Well we do also have a little evidence that the universe exists. The point is you can't say that everything must have a creator, including the universe, and then make an exception for your creator but denying making an exception for the universe.
This is not about some radical atheist activists who are going out to interrupt church services just to be dicks (although that would be hilarious). This is about not wanting to be forced to live under the rules and regulations of someone's particular brand of batshit crazy superstition. "Moderate" religionists are just as much to blame, for they create the very environment of tolerance for such crazy views that enable the extremists to climb to positions of power in the polity and support their extremist views because "as long as they believe in something" they're comfortable with that.
No, we understand you just fine, coward. You try to create a false separation between what you call "microevolution" and macroevolution" and say that one happens and the other doesn't. You show your complete lack of understanding of the basic biology of evolution (and genetics in particular) in not realizing that there is no difference between the two. Your so-called "microevolution" is exactly the mechanism by which "macroevolution" occurs. Then you trot out some tripe about "but it's still a moth/bacteria/"kind", again further cementing the presentation of your ignorance.
What do you call it when a random mutation causes a duplication of an entire gene (or even an entire genome) that then goes through further mutations through it's lineal descendants, mutating the original version of the gene that that it now produces a different (set of) protein(s) than the original, that have different functions (new variations) and result in new features (variations) in the resulting phenotype? You can't say "oh, it's just a change in alleles that were already there!"
The problem is, you're looking for mutations that will produce entirely new genes de novo rather than copies of existing genes that mutate over time into unique genes. Your argument is ignorant.
Right, because forcing a group of people to believe in the exactly the same crazy invisible sky daddy as I do or GTFO is EXACTLY like ridiculing a group of people because they believe in batshit crazy superstition and try to force it upon the rest of us. Darn that dictatorial atheist ruling class and all those atheists presidents we've had!
This assumes that "why" is a valid question in the first place, and you're already begging the question of whether or not there is an entity to ascribe some kind of purpose to. Even if this question is outside the realm of science, that doesn't mean that philosophers or theologians have anything at all to contribute to this discussion that's based in reality.
God: "Hey, I've got an idea. I'm gonna write a book that tells these people how to live! Then at least they'll have some guidence, damn heathens. And if they don't follow my guide the way I intend, I'll just make them live in a fiery pit where they will be tortured for the rest of eternity. Hmmm. That's pretty harsh, isn't it? I guess I better be absolutely crystal clear in writing this guide so they don't fuck it up. Eh... meh. That's too much work. I'll just tell those men to do it instead. And why be too specific and clear, where's the fun in that?! Oooh, even better, I'll make my guide in storybook form. Obviously they can figure out exactly what I meant from these stories! Right?!"
Google Wave. It was a great idea, but poor implementation. The fact that it was invite only and there was no desktop client similar to Outlook killed it. How can you use a collaboration tool if the people you want to collaborate with don't have access? I find it really difficult to think of an email I could send or conversation I could have over email that wouldn't have been better implemented as a Wave. I'm constantly having to find past emails or scroll through re: of re: of re: text to find out what the original conversation was about, or see if such and such got the email, etc.
Wave was the answer. Fix the implementation and I'd get everyone I know and their dog to jump on it.
For that matter, the entirety of creation could have been created in it's present state last Thursday, complete with all the memories of your life before then (that never really happened).
Also, how do you know that your grandparents are really your grandparents? I mean, were you there when they boinked, watched your parents grow up, watched them boink and then saw you pop out? No? Then how do we REALLY know who your grandparents/parents/etc are?! Oh, that's right, there's evidence of it, just like for evolution!
There's an infinite number of things that someone could posit happened with no evidence. We could all be living in the Matrix, but there's no evidence of it. You're basically trying to say that there's no such thing as knowledge and it's impossible to know anything. That's just retarded and contributes nothing.
You're exactly right... except for everything you wrote. If you don't know the answers to those questions, then you really don't know much about evolutionary theory or you would realize how ridiculous you sound and how we've already answered all of those.
We certainly do know enough to know when something is or isn't safe to eat. You don't need to know how a protein folds to be able to test for its safety.
No one is saying that there's no potential for genetic engineering to do harm: if you engineer a plant to produce cyanide, it's probably not a good idea to eat that plant.
Believing that because we're genetically engineering things that we really have no idea what's going to happen and something bad(tm) is going to happen is ignorance.
I still disagree with the notion that we know virtually nothing about biology. We do know shit-tons.
You can't "breed" a dog with a tomato. Nothing would come of that. That's exactly what GMO does though: mix entirely incompatible species.
So no, they're not the same. Far from it.
GMO doesn't "mix species", it inserts genes. A gene isn't a species. It's a section of DNA that generates a specific protein. Sometimes you find these genes and therefore their proteins across many different species and types of creatures. Sometimes you find them in fewer. Sometimes you only find them in a single particular species. Jellyfish contain genes that create a bio-luminescent protein. You can take this gene (think of it as a function() in a computer program) and copy it into a another organism (like a cat) and it will do the same thing it did before: create this protein (make this cat glow). If I take a function out of one program (say, Photoshop) and paste it into a new one, my new program doesn't suddenly become a Photoshop/new program hybrid.
Unless you can show that some harm comes about from us eating this "new" protein, then what's the problem? And if there was some harm, don't you think that this would be caught in product testing before releasing it to the general public? No one wants to release a product that's going to make people sick and cause that company to lose metric shit-tons of cash. Of course these things are tested.
Maybe it's inconsistent, maybe it isn't, but if people want to buy non-GM food, or Kosher food, foolish as they may be, they should have that right.
They do have that right, they can buy whatever they want. But that doesn't mean that companies should be forced to go out of their way to label their foods for no good reason other than "I want to know, darnit!" If you want to find out if food is GM or not, that's on you, just like it's on me to find out whether or not my soccer ball was produced in an automated factory or if it was made in an Indian sweatshop. Should we label soccer balls too?
I might want to avoid crops grown using monoculture
Honestly, I didn't know what you meant by this and had to look it up. I can understand you wanting to avoid monoculture crops due to some principled reason, but I can't really figure out what that reason might be. I understand that monoculture crops can be wiped out due to disease they have no or little resistance to, but that again sounds like a problem that can be solved through genetic modification.
Also, I learned that/. apparently doesn't support strikethrough or del tags.
I might want to avoid contributing to the commercial success of companies I dislike for other reasons
I agree, and that's perfectly fine, but then go after those companies' products specifically and not GM foods as a whole. If this is actually a good reason, then you already have the labels you're looking for: brands. Don't buy the brands made by companies you don't like. If GM food doesn't have anything to do with your reason for not liking a company, then why are you looking to single out GM foods in general to avoid a specific company?
I might even want to go out of my way to buy GMO products.
As much as I'm for GM foods, I have to think that going out of your way to buy GM food makes as little sense as going out of your way not to buy it. Food is food. Why does it matter whether it was genetically modified over many many generations (what we call "breeding") or genetically modified directly? Unless you can show an actual harm or functional difference due to genetic modification, the distinction is moot other than you "just wanting to know, darn it!"
It's not a case of promoting intitutionalized ignorance as you put it. At first, I was compelled by your argument against just that because no one likes ignorance, but your supporting arguments just don't justify unfairly singling out GM foods for no good reason other than "I want to know!". Again, no one is asking for labels on innumerable other products based on innumerable other reasons people might want labels on them: milk labeled for machine-milked cows as opposed to hand-milked ones, pork labeled for breeder farm pigs as opposed to pigs raised in pretty pastures that are talked to like friends and rocked to sleep as piglets by loving farmers, etc.
You might be able to come up with plenty of reasons why someone wants to know if their food is GM or not, but unless one of those reasons is because of a functional difference between this food and that, then I don't see how those reasons justify singling out GM foods to include a stigmatizing label is fair.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who caught that bullshit and checked up on it. Amazingly, I never found anything either.
Everytime someone talks about how harmful GM foods are, I ask them for citations and the best I've ever gotten (literally) is a link to a Google search for something like "gm food harm" or "gm food negatives" (as if I couldn't and haven't done my own Google searches!) and those searches are never links to studies showing harm. All they ever turn up are anti-gm propaganda websites that talk about the "possible dangers" and "potential side effects".
The AAEM board issued a statement saying: "We recognize this study is preliminary in nature. It hasn't yet been peer reviewed and the methodology has not been spelled out in detail. But given the magnitude of the findings and the implications for human health, we urge the National Institutes of Health to immediately replicate the research."
Even they say that their study doesn't yet really mean anything and hasn't been reviewed for methodological problems. This article was from 2005. Where is the follow up peer review and research to validate these findings during the past 7 years?
Slashdot Mirror
Well we do also have a little evidence that the universe exists. The point is you can't say that everything must have a creator, including the universe, and then make an exception for your creator but denying making an exception for the universe.
The answer "we don't know yet" is perfectly acceptable and much preferred to "you don't know so it was [$DEITY]!"
Let people believe what they want as long as they aren't forcing it on others.
Therein lies the problem: they are trying to force it on others. Like my child, in biology class. Like my wife, being denied contraception.
This is not about some radical atheist activists who are going out to interrupt church services just to be dicks (although that would be hilarious). This is about not wanting to be forced to live under the rules and regulations of someone's particular brand of batshit crazy superstition. "Moderate" religionists are just as much to blame, for they create the very environment of tolerance for such crazy views that enable the extremists to climb to positions of power in the polity and support their extremist views because "as long as they believe in something" they're comfortable with that.
Physics disagrees.
I think Lawrence Krauss would not agree with you. With citations.
What do you call it when a random mutation causes a duplication of an entire gene (or even an entire genome) that then goes through further mutations through it's lineal descendants, mutating the original version of the gene that that it now produces a different (set of) protein(s) than the original, that have different functions (new variations) and result in new features (variations) in the resulting phenotype? You can't say "oh, it's just a change in alleles that were already there!"
The problem is, you're looking for mutations that will produce entirely new genes de novo rather than copies of existing genes that mutate over time into unique genes. Your argument is ignorant.
Right, because forcing a group of people to believe in the exactly the same crazy invisible sky daddy as I do or GTFO is EXACTLY like ridiculing a group of people because they believe in batshit crazy superstition and try to force it upon the rest of us. Darn that dictatorial atheist ruling class and all those atheists presidents we've had!
This assumes that "why" is a valid question in the first place, and you're already begging the question of whether or not there is an entity to ascribe some kind of purpose to. Even if this question is outside the realm of science, that doesn't mean that philosophers or theologians have anything at all to contribute to this discussion that's based in reality.
This sounds like a new twist on the old "Your peer-reviewed papers, please" .
FTFY.
And what Biblical citation supports that assertion?
Except you aren't comparing a word to a word there, you're comparing a word to a phrase that includes that word.
God: "Hey, I've got an idea. I'm gonna write a book that tells these people how to live! Then at least they'll have some guidence, damn heathens. And if they don't follow my guide the way I intend, I'll just make them live in a fiery pit where they will be tortured for the rest of eternity. Hmmm. That's pretty harsh, isn't it? I guess I better be absolutely crystal clear in writing this guide so they don't fuck it up. Eh... meh. That's too much work. I'll just tell those men to do it instead. And why be too specific and clear, where's the fun in that?! Oooh, even better, I'll make my guide in storybook form. Obviously they can figure out exactly what I meant from these stories! Right?!"
Wave was the answer. Fix the implementation and I'd get everyone I know and their dog to jump on it.
Also, how do you know that your grandparents are really your grandparents? I mean, were you there when they boinked, watched your parents grow up, watched them boink and then saw you pop out? No? Then how do we REALLY know who your grandparents/parents/etc are?! Oh, that's right, there's evidence of it, just like for evolution!
There's an infinite number of things that someone could posit happened with no evidence. We could all be living in the Matrix, but there's no evidence of it. You're basically trying to say that there's no such thing as knowledge and it's impossible to know anything. That's just retarded and contributes nothing.
You're exactly right... except for everything you wrote. If you don't know the answers to those questions, then you really don't know much about evolutionary theory or you would realize how ridiculous you sound and how we've already answered all of those.
Maybe because GM-food has increased farming productivity and your country now has an abundance of food where it didn't before?
No one is saying that there's no potential for genetic engineering to do harm: if you engineer a plant to produce cyanide, it's probably not a good idea to eat that plant.
Believing that because we're genetically engineering things that we really have no idea what's going to happen and something bad(tm) is going to happen is ignorance.
I still disagree with the notion that we know virtually nothing about biology. We do know shit-tons.
You can't "breed" a dog with a tomato. Nothing would come of that. That's exactly what GMO does though: mix entirely incompatible species.
So no, they're not the same. Far from it.
GMO doesn't "mix species", it inserts genes. A gene isn't a species. It's a section of DNA that generates a specific protein. Sometimes you find these genes and therefore their proteins across many different species and types of creatures. Sometimes you find them in fewer. Sometimes you only find them in a single particular species. Jellyfish contain genes that create a bio-luminescent protein. You can take this gene (think of it as a function() in a computer program) and copy it into a another organism (like a cat) and it will do the same thing it did before: create this protein (make this cat glow). If I take a function out of one program (say, Photoshop) and paste it into a new one, my new program doesn't suddenly become a Photoshop/new program hybrid.
Unless you can show that some harm comes about from us eating this "new" protein, then what's the problem? And if there was some harm, don't you think that this would be caught in product testing before releasing it to the general public? No one wants to release a product that's going to make people sick and cause that company to lose metric shit-tons of cash. Of course these things are tested.
They do have that right, they can buy whatever they want. But that doesn't mean that companies should be forced to go out of their way to label their foods for no good reason other than "I want to know, darnit!" If you want to find out if food is GM or not, that's on you, just like it's on me to find out whether or not my soccer ball was produced in an automated factory or if it was made in an Indian sweatshop. Should we label soccer balls too?
Now you're just being obtuse. :P
Trying to say that GMO corn is "something different" from all the other "naturally" genetic differences is ignorant of basic science.
Honestly, I didn't know what you meant by this and had to look it up. I can understand you wanting to avoid monoculture crops due to some principled reason, but I can't really figure out what that reason might be. I understand that monoculture crops can be wiped out due to disease they have no or little resistance to, but that again sounds like a problem that can be solved through genetic modification.
Also, I learned that /. apparently doesn't support strikethrough or del tags.
I agree, and that's perfectly fine, but then go after those companies' products specifically and not GM foods as a whole. If this is actually a good reason, then you already have the labels you're looking for: brands. Don't buy the brands made by companies you don't like. If GM food doesn't have anything to do with your reason for not liking a company, then why are you looking to single out GM foods in general to avoid a specific company?
As much as I'm for GM foods, I have to think that going out of your way to buy GM food makes as little sense as going out of your way not to buy it. Food is food. Why does it matter whether it was genetically modified over many many generations (what we call "breeding") or genetically modified directly? Unless you can show an actual harm or functional difference due to genetic modification, the distinction is moot other than you "just wanting to know, darn it!"
It's not a case of promoting intitutionalized ignorance as you put it. At first, I was compelled by your argument against just that because no one likes ignorance, but your supporting arguments just don't justify unfairly singling out GM foods for no good reason other than "I want to know!". Again, no one is asking for labels on innumerable other products based on innumerable other reasons people might want labels on them: milk labeled for machine-milked cows as opposed to hand-milked ones, pork labeled for breeder farm pigs as opposed to pigs raised in pretty pastures that are talked to like friends and rocked to sleep as piglets by loving farmers, etc.
You might be able to come up with plenty of reasons why someone wants to know if their food is GM or not, but unless one of those reasons is because of a functional difference between this food and that, then I don't see how those reasons justify singling out GM foods to include a stigmatizing label is fair.
IMO, the fact that you care whether or not any particular food item you pick up is genetically modified or not says to me that you are not informed.
Everytime someone talks about how harmful GM foods are, I ask them for citations and the best I've ever gotten (literally) is a link to a Google search for something like "gm food harm" or "gm food negatives" (as if I couldn't and haven't done my own Google searches!) and those searches are never links to studies showing harm. All they ever turn up are anti-gm propaganda websites that talk about the "possible dangers" and "potential side effects".
Thank you for looking into this. :)
Even they say that their study doesn't yet really mean anything and hasn't been reviewed for methodological problems. This article was from 2005. Where is the follow up peer review and research to validate these findings during the past 7 years?