"This is the same sort of logic creationists use to say things like, "the eye could never evolve naturally.'"
Pardon the multiple replies, but I did not notice that sentence the first time around.
It is not "the same kind of logic". At all. And here is why:
The creationists believe that it is impossible for order to come from chaos, without a guiding hand. WE know, however, that natural processes, like natural mutations over time, can form complex creatures. Okay, I understand this and so do you.
However: for something like this, the math doesn't work the same way. You are talking about a particular organism accidentally stumbling onto particular genetic changes that would -- if the pathway were straightforward -- take thousands or millions of years. Thus the argument that some people here have made: that "they're just speeding it up".
Except it doesn't work that way. You might be able to predict, say, that in a billion years creatures are going to develop eyes. But there is no way you can say that a particular creature will have a particular kind of eye, because that's not the way evolution works.
Instead, accidental mutations happen. And as we already know, the vast majority of these accidental mutations are not beneficial. They weaken or kill the organism, and -- very gradually unless it's actually deadly -- tend to fade from the gene pool.
But then occasionally, a beneficial mutation happens. Statistically it is very rare. And in addition to that, there is no way to predict in advance (at least at anything like our current level of technology) what that mutation will be.
These mutations add up. But there is no way in advance you will know which way they will go.
Will some plant build up (or maybe, some exotic plant already has) resistance to roundup? Over a very long period of time, that is likely. But (as I mentioned before), Roundup is highly unlikely to be around that long.
But the odds against the plant that does it being be corn or some other human food crop are ASTRONOMICAL. The chain of events that would lead to that kind of mutation via natural selection would probably be a huge tree of probabilities that are zero down to 18 decimal places.
But again, that's all beside the point. The fact is that they never did proper safety studies, they DID cover up failures and problems, and we ARE having other ecological problems that we can trace back to these products.
"It is almost certain that weeds will evolve to be resistant to roundup. The only question is whether it will take decades or centuries."
Talk about naive. First, Roundup kills just about everything green it touches. Second, recent research (see those links I mentioned) has shown that it can have a vastly worse effect on not just humans but the ecosystem in general than previously thought. So it probably won't be around long enough for plants to develop resistance. But here are a couple of hints: (1) If it were only decades, it would have happened by now. (2) If plants could develop resistance to it via natural mutations, then the researchers could have simply modified the plant's own genes. Why didn't they? Give it some thought and study. Get back to me on that.
And you know how they said that "roundup-ready" crops would lead to LESS use of herbicides? Guess what? The use of glyphosate (Roundup) is 10 TIMES HIGHER than it was 20 years ago.
You just really don't understand the extent to which they are messing with things here. This is FAR beyond anything natural mutations would develop, over millions of years.
"It sounds to me like your against it because you don't understand it. It sounds like you are afraid of scary words like "E Coli." You say things like, "Some of the specific mutations (like "roundup-ready" corn that used E. Coli genes) could never occur through natural mutation." This is the same sort of logic creationists use to say things like, "the eye could never evolve naturally."
I don't give the slightest goddamn how it "sound to you". I'm not against it because it's "unnatural", I'm against it because THEY ARE FUCKING IT UP and not doing it right. We have VERY strong evidence of this, and you can find all kinds of it with just a few minutes on Google.
I have made a bunch of comments in this topic, but if you hunt around for them you will find a couple with some links in them. Follow them. Read.
THEN maybe get back to me about what YOU think I think.
This article contains links to evidence that roundup-resistant and Bt-toxin producing BMOs are much more dangerous to human health than previously believed.
But don't misunderstand me like some other people have. I am NOT against the idea of genetic modification simply because "it's unnatural".
The problem is that we don't know enough yet to do it properly. We are already starting to see some serious harm that is almost certainly due to unanticipated side-effects of some GMO crops.
As a concept I think it's just fine, once we know enough to do it responsibly. But that is not today.
"That's why I specifically mentioned mutations. They are different than cross-breading."
It doesn't matter. Some of the specific mutations (like "roundup-ready" corn that used E. Coli genes) could never occur through natural mutation. If they could, they would have simply modified the corn genes themselves, rather than using already-lab-modified bacteria. It would have been easier.
THE POINT is that these are UNnatural mutations that could probably never occur naturally. We do not know in advance what the side-effects might be, as we would if we were just cross-breeding, or even some kind of accelerated form of cross-breeding.
It's NOT the same thing, man. It's a completely different ball game.
"If you have legitimate disputes about actual GMO products, then speak up. But enough with the handwaving already."
I already have, which you would know if you had been paying attention. No "hand-waving" here.
There is evidence that GMO "nicotinoid pesticide" crops are a primary cause of Colony Collapse disorder, killing off bees in droves. There is evidence that the resulting nicotinoid compounds are, in fact, harmful to humans. And just to put the icing on the cake, the actual pests that it was supposed to kill or repel are quickly becoming resistant.
There was recently a class-action lawsuit against one of the companies that makes GMO corn, over cows that their feed corn apparently killed. The company settled out of court to avoid litigation, and the product was pulled from the market.
There was a paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal last year that linked "roundup-ready" GMO products to liver damage in mice and rats.
I could go on, but there is no need. Get a fucking education yourself before you start insulting people, you moron.
"Evidence of liver damage? What evidence is there that GMO modifications can cause liver damage merely by the quality of being GMO, as opposed to what the resultant mutation accomplishes?"
Hahahaha.... this is the biggest pile of BS I have read in a long time!
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. GMO *IS* mutation. That's what it means.
"So I guess I don't understand why "Terminator" is such a big deal."
Well, it was a big deal in parts of South America because Monsanto tricked farmers into using it.
They held big town meetings, and really hyped up what their GMO corn could do for the villagers... things like 30% better yield, more profits, etc.
So lots of people bought into it. The bought the Monsanto seed, and planted it, and got better yield, yes... but for hundreds of years, they had been reserving seed corn for next year's crops... and suddenly they found out (because nobody had told them) that it didn't work. "Seed" corn wouldn't grow... they had to buy from Monsanto all over again. There went most if not all of their profits from the higher yield.
Why didn't they ask if the corn was fertile and would be viable seed for the next season? Because it never occurred to them! It had always been done that way.
If hybrid corn doesn't breed true in the next generation, it's not THAT big of a deal... at least it grows and you have something to eat that you can keep re-planting and re-growing. The Monsanto stuff doesn't.
"Not really, it just means the mutations that would naturally occur are sped up."
I've counted about 20 instances of people saying this so far, but it's just plain FALSE.
The kind of genetic tinkering they are doing today -- crossing mutated bacteria with crops and jellyfish with mammals -- would NEVER happen in nature, in many millions of years if at all. Using cross-breeding, you just can't get there from here. It's all in the statistics.
The fact is that we don't know how these mutant monsters will turn out. We are already seeing strong evidence of big problems with side effects that we did not know about at first: bees dying, pest resistance to "resistant" crops, etc.
Even if the genetic combinations they are dreaming up in the lab are otherwise harmless (safe to eat, let's say... but we don't even really know that... recently there was a lawsuit over dead cows from GMO corn), we don't know what their effects will have on our ecology.
We need to know more before we fiddle to this degree. It's not safe, and as I say we are already starting to see very serious problems cropping up.
If it was ONLY the equivalent of sped-up cross-breeding, nobody would care. But it's NOT.
The double standard goes further. In many states today, especially if they are not married, ONLY the woman has any say over whether to carry a pregnancy to term. The (potential) father's wishes are completely unrecognized as having any relevance. And yet... if the woman decides to have the baby, most of the time the man is nevertheless held responsible for an equal share of the child's upbringing. Sometimes more than equal.
This is the worst form of "taxation without representation" imaginable. EVERYBODY'S lives are affected, sometimes in extremely harsh and negative ways, and yet one party is completely left out of the equation.
In my opinion, if the erstwhile father has no say in the matter, then he also cannot be held responsible. The women can have it one way, or the other, but not both. That's not fair to half the population of the country. ("Not fair" is a gross understatement.)
Yes, men should take some responsibility for birth control (condoms or whatever), but to trick somebody in that manner and then try to hold them responsible is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. In general I would call it worse than rape because, again in general, it will have longer and more profound, tangible effect.
Women complain that if men can't be held responsible, then they can just walk away. To them I say: "If he's the kind of guy who will walk away, what the hell were you doing getting pregnant in the first place? The responsibility works both ways, whether you like it or not."
"And you know what else isn't breeding? Mutageneisis, bud sport selection, and induced polyploidy. And so what if they aren't? Things that aren't breeding should be labeled? Why?"
Yes, it is. All these things occur naturally at times. Polyploids arise spontaneously via mutation, as do bud sports, and mutations arise spontaneously during breeding. They can be caused by any number of natural forces: UV radiation, physical damage during mitosis, etc., etc., etc.
And while horizontal transfer does occur, as far as we know it occurs primarily between single-celled organisms of similar species, not between single-cell animal organisms and multicellular plant life, for example.
Certain instances of horizontal transfer between multicellular animals is suspected to have occurred (via mosquito for example), but EXTREMELY rarely; probably no more than a few times every million years (that is to say, cases in which the host organism doesn't die right away and manages to pass on its genes).
Deliberately inserting mutated E. Coli genes into corn is NOT something that happens naturally, and mathematically speaking, it would probably never occur in nature.
It's still apples and oranges. If they keep it up the way they have been, the law of unintended consequences is likely to bite them in the ass, if it hasn't started to slowly chew already.
I'm not against the concept of GMO, at all. But it isn't ready for prime time. We don't know enough yet.
"Our friend anecdotes are not much of a rebuttal against a formal survey conducted by a reputable organization like Gallop."
No, but the fact that the Gallup poll was taken 3 months into the "movement", and that was 9 months ago, DOES call its validity into serious question.
The "occupy" movement didn't go away, although it's not actually "occupying" as much now. On the contrary. It has spread into an ongoing global phenomenon.
"That's why the 'in' thing to do these days is to keep really good credit throughout college, spend marginally and, upon graduation, have a nest egg to put towards a house to live in for the next 7 years."
At first I thought that either you didn't read my original comment, or you completely missed my point.
I will repeat in different words: MANY of the students GP was criticizing found that the circumstances that were prevailing when they PLANNED and started college, were not the same once they graduated. Because over that time, the rules have changed.
While they were in school, they were faced with the choice of either biting the bullet and accepting the new, changed circumstances, and hoping for the best, or dropping out of school.
Then, when they got out of school, they discovered that the economy was in the toilet and there were no longer any jobs available for new graduates in their profession.
You do make a good point about credit cards.:o) But the problem is that only a very small minority of students have enough credit (even if it is good) to cover their student loans when they graduate.
"The claim was that perfect access to information was a cornerstone requirement of a free market. It is not."
Yes, that much is true. Apologies. I had mis-read the first part of his comment.
"You are mistaken. Genes are genes. They neither know nor care which organism a specific genetic sequence arose in."
No, I am not mistaken. They might neither know or care, but THAT is a straw-man argument if I ever heard one. And it is completely beside the point.
"Essentially any genetic sequence can be achieved in any organism given enough generations for it to arise and careful cross-breeding to isolate it."
Absolute bullshit. That's mathematically impossible. There are too many combinations, with the vast majority of those combinations being non-viable for the mutated organisms that possess them. There is no way that some of those combinations could ever occur naturally through cross-breeding. You won't find the genes for chitinous skeletons and compound eyes, for example, cropping up in amphibians. It could never happen... such things do not just crop up whole, and any intermediaries in that direction would almost certainly die before passing on the genes. So no... your claim that "any genetic sequence can be achieved given enough generations" -- if you are talking about any SPECIFIC organism, that is -- is quite false.
"The fact that a specific mutation has arisen in one type of organism through luck of the draw shouldn't preclude us from reaping the benefits of it in others."
Except, as I have already stated, it would probably be quite impossible for some of the combinations of genes already in use to crop up in nature. The chances that something like the E. Coli gene that makes corn "roundup-ready" for example occurring naturally, no matter how many generations of cross-breeding corn, are slim to none. Otherwise they could have just used corn genes in the first place.
" There's no scientific rationale for the position that it should, except that it âoesounds scaryâ to people who don't understand as much about how the science of genetics works as they think they do."
There are quite a few "sound scientific rationales". Such as strong evidence that some GMO crops are causing bees to die off. Such as strong evidence that insect pests are themselves becoming resistant to "pest resistant" crops. There are MANY reasons to not "fool with Mother Nature" to this extent, until we have much, much more knowledge about it.
I am not against the CONCEPT of GMO, at all. But it's premature. We don't know enough about it yet to do it responsibly. We already have evidence that some GMO crops could lead to disaster if their use is not discontinued. It's not conclusive yet, but the evidence is real and it has continued to mount. The fact is that WE DO NOT KNOW what kind of side-effects there could be, although as I say there has already been some strong evidence of adverse effects, of which we were not originally aware.
"Look you can take your bible thumping butt out of here, I don't want to hear about how you don't believe in evolution."
Hahahaha. What an ass.
Inserting the genes of already gene-modified bacteria and other animals into PLANTS is not "evolution". And I never said ANYTHING about not believing in evolution.
Pick up a science book. Or at least, criticize something real instead of this imaginary BS.
"You don't know what you're talking about. Perfect access to information is a condition of a perfect market, not a free market. The only condition for a free market is a lack of government regulations. Free markets do not require perfect access to anything, either as a condition to exist or in order to function properly."
Yes, he does. A perfect market, by definition, must be a free market, and free markets operate more efficiently with better information. You cannot logically separate the concepts into two different things... so it is YOU who are making the straw-man argument.
"You're under the mistaken impression that there's some identifiable difference between GMO and non-GMO foods, that couldn't be achieved through natural cross-breeding techniques that have been used for thousands of years. Genetic modification just speeds up the process."
Again, it is YOU who do not know what you are talking about. There are EASILY identifiable differences in many GMO foods. No amount of cross-breeding on earth will insert genes from already-highly modified E. Coli into crops ("roundup-ready" corn) or otherwise cross plants and animals in such a manner. Or dissimilar animals, like jellyfish with mammals.
If you really didn't know that's what they're doing, you should start looking a few things up.
"Thing is, every crop humans grow for food already HAS been genetically modified, through centuries of selective breeding. In the case of ruby red grapefruit, the crop was developed by exposing the seeds to radiation and causing a LOT of mutations quite fast."
No, the "nasty truth" is that with all those mutations and cross-breedings, they are STILL plants, and they STILL do not contain genes from already-highly-artificially-modified bacteria, or jellyfish.
It's NOT the same thing, and to pretend that it is, is no better than lying.
"There will always be those who reject technological advancement. Let them have their information."
And I almost forgot. Next to the bees, the other really big one: insects and other pests becoming resistant to the gene modifications, in exactly the same way that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.
"Perhaps, if this measure were enacted, many people who are fearful of such technology will see just how much of our food is modified from its natural state, while causing no harm to said people."
Deliberate sterilization so that corn can no longer be used to seed for the next season... you have to buy more seed from Monsanto. Said sterilized crops escaping the fields and contaminating other crops. Massive die-offs of bees. Evidence of liver damage.
I think it's fair to say that those things might be considered "harm to people".
Slashdot Mirror
"This is the same sort of logic creationists use to say things like, "the eye could never evolve naturally.'"
Pardon the multiple replies, but I did not notice that sentence the first time around.
It is not "the same kind of logic". At all. And here is why:
The creationists believe that it is impossible for order to come from chaos, without a guiding hand. WE know, however, that natural processes, like natural mutations over time, can form complex creatures. Okay, I understand this and so do you.
However: for something like this, the math doesn't work the same way. You are talking about a particular organism accidentally stumbling onto particular genetic changes that would -- if the pathway were straightforward -- take thousands or millions of years. Thus the argument that some people here have made: that "they're just speeding it up".
Except it doesn't work that way. You might be able to predict, say, that in a billion years creatures are going to develop eyes. But there is no way you can say that a particular creature will have a particular kind of eye, because that's not the way evolution works.
Instead, accidental mutations happen. And as we already know, the vast majority of these accidental mutations are not beneficial. They weaken or kill the organism, and -- very gradually unless it's actually deadly -- tend to fade from the gene pool.
But then occasionally, a beneficial mutation happens. Statistically it is very rare. And in addition to that, there is no way to predict in advance (at least at anything like our current level of technology) what that mutation will be.
These mutations add up. But there is no way in advance you will know which way they will go.
Will some plant build up (or maybe, some exotic plant already has) resistance to roundup? Over a very long period of time, that is likely. But (as I mentioned before), Roundup is highly unlikely to be around that long.
But the odds against the plant that does it being be corn or some other human food crop are ASTRONOMICAL. The chain of events that would lead to that kind of mutation via natural selection would probably be a huge tree of probabilities that are zero down to 18 decimal places.
But again, that's all beside the point. The fact is that they never did proper safety studies, they DID cover up failures and problems, and we ARE having other ecological problems that we can trace back to these products.
It's not my imagination. Look it the hell up.
"It is almost certain that weeds will evolve to be resistant to roundup. The only question is whether it will take decades or centuries."
Talk about naive. First, Roundup kills just about everything green it touches. Second, recent research (see those links I mentioned) has shown that it can have a vastly worse effect on not just humans but the ecosystem in general than previously thought. So it probably won't be around long enough for plants to develop resistance. But here are a couple of hints: (1) If it were only decades, it would have happened by now. (2) If plants could develop resistance to it via natural mutations, then the researchers could have simply modified the plant's own genes. Why didn't they? Give it some thought and study. Get back to me on that.
And you know how they said that "roundup-ready" crops would lead to LESS use of herbicides? Guess what? The use of glyphosate (Roundup) is 10 TIMES HIGHER than it was 20 years ago.
You just really don't understand the extent to which they are messing with things here. This is FAR beyond anything natural mutations would develop, over millions of years.
"It sounds to me like your against it because you don't understand it. It sounds like you are afraid of scary words like "E Coli." You say things like, "Some of the specific mutations (like "roundup-ready" corn that used E. Coli genes) could never occur through natural mutation." This is the same sort of logic creationists use to say things like, "the eye could never evolve naturally."
I don't give the slightest goddamn how it "sound to you". I'm not against it because it's "unnatural", I'm against it because THEY ARE FUCKING IT UP and not doing it right. We have VERY strong evidence of this, and you can find all kinds of it with just a few minutes on Google.
I have made a bunch of comments in this topic, but if you hunt around for them you will find a couple with some links in them. Follow them. Read.
THEN maybe get back to me about what YOU think I think.
I haven't the slightest idea why that first link did not come out right, but here is the correct one.
"If you have legitimate disputes about actual GMO products, then speak up. But enough with the handwaving already."
By the way: although you could have found most of these things in about 30 seconds on Google, I have some links here for you to read:
Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn" By the way, my memory was off about the "lawsuit". The company did not settle a lawsuit. They have been charged criminally and the case is not over.
This article contains links to evidence that roundup-resistant and Bt-toxin producing BMOs are much more dangerous to human health than previously believed.
Learn now neo-nicotinoids from GMO crops are killing off bees.
There is far more, but I rest my case.
But don't misunderstand me like some other people have. I am NOT against the idea of genetic modification simply because "it's unnatural".
The problem is that we don't know enough yet to do it properly. We are already starting to see some serious harm that is almost certainly due to unanticipated side-effects of some GMO crops.
As a concept I think it's just fine, once we know enough to do it responsibly. But that is not today.
"That's why I specifically mentioned mutations. They are different than cross-breading."
It doesn't matter. Some of the specific mutations (like "roundup-ready" corn that used E. Coli genes) could never occur through natural mutation. If they could, they would have simply modified the corn genes themselves, rather than using already-lab-modified bacteria. It would have been easier.
THE POINT is that these are UNnatural mutations that could probably never occur naturally. We do not know in advance what the side-effects might be, as we would if we were just cross-breeding, or even some kind of accelerated form of cross-breeding.
It's NOT the same thing, man. It's a completely different ball game.
"If you have legitimate disputes about actual GMO products, then speak up. But enough with the handwaving already."
I already have, which you would know if you had been paying attention. No "hand-waving" here.
There is evidence that GMO "nicotinoid pesticide" crops are a primary cause of Colony Collapse disorder, killing off bees in droves. There is evidence that the resulting nicotinoid compounds are, in fact, harmful to humans. And just to put the icing on the cake, the actual pests that it was supposed to kill or repel are quickly becoming resistant.
There was recently a class-action lawsuit against one of the companies that makes GMO corn, over cows that their feed corn apparently killed. The company settled out of court to avoid litigation, and the product was pulled from the market.
There was a paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal last year that linked "roundup-ready" GMO products to liver damage in mice and rats.
I could go on, but there is no need. Get a fucking education yourself before you start insulting people, you moron.
"Evidence of liver damage? What evidence is there that GMO modifications can cause liver damage merely by the quality of being GMO, as opposed to what the resultant mutation accomplishes?"
Hahahaha.... this is the biggest pile of BS I have read in a long time!
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. GMO *IS* mutation. That's what it means.
"So I guess I don't understand why "Terminator" is such a big deal."
Well, it was a big deal in parts of South America because Monsanto tricked farmers into using it.
They held big town meetings, and really hyped up what their GMO corn could do for the villagers... things like 30% better yield, more profits, etc.
So lots of people bought into it. The bought the Monsanto seed, and planted it, and got better yield, yes... but for hundreds of years, they had been reserving seed corn for next year's crops... and suddenly they found out (because nobody had told them) that it didn't work. "Seed" corn wouldn't grow... they had to buy from Monsanto all over again. There went most if not all of their profits from the higher yield.
Why didn't they ask if the corn was fertile and would be viable seed for the next season? Because it never occurred to them! It had always been done that way.
If hybrid corn doesn't breed true in the next generation, it's not THAT big of a deal... at least it grows and you have something to eat that you can keep re-planting and re-growing. The Monsanto stuff doesn't.
"Not really, it just means the mutations that would naturally occur are sped up."
I've counted about 20 instances of people saying this so far, but it's just plain FALSE.
The kind of genetic tinkering they are doing today -- crossing mutated bacteria with crops and jellyfish with mammals -- would NEVER happen in nature, in many millions of years if at all. Using cross-breeding, you just can't get there from here. It's all in the statistics.
The fact is that we don't know how these mutant monsters will turn out. We are already seeing strong evidence of big problems with side effects that we did not know about at first: bees dying, pest resistance to "resistant" crops, etc.
Even if the genetic combinations they are dreaming up in the lab are otherwise harmless (safe to eat, let's say... but we don't even really know that... recently there was a lawsuit over dead cows from GMO corn), we don't know what their effects will have on our ecology.
We need to know more before we fiddle to this degree. It's not safe, and as I say we are already starting to see very serious problems cropping up.
If it was ONLY the equivalent of sped-up cross-breeding, nobody would care. But it's NOT.
The double standard goes further. In many states today, especially if they are not married, ONLY the woman has any say over whether to carry a pregnancy to term. The (potential) father's wishes are completely unrecognized as having any relevance. And yet... if the woman decides to have the baby, most of the time the man is nevertheless held responsible for an equal share of the child's upbringing. Sometimes more than equal.
This is the worst form of "taxation without representation" imaginable. EVERYBODY'S lives are affected, sometimes in extremely harsh and negative ways, and yet one party is completely left out of the equation.
In my opinion, if the erstwhile father has no say in the matter, then he also cannot be held responsible. The women can have it one way, or the other, but not both. That's not fair to half the population of the country. ("Not fair" is a gross understatement.)
Yes, men should take some responsibility for birth control (condoms or whatever), but to trick somebody in that manner and then try to hold them responsible is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. In general I would call it worse than rape because, again in general, it will have longer and more profound, tangible effect.
Women complain that if men can't be held responsible, then they can just walk away. To them I say: "If he's the kind of guy who will walk away, what the hell were you doing getting pregnant in the first place? The responsibility works both ways, whether you like it or not."
"And you know what else isn't breeding? Mutageneisis, bud sport selection, and induced polyploidy. And so what if they aren't? Things that aren't breeding should be labeled? Why?"
Yes, it is. All these things occur naturally at times. Polyploids arise spontaneously via mutation, as do bud sports, and mutations arise spontaneously during breeding. They can be caused by any number of natural forces: UV radiation, physical damage during mitosis, etc., etc., etc.
And while horizontal transfer does occur, as far as we know it occurs primarily between single-celled organisms of similar species, not between single-cell animal organisms and multicellular plant life, for example.
Certain instances of horizontal transfer between multicellular animals is suspected to have occurred (via mosquito for example), but EXTREMELY rarely; probably no more than a few times every million years (that is to say, cases in which the host organism doesn't die right away and manages to pass on its genes).
Deliberately inserting mutated E. Coli genes into corn is NOT something that happens naturally, and mathematically speaking, it would probably never occur in nature.
It's still apples and oranges. If they keep it up the way they have been, the law of unintended consequences is likely to bite them in the ass, if it hasn't started to slowly chew already.
I'm not against the concept of GMO, at all. But it isn't ready for prime time. We don't know enough yet.
"Read the wording of the proposition. There is nothing about the seed company in it."
Yes, in the context of this topic I suppose you are correct. Still, there is no reason it couldn't be done that way, in time.
"Our friend anecdotes are not much of a rebuttal against a formal survey conducted by a reputable organization like Gallop."
No, but the fact that the Gallup poll was taken 3 months into the "movement", and that was 9 months ago, DOES call its validity into serious question.
The "occupy" movement didn't go away, although it's not actually "occupying" as much now. On the contrary. It has spread into an ongoing global phenomenon.
"That's why the 'in' thing to do these days is to keep really good credit throughout college, spend marginally and, upon graduation, have a nest egg to put towards a house to live in for the next 7 years."
At first I thought that either you didn't read my original comment, or you completely missed my point.
:o) But the problem is that only a very small minority of students have enough credit (even if it is good) to cover their student loans when they graduate.
I will repeat in different words: MANY of the students GP was criticizing found that the circumstances that were prevailing when they PLANNED and started college, were not the same once they graduated. Because over that time, the rules have changed.
While they were in school, they were faced with the choice of either biting the bullet and accepting the new, changed circumstances, and hoping for the best, or dropping out of school.
Then, when they got out of school, they discovered that the economy was in the toilet and there were no longer any jobs available for new graduates in their profession.
You do make a good point about credit cards.
"The claim was that perfect access to information was a cornerstone requirement of a free market. It is not."
Yes, that much is true. Apologies. I had mis-read the first part of his comment.
"You are mistaken. Genes are genes. They neither know nor care which organism a specific genetic sequence arose in."
No, I am not mistaken. They might neither know or care, but THAT is a straw-man argument if I ever heard one. And it is completely beside the point.
"Essentially any genetic sequence can be achieved in any organism given enough generations for it to arise and careful cross-breeding to isolate it."
Absolute bullshit. That's mathematically impossible. There are too many combinations, with the vast majority of those combinations being non-viable for the mutated organisms that possess them. There is no way that some of those combinations could ever occur naturally through cross-breeding. You won't find the genes for chitinous skeletons and compound eyes, for example, cropping up in amphibians. It could never happen... such things do not just crop up whole, and any intermediaries in that direction would almost certainly die before passing on the genes. So no... your claim that "any genetic sequence can be achieved given enough generations" -- if you are talking about any SPECIFIC organism, that is -- is quite false.
"The fact that a specific mutation has arisen in one type of organism through luck of the draw shouldn't preclude us from reaping the benefits of it in others."
Except, as I have already stated, it would probably be quite impossible for some of the combinations of genes already in use to crop up in nature. The chances that something like the E. Coli gene that makes corn "roundup-ready" for example occurring naturally, no matter how many generations of cross-breeding corn, are slim to none. Otherwise they could have just used corn genes in the first place.
" There's no scientific rationale for the position that it should, except that it âoesounds scaryâ to people who don't understand as much about how the science of genetics works as they think they do."
There are quite a few "sound scientific rationales". Such as strong evidence that some GMO crops are causing bees to die off. Such as strong evidence that insect pests are themselves becoming resistant to "pest resistant" crops. There are MANY reasons to not "fool with Mother Nature" to this extent, until we have much, much more knowledge about it.
I am not against the CONCEPT of GMO, at all. But it's premature. We don't know enough about it yet to do it responsibly. We already have evidence that some GMO crops could lead to disaster if their use is not discontinued. It's not conclusive yet, but the evidence is real and it has continued to mount. The fact is that WE DO NOT KNOW what kind of side-effects there could be, although as I say there has already been some strong evidence of adverse effects, of which we were not originally aware.
"Look you can take your bible thumping butt out of here, I don't want to hear about how you don't believe in evolution."
Hahahaha. What an ass.
Inserting the genes of already gene-modified bacteria and other animals into PLANTS is not "evolution". And I never said ANYTHING about not believing in evolution.
Pick up a science book. Or at least, criticize something real instead of this imaginary BS.
"Because genes from plants are safe, but not genes from bacteria and animals?"
No... in part because it's NOT KNOWN to be safe.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that it's not the same as cross-breeding. Such crosses could never occur in nature. So GP's argument is bogus.
"You don't know what you're talking about. Perfect access to information is a condition of a perfect market, not a free market. The only condition for a free market is a lack of government regulations. Free markets do not require perfect access to anything, either as a condition to exist or in order to function properly."
Yes, he does. A perfect market, by definition, must be a free market, and free markets operate more efficiently with better information. You cannot logically separate the concepts into two different things... so it is YOU who are making the straw-man argument.
"You're under the mistaken impression that there's some identifiable difference between GMO and non-GMO foods, that couldn't be achieved through natural cross-breeding techniques that have been used for thousands of years. Genetic modification just speeds up the process."
Again, it is YOU who do not know what you are talking about. There are EASILY identifiable differences in many GMO foods. No amount of cross-breeding on earth will insert genes from already-highly modified E. Coli into crops ("roundup-ready" corn) or otherwise cross plants and animals in such a manner. Or dissimilar animals, like jellyfish with mammals.
If you really didn't know that's what they're doing, you should start looking a few things up.
"Thing is, every crop humans grow for food already HAS been genetically modified, through centuries of selective breeding. In the case of ruby red grapefruit, the crop was developed by exposing the seeds to radiation and causing a LOT of mutations quite fast."
No, the "nasty truth" is that with all those mutations and cross-breedings, they are STILL plants, and they STILL do not contain genes from already-highly-artificially-modified bacteria, or jellyfish.
It's NOT the same thing, and to pretend that it is, is no better than lying.
"In the absence of a health hazard (which the FDA has said does not exist)... "
You trust the FDA? Really?
Look up the phrase "corporate capture", and count how many times "FDA" is mentioned in the same articles.
"... the labeling burden is on those who care about it."
Which, according to polls, is a clear majority of the American people.
"These labels won't tell you whose seed was used."
Says who? They could be coded in exactly the same way that produce currently carries coded labels, with almost zero extra cost.
"There will always be those who reject technological advancement. Let them have their information."
And I almost forgot. Next to the bees, the other really big one: insects and other pests becoming resistant to the gene modifications, in exactly the same way that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.
It's not all wine and roses in GMO land.
"Perhaps, if this measure were enacted, many people who are fearful of such technology will see just how much of our food is modified from its natural state, while causing no harm to said people."
Deliberate sterilization so that corn can no longer be used to seed for the next season... you have to buy more seed from Monsanto. Said sterilized crops escaping the fields and contaminating other crops. Massive die-offs of bees. Evidence of liver damage.
I think it's fair to say that those things might be considered "harm to people".