working !
      We have no idea why, the guess is that they have some physical effect on the circuit, perhaps producing a weak natural capacitor or gaining current through induction - but we have no real idea. It's theorized that the circuit works by looping it's power repeatedly over a long "wire" through the chips to slow it down to the same speed as the lower frequency, and then compare the frequency to the result... but we really have no clue.
      This was the original pioneering work in the field by Adrian Thompson but evolvable hardware is now a solid engineering concept. Try reading up on it, it's really fascinating geeky stuff !

      So in fact- the problem you describe doesn't say anything about evolution. You proved that random mutation by itself will mostly harm a species, but you left selection out entirely. Whether that selection is human guided (as it would have to be in your experiment) or natural (as it is in well nature) it has to exist - and when you combine selection with mutation you get evolution.

      So guess what, this "only a theory" has been experimentally PROVEN in thousands of settings, even if you've always been told it wasn't.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    55. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The universe is a closed system, but so what? Life (with some order) has evolved, but this is not a problem for the theories. The amount of disorder in the universe increase as predicted. While we make some order on earth, billions of stars burn out creating massive amounts of disorder.

      "entropy must increase in a closed system" does not prevent life. It just put a cap on how long there can be life and how much it can spread in the universe. Eventually, every energy source (stars, and a few alternatives) runs out. And then all forms of life ends.

      Life create order. Thermodynamics is not violated, because order is created with the help of energy sources and sinks. The energy expended results in more entropy. We may get some "order" on earth, but in doing so, we radiate lots of infrared into cold space. So space that was near-empty and ordered, now has lots of disorder. A fine arrangement as long as we have both a star, and also some colder space around it.

      This limits everything. In the very long run, we run out of suns (and other energy sources as well.). And space will be somewhat warmer. Everything ends up at the same temperature - the average temperature of the entire universe. At that point, life will not be sustainable. There will be no energy sources left, no differences between "hot" and "cold" to power the mechanisms of life.

      If the universe stays big, this will be a cold end to things. The average temperature of a large universe is low. If it contracts, there will be a hotter end. In that case, there will be no lack of hot material as everything gets compressed. Instead, there will be no cold low-density emptyness available. And that is just as bad.

    56. Re:Curses! by jittles · · Score: 1

      You're ridiculous. Creationists, in general, do not deny that evolution occurs in the world. They do not believe that men evolved from apes, or other less intelligent life forms. Granted, there are creationists that take it to the extreme and try to deny all evolution, but most of them just believe that humankind was created, not evolved.

    57. Re:Curses! by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      No, creationists are naturally resistant to knowledge, they evolved that way. All the creationists that wasn't stopped being creationists. Being smugly confident is one of the mechanisms for this resistance.

    58. Re:Curses! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      The earth may not be a closed system, but the universe is.

      And the entropy of the universe is undoubtedly increasing. The second law does not preclude local, temporary decreases in entropy (which is what we are) so long as the total in the system increases, which it is. Eventually the entire universe will have such high entropy that essentially nothing will ever happen -- heat death -- regardless of what we do during our brief existence.

      Energy alone is not enough to increase order.

      Yes, you need some other mechanisms that make use of energy, like chemistry.

      On a side note, I personally think that all of this gives a nice, if not a little superficial, definition of life. That is that life is the organized resistance to entropy.

      So you personally think crystals are alive. You're welcome to your belief, but I thought that was more of a New Age thing than a Creationist thing.

      It is important to note, too, that while the crystal itself has less entropy than its liquid precursors, the total entropy of the system (here drawing a box around the crystal instead of the entire universe) has increased because crystal formation releases highly entropic heat.

      So too with you and I.

      There is no second law violation implied by evolution.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    59. Re:Curses! by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      The entire paper is about the _rate_ of change of entropy or order.

      Quoting the paper: "Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ‘‘compensating’’ events elsewhere."

      The reason? "[the equations for entropy] also say that in an open system the X -order [reverse of entropy] cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary [in our case, the atmosphere]"

      The energy that the sun inputs into the earth (radiation, gravitational) has no order to speak of. So the _rate_ at which order is imported into the interface is basically zero. Hence, the rate of increase in order, anywhere on earth, must also be basically zero. (Precluding for instance, the "Cambrian explosion", the formation of self-replicating RNA fragments, etc.). At least, that's how I understand it.

      And I guarantee that humans are inputting far, far, far, far less energy into their spaceship creations that the sun is inputting into the Earth. Life does happen.

      Again, its not the energy again, its the rate of change of order. Spaceships leaving the earth/space boundary are far more complex than the energy coming in. And they are built and do leave, because, humans, who built these spaceships are far far far far far and away more complex still than the spaceships are. Just because humans exist, doesn't mean his equations _must_ be wrong!

      Even if that did violate the second law you'd have to come up with a way to reconcile it, for it isn't enough to say "these things contradict", you have to figure out which is wrong and why, instead assuming thermodynamics always wins and that somehow like magic the other thing must be wrong even if you can't point out what's wrong about it (we know it doesn't actually win at the microscopic level, as indicated in that paper).

      Why? :-) ... Why should I make your argument for you? "Even if proven wrong, you musn't disbelieve..." sounds... wrong.

    60. Re:Curses! by reasterling · · Score: 1

      I am really beginning to wonder if I Don't have cause to sue hooked on phonics, oh and tushay. What really bothers me though is that "touche" looks to me like a mispelling of touchy.

      --
      "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
    61. Re:Curses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that the species existed in a "perfect" unchanged state from the point of creation until the present time was rejected as religious dogma even before Darwin.

      What most people don't realize, and even many christians reject, is that satan also creates, and he does so primarily through man.

    62. Re:Curses! by Xoltri · · Score: 1

      http://www.wisc-online.com/Objects/ViewObject.aspx?ID=ESL1402

      --
      -Xoltri
    63. Re:Curses! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Then what IS evolution?

      Evolution is specialization over time among organisms, brought about by selection against traits that arise from genetic mutation.

    64. Re:Curses! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The energy that the sun inputs into the earth (radiation, gravitational) has no order to speak of. So the _rate_ at which order is imported into the interface is basically zero.

      This is the problem with using "order" to mean "negative entropy" -- it invites inappropriate application of human notions of what seems like "order". If you insist on using "order" to mean "negative entropy" then you need to remember that "negative entropy" is what matters, not "stuff what looks organized to me."

      The entropy contained in the slice of solar blackbody radiation that is heating the earth is significantly less than the entropy in the blackbody radiation emitted by the earth in all directions into space. The earth has a net entropy output. Ergo the entropy input to earth is negative.

      Hence, the rate of increase in order, anywhere on earth, must also be basically zero.

      Entropy must increase in processes on earth, so the "increase in order" must be negative. And it does.

      When you freeze water in your freezer, the ice has lower entropy than the water before it. However this is more than compensated by the increase in entropy emitted from the radiator.

      Similarly if you build a spaceship, the decreased entropy of the spaceship will be more than compensated by increased entropy in the spaceship factory.

      The chemical processes that create highly-organized you as a consequence increase entropy elsewhere. Considering the system as a whole, your existence results in a net increase in entropy.

      This is another problem with thinking of negative entropy as "order" -- it invites one to look at something that is ordered and say "Hey, entropy decreased here! We have a problem!" when if you actually accounted for all entropy increases and decreases involved in bringing that order about, you'd see that there was no problem at all.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    65. Re:Curses! by datsa · · Score: 1

      It's a wise decision to welcome us. We've already started to infiltrate your guts and the guts of your loved ones.

    66. Re:Curses! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I gotta hand it to you, you got guts kid.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    67. Re:Curses! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I thought you might be interested in more justification for this:

      The entropy contained in the slice of solar blackbody radiation that is heating the earth is significantly less than the entropy in the blackbody radiation emitted by the earth in all directions into space. The earth has a net entropy output. Ergo the entropy input to earth is negative.

      The entropy of blackbody radiation is S = (4/3)U/T, where U is the total energy and T is the temperature. When the earth is in thermal equilibrium then the amount of energy received by the sun is equal to the amount of energy radiated away from the earth (ignoring the contribution of heat from the earth's core which is relatively small). The sun's surface is at 5800K. The earth's surface is at about 280K. So there's about 20 times less entropy in the energy coming from the sun.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    68. Re:Curses! by mpe · · Score: 1

      If I have a billion self replicating programs, and randomly change the object code in all of them every second, they all won't suddenly die, but I will see the entire population gradully LOSE information and thus FUNCTION. Beneficial mutations are possible, but will be far outweighed by the gradual increased disorder .

      In terms of biological evolution loss can a beneficial mutation. e.g. animals which live in constantly dark caves losing sight, pigmentation, etc.

    69. Re:Curses! by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Hi! I'm a genetic code: GTACATCTTCAGGCATAC

      Hi! I'm also a genetic code: GTCCATCTTCACGCATAC

      Which one of us is more "ordered" and why? Also, if one of is a mutation of the first, is the other one less orderly? If so, is the opposite also true?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  2. Evelution in action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    So.. Symbiotic evolution. Little bacterial critters that an evolve quickly lend their larger, longer lived, more slowly evolving hosts benefit in exchange for a place to live.

    Interesting that these hardy critters mostly affect the farming rich bible belt states, where it's in vogue to badmouth evolution. Teach that controversy!

    1. Re:Evelution in action. by Theovon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I didn't RTFM, but on the surface, although this looks like evolution and symbiosis, it doesn't look like symbiotic evolution. The insect didn't change. The bacteria did, and the bacteria is living in the insect. The bacteria didn't cause the insect to develop a resistance. The bacteria is PROVIDING the resistance. If you were to remove the bacteria from the insect, the insect would be vulnerable again.

    2. Re:Evelution in action. by datsa · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not that simple. Being able to harbor the new bacteria is now a measure of fitness in these insects. Insects that reject the bacteria will die off (if they haven't already), and insects that do a better job accommodating the bacteria are more likely to survive to the next generation. We happen to be seeing the end product of that process.

    3. Re:Evelution in action. by icqraid · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in symbiosis. That's why I had all my mitochondria (and bacteria) removed.

      If the insects find a way to incorporate some of the bacterial DNA into their own DNA then genetic evolution will have taken place. I think symbiotic evolution such as with mitochondria and chloroplasts is a lot rarer. Those are the only two examples that come to mind.

  3. Spider mites by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    This is a big problem here in BC because of grow ops. Some off these spider mites are resistant to shit that will kill/fuck us up easily.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Spider mites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even trailer park boys knew what to do with spider mites.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWOIsopqK6A

      Spraying any sort of insecticide on spider mites is stupid and short sighted.

  4. Re:Happy Weekend from the Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That's cosmonaut, you moron.

  5. Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---

    We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by c0lo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---

      We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries

      And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?
      Or would you like Monsanto to provide both the meal and the "enhanced digestion additive" for it?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---

      We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries

      And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?

      Whether you like it or not, the industrial complex has been producing, - and is producing - millions and millions of tons of toxic waste every single year. toxic wastes that are very difficult - and very un-economical to un-toxic-fy

      If there are bacteria which can "digest" those toxic waste and break-down the chemicals in such that the resultant by-products lose their toxicity - we should tap into the abilities of those bacteria to clean up the environment

      And your point being ... ?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---

      We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries

      Depends on what the 'waste' the bacteria is spitting out, I'd think. It'd suck if the bacteria took in pesticide and spit out, say, cyanide or nerve gas...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by phrostie · · Score: 1

      so what happens when the bacteria start living in our systems. do we become immune to the toxins too?

    5. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I could finally eat StarLink Taco Bell brand taco shells without getting the squirts?

    6. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      this needs more mod.

      bioremediation is a very exciting field.

    7. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---

      We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries

      And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?

      Whether you like it or not, the industrial complex has been producing, - and is producing - millions and millions of tons of toxic waste every single year. toxic wastes that are very difficult - and very un-economical to un-toxic-fy

      If there are bacteria which can "digest" those toxic waste and break-down the chemicals in such that the resultant by-products lose their toxicity - we should tap into the abilities of those bacteria to clean up the environment

      And your point being ... ?

      My point: for the time being, those bacteria requires a gut to function.

      I won't volunteer my gut for it and various experiments of the past make me wary of attempts involving evolution and ecology (take TFA for an example of the law of unintended consequences in ecology).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    8. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toxicity is a little more nuanced than you seem to think it is. There is -immediate exposure- toxicity, that happens on direct exposure to those "bad" chemicals, and then there is the question of -lingering environmental residues-. If bacteria start to digest the stuff left behind, then is it really toxic when it's become food for something?

      -- Carbon_tet

    9. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      My point: for the time being, those bacteria requires a gut to function.

      Not all of them do. :P Even the summary says this was just one strain of a number of pesticide-eating bacteria.

      I fully agree with being leery of and avoiding introducing species, but these bacteria evolved in places where there was heavy pesticide use. So they aren't exactly introduced species when used to clean up pesticides, they aren't that far removed from their natural environment. When the pesticide is gone, the pressure would be to return towards their previous food sources. Of course I couldn't say that would be the case, but it's not as big an shock to the ecosystem as many introductions.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by c0lo · · Score: 2

      I fully agree with being leery of and avoiding introducing species, but these bacteria evolved in places where there was heavy pesticide use. So they aren't exactly introduced species when used to clean up pesticides, they aren't that far removed from their natural environment.

      Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.

      We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries

      And my objection stems from the two reasons I listed:
      1. in biology/ecology, the things have a tendency to go wrong in more ways and much faster anyone can imagine
      2. my distrust into the capabilities of the corporations to act responsible (and I'm not necessary hating the player, but the "game" requires them to maximize their profits and "to act responsible" comes only secondary to that)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    11. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.

      I can't imagine what connotation you are inferring for "tap" that would require I change my response. Taking bacteria cultures and dumping them on locations polluted by pesticides is "tapping" into their capabilities.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.

      I can't imagine what connotation you are inferring for "tap" that would require I change my response. Taking bacteria cultures and dumping them on locations polluted by pesticides is "tapping" into their capabilities.

      Like... potentially importing some bacteria strains into Australia because they aren't present there?.

      You know, Australia's soil is quite particular - low concentration of phosphorus - so the native flora there adapted to the lack of it.
      Hang on, aren't the pesticides mentioned by TFA in this class?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    13. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      I think you may need a visit to your local psychiatrist

      No one is talking about introducing alien species of bacteria culture into pristine environment

      We are talking about cleaning up dangerous and toxic chemicals - ie, brown fields which have been polluted by those toxics - no matter it is in Australia or in Timbuktu, polluted brown fields are polluted brown fields, and the pollution won't go away simply because of your unfounded phobia

      If the bacteria can gobble up those toxic substances and reduce them to basic elements that are non-toxic, why the hell not use what the nature is providing us - hey, those bacteria are NOT man-made, you know? - to help clean up the mess we have done to the only planet that we live on?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    14. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. in biology/ecology, the things have a tendency to go wrong in more ways and much faster anyone can imagine

      Myth, often seen in movies.
      Nature is a self stabilizing an very adaptive system. Since it tries things in a way that appear to be random it is very hard to predict the outcome but this doesn't mean that the outcome is undesirable.

    15. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      If bacteria start to digest the stuff left behind, then is it really toxic when it's become food for something?

      There are substances that are toxic for one species but not for another

      There are species that live near underwater volcanoes, for example, and they actually consume the sulphur based chemical soup as food that many other species find toxic

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    16. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Depends on what the 'waste' the bacteria is spitting out, I'd think. It'd suck if the bacteria took in pesticide and spit out, say, cyanide or nerve gas...

      It could happen that way, but then, it could be the opposite

      When living things digest a substance, it break-down that substance to more basic elements - and basic elements are in general less toxic than the longer-chained chemicals

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    17. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      bioremediation is a very exciting field

      I was looking for that word - "bioremediation" - but my brain simply refused to work

      Thank you for your help :)

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    18. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Whether you like it or not, the industrial complex has been producing, - and is producing - millions and millions of tons of toxic waste every single year. toxic wastes that are very difficult - and very un-economical to un-toxic-fy

      I admire yo-yo-your implication FUCK! ASS! that since it's already happening on a huge sss-s-scale FUCK! ASS!, there's really no problem in increase of p-p-p-production FUCK! ASS! of the poison.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    19. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nature is a self stabilizing an very adaptive system. Since it tries things in a way that appear to be random it is very hard to predict the outcome but this doesn't mean that the outcome is undesirable.

      It doesn't mean it will be desirable either.

      Besides: anything that can go wrong, will

    20. Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bacteriophage in people's intestines have been suggested as a very real way that people in other countries protect themselves from 'the squirts.'
      A phage cocktail customized to the local population could be administered to people traveling in the area.

  6. Simple Solution by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is a simple cause and solution to this. They aren't spraying enough pesticides and they need to spray more. Just ask the chemical companies and their congressional and parliamentary stooges. They'll back me up on this.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Simple Solution by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      No, we just need to mix antibiotics with the pesticide and spray that everywhere. Problem solved.

    2. Re:Simple Solution by cyachallenge · · Score: 1

      You joke, but this will likely be the market's solution.

    3. Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . as I stated previously - let everyone add bugs to their diet.
            1) good source of protein and carbs
            2) since the gut-resident bacteria live in the bugs gut, there is a fair-to-middling chance they will live in OUR guts
            3) with the addition of the bugs gut-bacteria to our own, we acquire an increased tolerance to the pesticides

  7. Now put bacteria in farmers by ignavus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yay! So now we can put those bacteria in farmers, and they won't get sick or die when they spray their farms.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
    1. Re:Now put bacteria in farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually - it IS really simple - do like a large part of mankind does - and EAT BUGS !

  8. Mirror shields for flying creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what would really impress me sometime in the future after developing an active denial system for bugs involving lasers bugs evolve mirrors to ward off attack and consume or tasty stalks of sugar and spice and everything nice.

  9. Antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else worry that will be Monsanto's answer?

  10. Great... by Dwedit · · Score: 2

    Great... Just what we need...
    Pesticides with Antibiotics mixed in there too. I for one welcome our new superbug overlords.

    1. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Looks like "Phase IV" was true.

      (For the mystified, Phase IV is an "Ant Invasion" movie where the Ants acquired immunity to pesticides by many ants sacrificing themselves to bring a sample to the queen who could eat it and produce offspring with immunity.)

  11. Organic farming is not for hippies by rastoboy29 · · Score: 2

    This is why organic farming is not just for hippies and phobes.

    Personally, I think of it as a very Taoist way of solving these problems--instead of a frontal attack (insecticides) plant symbiotic plants nearby that ward off insects, and things like that.  Go with the flow...

    --
    expandfairuse.org
    1. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If "organic farming" (what a silly name) were the norm, I'm sure it would be cheaper. Not as much as they are now, but I wouldn't mind paying double, or hell, even triple of what I pay now. Vegetables are cheap.

    2. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Not as much as they are now

      Sorry, I meant to say "not as cheap as common vegetables are"

    3. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, will you be the first to sign your own death and the death of 4 billion other people? Organic farming is unsustainable for our population levels.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Smart people would make changes in farming and population control over the sae timeframe. Sadly, lots of ignorant people will die because they were born from ignorance and largely dont improve from the cycle.... and so 4+ BN will die, not that any sane human wouldnt be apalled by natures big push back.

      Oil resources finite? Check phosphorous peak estimates for a real scary reality check.

    5. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by netsavior · · Score: 2

      not enough free nitrogen on earth to farm for its current population. "Organic" food is for privileged first worlders, and is not the answer to anything. It uses the most fertile land to produce the least robust crops for the smallest group of people. Awesome.

    6. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Where is your data?

      Also, what difference does it make if what you are saying is true, or if we simply cause super-pests to breed and eventually cause an Irish Potato style famine, due to monoculture farming, for example?

      --
      expandfairuse.org
    7. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by wrook · · Score: 0

      No. Organic farming is unsustainable *at present prices* for our population levels. You can easily get the same yield (or even higher) with "organic" farming. If you want to control pests, just have tons of guys standing around killing them by hand (well, that's really overkill).

      Current "conventional" farming practices are geared towards economics, not yield. But why? 1 kilogram of barley is sold for about 23 cents a kg. That kg of barley will make about 4 liters of beer and represents at least half of the cost in terms of ingredients. Why is 23 cents of barley costing $10 as beer? Who is receiving that money? (hint: it is not the brewers nor the maltsters nor the truck drivers receiving the bulk of it). What are the implications if we pay farmers 10 times as much for barley. Will beer increase in price by about $2.30 per gallon? Why not?

      Alternative forms of farming are very viable, but it's possible they will require more labor. The question is if we will stop forking money over to certain people who are making it too expensive.

    8. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Then we're fucked. Because conventional farming is also unsustainable for our population levels.

    9. Re:Organic farming is not for hippies by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      Have a look at terra preta, and biochar.

      Simple, inexpensive additions to poor quality soil which make it much more productive than one with chemical fertilizers..

      Green manure and compost are very inexpensive, most of what organic soil needs can be sourced locally, the only thing you might need to import is rock dust.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  12. Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really does not give one single fuck about us.

  13. Life will find a way by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No matter whether you're dealing with antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides, or natural predators, life will always evolve to survive.

    We all know this. The scientists. The chemists. The engineers. The pharmacorps. The pesticide and herbicide companies.

    Hell, Monsanto even gene-engineers such resistance into their tainted products.

    But the public doesn't want to accept the truth: we're all on borrowed time. All we're doing is leveraging short-term odds for short-term gain, at the price of long term dissolution. So the marketing experts and technology pundits tell them what they want to hear: that we can win the fight in the long term.

    We can't, and we won't. Eventually every single antibiotic, pesticide, and herbicide we have will be useless, and the new generations of such products will be so lethal that we won't be able to use them because they're also poisonous to humans.

    And then the shit is really gonna hit the fan, big time.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Life will find a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extinction: First it was the mammoth. Nobody even knew until thousands? Of years later. Then it was the buffalo (almost) and nobody realized the importance. Next came the frogs. Nobody cared. They were just frogs. Then came the humans. By this time it was too late. Mankind exterminated everything. Including itself.

    2. Re:Life will find a way by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      We can't, and we won't. Eventually every single antibiotic, pesticide, and herbicide we have will be useless, and the new generations of such products will be so lethal that we won't be able to use them because they're also poisonous to humans.

      I'm not sure this is true. It seems that each generation of pesticide is safer, and more targeted than the previous generation. The earlier pesticides, like DDT are much worse than later ones, like paldoxins. Your scenario COULD happen, I don't claim to predict the future, but there is more than one possibility.

      And our knowledge of biology is growing and such an incredible pace, it wouldn't be surprising if we get better and better pesticides in the future, at an increasing pace. Once computers are more accurately able to model cells and molecular interactions, then we'll be able to find new ones even faster. Or maybe technology will falter, and your vision will come true. But there is room for more than one prediction of the future.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Life will find a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short term gains, in many cases, allow for long term benefits to be realized. For every advance like a new antibiotic, there's something that has a long term impact - learn how to make a cell phone better, a surgical procedure becomes more practiced, or a new manufacturing process is invented. You can't operate on someone with cancer if they die at 5 from measles; you can't show the world the potential of a new technology if you die from pancreatic cancer; you can't create a new manufacturing process if the people in the plants who understand the current process don't have enough time to both think of new processes and teach the newer generation how and why to use them. Saying that everything done in the biological realm is only a short term benefit because life will evolve around it neglects the ripple of effects that happens when you extend lifespans even by a short amount and then proceed to use those lifespans to create longer lasting impacts.

    4. Re:Life will find a way by joocemann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Microbiologists ma disagree about the antibiotic resistance cold war component of your point. They often assert that when resistance is evolved against one mode of action, it is devolved from a previous mode.... this is true in bacteria, whereby removing antibiotics from media can generate a dominant species that is absent of resistance in 30 generations (1 to 2 days). This is because without the pressure, the small functional advantage of lacking a useless resistance gene lets the nonresistant mutant outpace its resistant ancestor in 30 doublings.

      I am a firm believer in working *with* nature than against it. The future looks dreary...

    5. Re:Life will find a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well shit, it's almost as though humans will just have to keep adapting along with everything else. Eventually we'll develop technology that makes modern medicine look like primitive herbal treatments from thousands of years ago. Humans are the most successful genetic organism that we've discovered to date. We've almost reached the point where we'll be able to start tempering with our own genetic make-up and direct our evolution if we choose. I don't think we have much to worry about.

    6. Re:Life will find a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My doctor said the same thing when I was talking to him about antibiotics... He said that it is a game that we play with the bugs, and we're eventually going to lose.

      This is pretty much what he said:

      Listen, and understand. The bugs are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead

    7. Re:Life will find a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then

      Wrong. We are 'here' now. People in the business of pest eradication are well aware of this.

    8. Re:Life will find a way by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Nah, bacteria will survive. Insects too.

    9. Re:Life will find a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, Monsanto even gene-engineers such resistance into their tainted products.

      Gene-engineers is an interesting word. but you do realize that isn't anything special. Plants have been in an arms war with herbivores for millions of years, developing stronger pesticides, then resistances. The same thing is done in conventional breeding. Learn some plant biochemistry before you use the term tainted to describe basic principles of agriculture.

  14. It was expected by icqraid · · Score: 2

    This isn't surprising to me. Just like dosing animals with antibodies and using sterilization products everywhere which creates resistance to said chemicals. As Ian Malcolm said "Life finds a way."

  15. Re:Actually you're a position whore (space) ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hee hee you replied to a trollish first-poster to get a higher position of your comment. LULZ!!! Ur so clever. Plz mod him up, dawg!

    And by "up" I mean down. Unless you want more of this bullshit which is what you get by rewarding it.

  16. no, god planned it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    its all in the bible, if you would only learn to read it properly.

    (unless you are muslim, which in case, its all in the koran, if only you could learn to read it properly)

    (unless you are zoroastrian... which in case... hey , zoroastrian, thats a hell of a scrabble word...)

  17. Synchromysticism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Insects Develop Pesticide Resistance Through Symbiosis With Gut Flora

    "Gut Flora" was the name of my ska-core band when I was in college. We were originally "Irritable Bowel Syndrome" but the lead singer left the band and he owned the name, Asshole.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Synchromysticism by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Gut Flora" was the name of my ska-core band when I was in college. We were originally "Irritable Bowel Syndrome" but the lead singer left the band and he owned the name, Asshole.

      No, I own the name Asshole.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. His point by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    His point is obviously that Monsanto expects us to hand over our lunch money for coaxing the bacteria into doing so.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:His point by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      His point is obviously that Monsanto expects us to hand over our lunch money for coaxing the bacteria into doing so.

      That guy couldn't think out of his self-made box

      Just because Monsanto may have cornered the genetic modified food industry does not mean that the same company gonna corner the bacteria industry

      Furthermore, the bacteria that can digest toxic chemicals (like pesticide) are not just a single type of bacterium - Even if Monsanto can come up with one type of bacterium (Bacterium Z) that can break down toxic chemicals A, B, C, D, E, does not mean others are being prevented to come up with bacterium Y that can break down toxic chemicals B, H, K, O, P, S, W

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  19. You are correct filtration unit 5327. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is good to see that there are helpful and thoughtful people in the world.

  20. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought insecticides worked by choking the bugs, which has nothing to do with gut bacteria...

  21. Other reading by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    See also:

    Journal Censors 'Second Law' Paper Refuting Evolution
    http://www.icr.org/article/journal-censors-second-law-paper-refuting/

    After the paper was accepted for publication in Applied Mathematics Letters, an anti-design blogger wrote to the editor, warning that the journal's reputation would be tarnished if the paper was printed. So, the journal's editor withdrew it. Sewell, who has authored at least 39 other technical papers, then took legal action. Since the journal's own policy states that withdrawing a reviewed and accepted paper "can only occur under exceptional circumstances" such as plagiarism or fraudulent data, and since Sewell's article does not contain any known errors or technical problems, he was given an apology as well as permission to post the pre-publication version of his paper on his university faculty web page—although Applied Mathematics Letters still has no plans to publish it.

    See also: http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/

    If the energy of the sun somehow is going to transform the non-living molecules of the primeval soup into intricately complex, highly organized, replicating living cells, [...] then that energy has to be stored and converted [...] by an intricate array of complex codes and programs. If such codes and mechanisms are not available [...]then the incoming heat energy will simply disintegrate any organized systems that might accidentally have shown up there.

    Evolutionists have hardly even addressed this problem as yet, let alone solved it. There are, to their credit, a few theorists who have at least recognized the problem
    [...]

    The one man whose speculations have received the most attention (even acquiring for him a Nobel Prize in 1977) is Belgian physicist Ilya Prigogine, who advanced the strange idea of "dissipative structures" as a possible source of new complexity in nature.

    Such systems in no way contradict the principle of entropy but rather are illustrations of entropy working overtime! The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:
    "...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

    See finally: http://www.ldolphin.org/chaos.html
    [dissipative structures] have never been shown—even mathematically—to reproduce themselves or to generate still higher degrees of order.

    [Prigogine] used the example of small vortices in a cup of hot coffee. A similar example would be the much larger "vortex" in a tornado or hurricane. These might be viewed as "structures" and to appear to be "ordered," but they are soon gone. What they leave in their wake is not a higher degree of organized complexity, but a higher degree of dissipation and disorganisation.

    [Prigogine, quoted in 1984:]
    The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.
    However, we must admit that we remain far from any quantitative theory.

  22. Those lovely people spraying at the roadside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice! I imagine humans can use that bacteria to help detox all the nasty pesticides we cannot avoid.