Well, Darwin did come from a big "bang", if you get what I mean!;D And well, come to think of it, a lot of evidence does point that we all come from a big bang, though not the kind I was originally referring to. You could say that Darwin came from 2 sorts of big bangs!:D
But no, he did not tell me HIMSELF; rather I learned of the THEORY of evolution from a textbook, from a classroom, and from a lecture hall from multiple humans. Now, if this theory was not correctly interpreted, observations that lead us to believe that the theory of evolution is likely to be feasible would not make much sense. Because observations made over the past century or so (advent of genetics, DNA, genes, heredity, etc.) do not disprove evolution and very much support it, I am very confident that evolutionary theory provides a valid explanation regarding the biological lineages of species alive today.
Now, I hope I have illustrated that belief in evolution does not take "faith", at least not in the sense where faith is required to believe in religion. What observations over the past 2000 years lend support to the belief that there are dieties or a singular diety that gave rise to all that exists? I can't think of any. You MUST take it on FAITH, belief without being presented with supporting observations, that such a thing is so.
While certainly people can take on the belief of evolution without knowing the supporting observations (ie, lack of scientific or educational training, these people have faith that there are such supporting observations though; otherwise they'd be fools), a GOOD scientist CANNOT. In order for scientist to believe the theory to be valid, there must be supporting observations present, and if there are no supporting observations, NO ONE should be able to simply believe in the theory, or have FAITH in it's validity.
Doh, reading your post a third time makes more sense. I see that your saying sperm can't power nanobots, which is true. I should've looked at your title first.
Still ATP is not JUST fuel for muscles.
This is incorrect; using ATP to power nanobots is analagous to using ATP to power sperm. If you think about it, sperm are really just small biological machines, utilizing ATP to power the movement of their flagella. And, ATP isn't JUST for powering muscles; it's required to power numerous cellular functions not limited to DNA/RNA/protein synthesis. Hydrolysis of the third phosphate from ATP producing ADP releases energy required to power biomolecular machinery that make our bodies work. To say that ATP is fuel only for muscles is saying that electricity can only power light bulbs. Not true.
In addendum, one could possibly consider the protein machinery within our cells as the first true, all natural nanobots.
I don't think that makes any sense at all. I'd wager that the iPhone is getting AT&T a significant number of contracts; AT&T is not helping Apple sell iPhones. In actuality, it's probably making the iPhone less appealing to consumers. Based on that, it makes sense that Apple gets a cut of AT&T's revenue.
Likewise, NBC is not helping Apple sell iPods/iPhones with their content. Ask anyone who owns an iPod/iPhone; NONE will tell you that they got it to watch officially sanctioned NBC/big time media corporation content on their devices. Most of them can get their media through other means (and these means are more likely than not illegal). If anything, Apple is doing these companies a favor by presenting the media in a highly accessible/available/cheap format for the more conscientious consumer. If anything, Apple is helping them sell content that would otherwise be pirated.
Now, it can be argued that the conscientious are provided more incentive to buy an Apple media device with the availability of officially sanctioned content. But I highly doubt that the content would draw significant numbers to warrant Apple giving up revenue. I feel that having video playback capability in the media players is enough to draw customers, even without the availability of actual content, especially when content can be user generated.
I think a friend of mine took that class last spring. Vollhardt, the professor teaching the course, wrote the book and pretty much expected everyone to know everything he had included in the text. If you watch a little into the video, you see that the average of the midterm they just took was around 100 out of 250 points. Based on how the class did, I wouldn't blame them for not going to class =P. The capacity of that room they're in (Pimentel) is around 500, too. Around 300 were probably enrolled, and, hah, it looks like less than 1/10 of that number showed up.
I'd also like to point out that this isn't the norm for attendance; I took the course with Professor Ellman, and his classes were ALWAYS filled to the brim.
You could say that the same kind of threats come from traditionally "breeded" crops, but the rate at which those change is much lower, and the changes incorporated are much smaller than with GM food.
What I say is that although it's not the end of the world, I don't think it's fair to consider GM food as safe as "organic" food.
Organic and conventionally bred crops are not necessarily safer than GM foods. GM foods go through so much more testing and regulation that most don't even make it to market. Conventional/organic produce is never tested before reaching the market, and dangerous varieties are only removed after something has happened to consumers.
Furthermore, there HAVE been conventionally/traditionally bred crops, bred to be pest resistant, that had to be pulled off shelves because the level of toxicity found in these crops were at least 7x that of the controls. The specific instance I'm talking about is a celery cultivar that had 6200 ppb of carcinogenic psoralens, as opposed to 800 ppb in the control. Field workers reported rashes after handling this celery variety, and the cultivar was pulled from shelves. I've appended an article that mentions this. Open, and search for "psoralens", and you should find the right passage.
From the other side of the issue, looking at GM foods, the only recall that comes to mind (and I'm pretty positive this is the only major one, or else anti-GM people would've had a field day and gotten GM foods banned internationally already) is that of Starlink corn contaminated foods, which wasn't ever directly linked to actual deaths or illness. The only grounds for recall was that the specific Bt toxin found in Starlink (which isn't toxic to humans at all) wasn't digested as quickly as other Bt toxin proteins, and may have passed through the human stomach and been absorbed by the intestines (I think), posing a threat as a possible allergen. What is interesting, is that Starlink was never approved for human consumption; it was meant for animal feed. In other words, someone on the supply side screwed up, and Starlink corn wasn't properly labeled as such. This allowed Starlink to be sold as normal corn, and it permeated into our food supply. Of course, this isn't the only issue with GM foods, as people point out that transgene insertions are random. The result is that we have no way of being 100% sure that gene expression is not going to be altered in a way that'll harm us. Then again, that's why GM crops are subject to numerous tests and regulations.
Point: Anything can be potentially dangerous. I don't think saying one thing is worse than the other is going to do any good; rather, responsible development of all forms of technological/agricultural advancement is the way to go, and, of course, this is much easier said than done.
>Genetic engineering isn't "natural", but then again agriculture itself isn't "natural".
Really? Can you make a tomato that contains fish genes by traditional agriculture?
>If you want natural; starve, along with the billions of others that this planet couldn't naturally support.
GM is not about feeding people. It's about starving people who can't afford to pay for your seeds.
Your statement that GM isn't about feeding people is erroneous. GM by big companies isn't about feeding people. It's about profiting from people who can afford to buy their seeds, and not doing anything positive or GENERALLY negative (I doubt cross pollination was ever intentional, though it does happen, and Monsanto needs to fix things) to those who can't afford it. GM by the public sector (read: universities) is ENTIRELY devoted to developing something that can feed people.
We need to keep developing it now because if we don't then it will never evolve into anything which might be useful to end world hunger and feed the poor.
"World hunger" is not an issue of food production.
Current farming practices are certainly doing nothing much in this regard either.
Of course. Farming practices do nothing to get rid of despots who manage their countries into poverty and starvation.
GM crops could possibly be grown in areas where other crops do not thrive thus allowing people to grow their food locally,
GM crops do not help when people cannot grow their food locally because of land mines, government thugs, gunmen, militias and other such problems.
1. World hunger certainly isn't an issue of food production. It's an issue of getting food to the needy who can afford to have it imported/brought to them. One solution is to get crops that can be farmed by these people, to these people. These crops may end up being GM crops that can grow in conditions that these people live in (ie, drought, pathogen infestation, nutrient deficiency). Another is to get developed nations to get food to these people free of charge (to these people. Someone back home is going to have to help pay for them).
2. Farming practices won't get rid of despots. Absolutely true. But what about places without despots, also suffering poverty and starvation? There are surely places like which exist, and the people there can't survive with current farming practices.
3. Of course GM crops won't be grown in politically/militarily unstable environments. But you're thinking too small. Or you just want to be a smartass. There are other situations where GM crops may be engineered to grow, where conventional crops won't. For example, the aforementioned drought plagued lands.
Harvest of Fear is a documentary on GMOs as well, produced by PBS. If anyone watches Future of Food, they should watch Harvest of Fear. This is primarily because I thought Future of Food (as another reply to this parent pointed out) seems to have been designed to scare the viewer shitless. Harvest of Fear, on the other hand, provides arguments and counter arguments for nearly every topic brought up, without the dramatics and theatrics featured in the Future of Food. You might find yourself agreeing with one viewpoint, and another take on that viewpoint will be brought up, and it gets you thinking.
In any case, it's good to watch the 2 and compare/contrast the views.
"with our growing population (world wide) we desperately need more and better genetically modified crops."
Evidence please?
So far the figures indicate that there's more than enough food being produced (some estimates indicate 17%, but you can see here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e05.htm and not everyone needs 2700 calories ), the main problem is corrupt governments and distribution.
There's still plenty of arable land (and ocean) to grow food on if we need to expand.
Organic farms also produce plenty of food in 3rd world countries - they're just not all of one sort of food and labour intensive (but labour is cheap in those places). Of course more than enough food is being produced. In the fucking United States, and other more developed nations. How fuck are the poor in nations like Africa going to get access to that food? They're too poor, infrastructure sucks, and the costs of getting the food to the desired location is going to cost more than what these people can pay.
And organic farming provides enough for 3rd world countries?!!
What sort of mad fucking utopia do you live in! People in Africa have been farming organically for years! Does it look like they're doing OK? No! With extreme drought conditions and a lack of nitrogen fertilizer, a good number can't farm jack shit! Furthermore, some crops are pathogen plagued, and yields don't even approach what they could be in areas that are actually arable. Last but not least, despots, warlords, and petty wars have made a pretty much impossible situation worse.
With regards to organic farming in 3rd world nations, I think these points are important: organic crops can't do it alone for the most desperate of third world nations, especially those in Africa. The amount of nitrogen these crops are going to require cannot be produced without enough grazing land for cattle (to produce manure). This means clearing more forest land, or trying to obtain land not available due to drought conditions. Purchasing this nitrogen fertilizer is out of the question when the people are just to poor, and importing is impossible with unstable political conditions. Also, organic farming isn't going to do anything when the soil is to dry to farm. Lastly, even with enough water and nitrogen fertilizer, your crop isn't going to do ok when there are pathogens you can't control.
Why do I mention these points? GMO's can provide a solution. It's not as easy as it sounds, but it can be done, and in some cases, it has been done, and not by big money grubbing corporations as well. People like to point to Monsanto, equate them with GMO's, and start screaming "SATAN!", but the public sector is largely ignored. Universities have been working with GMO's to solve these problems as well, and if they can get something out, the public sector can certainly do some good. An example lies here [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/0707 08075149.htm], where an African university teamed with a seed company to develop resistance to Maize Streak Virus, something conventional breeding had failed to do in 30 years. And you know what's cool? Drought may even be tackled by GMO's. I've seen transgenics with increased cuticle thickness (and more able to reduce transpiration) capable of withstanding drought conditions in Arabidopsis. The question is whether this can be applied to crop plants.
Now, all that being said, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying GMO's pwnZ0rz the organics. I'm saying GMO's can help. And quite frankly, there's nothing to say that organic farming (which is only a specific method of farming) cannot be used in conjunction with GM crops (aside from stupid certification rules). Personally, I think if agriculture is going to move forward, we're going to need a combination of organic farming methods and GMO's.
I must point out though, and this is very obvious, GMO's cannot solve the problem of political instability in Africa. Africa's going to need a whole mess of help, and I think GMO's, organic farming, political aid, or humanitarian aid are all going to play an important part in the solution.
At the moment, I have to call total BS. What you're saying is non factual and irresponsbile alarmist talk.
There's little to no evidence whatsoever that GMO's are killing bees. Some scientists are worried about a link, but it's highly unlikely. Bt insect resistance doesn't even target bee species; it targets lepidoptera, diptera and coleoptera. In otherwords, butterflys/moths, flys, and beetles. What order are honey bees in? Hymenoptera.
Furthermore, resistant plants target the larvae of susceptible insects; these bugs ingest the Bt protein, which is only toxic in basic insect midguts, and forms pores and destroys their gut. Do honey bee larvae grow on plants? No, I didn't think so. And while they do ingest pollen that worker bees bring back to hives, tests have shown that pollen with Bt is not toxic at all. [http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/safety_science/68.doc u.html] These were done by giving adult bees and larvae Bt pollen at 100x normal concentrations.
To sum it up, honey bees are fine after contact with Bt crops. Even larvae, which are Bt corn targets in susceptible species, were fine. Long story short, we're going to have to keep looking for a cause for CCD, and people need to stop screaming, "OMFGIT'SGMOS!" at the first sign of trouble. It's completely irresponsible, especially when there are more likely reasons for CCD, such as pathogens with extremely deleterious effects to colony health.
Sugar cane isn't just a good source because it has a higher sugar content; the bagasse that's left over from pressing the cane is burnt to fuel part of the ethanol conversion process, making it more energy efficient than corn. The result is a 8:1 energy ratio. 8 units out, 1 unit in.
The problem is that crops tend to be specialized for certain climate zones. For instance, sugar cane is a decent source of ethanol, yielding 8 units of energy for every 1 put into production, if I remember correctly (this is due to the use of bagasse to fuel the ethanol conversion process).
Unfortunately, sugar cane wouldn't grow where corn does in the US because of the climate, so sugar cane isn't a viable source of ethanol in the US. The same principle applies to plants with high cellulose yields already; it's not likely that they'll be able to be grown all over the world.
Egh, wait. I just realized you lumped roundup/resistant crops with increased pesticide use, newer chemicals, and increased ground water pollution. As far as I know, herbicide and pesticide resistant crops were created to, aside from increasing profits, allow farmers to switch from nastier cocktail chemicals to less deadly stuff. Round-up (glyphosate) is rated Type IV or Type III (practically nontoxic, latter is slightly toxic). By comparison, another herbicide is paraquat (viologen), rated Type I (most toxic).
Then there's Bt corn, which eliminates synthetic pesticides altogether. While Bt may survive digestion in the stomach (making it a possible allergen), it seems to me that it's a better alternative to organophosphates, which disrupt nerve functions in living organisms and are not only used as pesticides but nerve gases as well (sarin/VX).
You got any specific sources for what you're claiming?
On the flip side, if the public sector makes the "big discovery" first, we might not have to put up with Monsanto's bullshit.
While Monsanto is pervasive force in the modern agricultural world, I think it'd be a mistake to count the public sector, namely universities, out. Most professors/principle investigator's have good intentions (Ingo Potrykus for one), and even if they don't, I believe they would be kept in check by their peers. As a result, these public institutions have great potential to do a lot of good.
It's my hope that, in the near future, the public sector will grab more of the pie from Monsanto, and as a result, we won't need to worry about the monopolization of agriculture and it's implications.
Nowhere in my post did I ever say, "Why should we try?" What I did say, is that we need to do more than piss money onto Africa. For instance, providing actual manpower and expertise, and using that manpower to build infrastructure (and yes, I did touch on this, if barely. I don't think I'm qualified enough to discuss it though) required to distribute food and aid to the hungry.
You also imply that not enough focus is put into helping humanity. I'm not sure about that. I think a lot of people are putting their efforts into helping humanity; unfortunately, I don't think people are doing a good job of it. See my fish and feeding analogy. I feel that we're simply propping developing nations up with our current methods, rather than teaching them to stand on their own.
Furthermore, your statement that we've protected endangered species only to fail is not all inclusive. There are numerous instances where we've protected species and succeeded. The American bison and the bald eagle are prime examples of where we have succeeded, and I assure you, protecting them cost less than the billions poured into helping Africa.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this. I agree that we need to help humanity. You're absolutely right. It's of the utmost importance, that's for sure. But I think we're already devoting a large part of our efforts to doing so, but we're not doing it efficiently enough, or correctly. If we fixed how we gave aid to developing nations, we could probably get them finally take care of themselves. But, even if we don't do all these things, I'm sure there will be resources available to help the Galapagos that would never make it to helping developing nations anyway.
nature fixes itself. I always figured that would involve nature taking us out of the picture. Or rather, nature lets us take ourselves out of the picture, and the world heals.
What? You think throwing money at the starving of Africa is going to solve their problems?
Africa's got a shitload of problems that, in order to be solved, need more than rich fucks funneling money in their direction. Billions have already been poured into Africa, and damn near ZERO (I exaggerate, but it feels like it) progress has been made [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,151 8,363604,00.html]. They need economic, agricultural, political, and health aid. Also, in Africa you have crazy war mongers creating extremely unstable environments in numerous African nations, committing genocide and human rights violations left and right. I don't know what sort of aid will solve this, but trust me, I don't think anyone is going to be willing to give it.
With it's problems, Africa needs more than money. It needs help from the international community/UN. All that will probably require a gross monetary sum larger than what would be required for the restoration of the Galapagos, and if we really want to fix things in Africa, it'll probably cost lives too. Even helping 3rd world countries develop infrastructure is going to be a bitch. You can't just develop it for them; you have to teach them a whole lot of shit too. Like the saying goes, give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he'll eat every day for the rest of his life.
Lastly, you can't just write off the loss of the Galapagos animals as non issue. You have no idea how this will impact the overall ecosystem. Time and time again, we have been shown that biological changes in a location have vast impacts, usually negative, on the surrounding ecosystem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching][htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_oak_death]. And, whatever an environmental psychopath society will spend to solve the issue, I think it will certainly be vastly less than what is needed to help the rest of the world. I'm sure that people are still donating towards causes like Africa, and on top of that there will be donations/funding for the protection of the Galapagos Islands. I realize the severity of both issues are different, but I'm certain we're not going to end up sending 50 million to the Galapagos and 1 million to Africa; rather, people will spend what is needed in the Galapagos, but whatever is going to Africa will most likely dwarf that.
Oh Yeah. Stupidity gets people killed, sure, but it also wastes money by throwing it at a problem and hoping it will go away.
Your description of your roommate could feasibly work for anyone forced to stay away from something they enjoy. And well, what happens when you tell a teen that they can't hang out with their friends? They get grumpy and easily irritable. Of course, the same could be said of drug addicts.
I figure a person can be addicted to ANYTHING, given that they obtain a great satisfaction from that activity of their choice. Of course keeping them from that activity will make them irritable and grumpy. And you have a point, gaming addiction should be recognized, but people should also realize addiction isn't just limited to drugs and gaming (dare I add incessant web surfing and repeatedly checking for slashdot updates?).
Now, the important thing is to have a healthy addiction, in other words, a healthy or productive hobby. I don't know if this'll keep anyone from being irritable and grumpy when they can't do what they want, but I guess having multiple "addictions", enjoying all these activities, and having people who share the same interests might do the trick.
You bring up a good point, and as I said before, I definitely believe cognition is a mental process. And, I'm pretty sure a plant doesn't have a central command center like our brain, so I don't believe their capable of mental processes.
I have to disagree with you on memory though. With human memory, we can recall one memory multiple times, and our response to that memory can be different. For example, hate your dad's imposing rules and vow you'll never do the same to your kid? Get older, you realize your dad was just trying to raise you to be a good kid, and you use the same rules on YOUR kids. This is essentially learning behavior, but it relies on having our sort of memory. Plants can't do this, and their sort of memory is probably more analogous to that of our adaptive immune system; sees a pattern it doesn't like, builds a response to that pattern, and always responds the same way. There may be an initial learning/imprinting process, but new responses to that stimuli can't be developed.
As a result, I think using the single term memory for all types is misleading, and one needs to make differentiation between types.
Depends on your definition of cognition, I guess. Plants do respond to stimuli, and in order to do so, they have to detect it somehow. But, it's not a mental faculty, which cognition implies. It's more like, cell mechanism detects this, tells other mechanisms to do that to respond.
Plants don't, at least I believe they don't, have cells specialized to serve the purpose of nerves and neurons. There's no nervous system that leads to a brain, which then decides what to do, and tells the plant to start an action. This also excludes plants from having any sort of "memory" or they type of memory that we have. I'm sure plants have cellular mechanisms that allow plants to respond to repeated stimuli as if they had memory, but it certainly wouldn't be the kind of memory WE have.
Regarding the article; I wonder if plants are able to recognize kin via a method resembling the self incompatibility mechanism (where mechanisms in certain plants species prevent self fertilization). Perhaps the plant roots of related plants secrete the same signal molecule, and it doesn't elicit any sort of response from the plants. But, when unrelated plants secrete different signal molecules, a competitive response is elicited.
Agro introduces a specific set of genes into plants; the same set of genes every single time. The only reason agro does this is because the set of genes it introduces causes the plant to secrete nutrients vital to agro's survival.
In order for the agro to somehow pick up the terminator gene, and THEN transform a plant with it, multiple things need to happen. 1, the terminator gene must become a mobile genetic element, perhaps via transposon. The agro must then take in this DNA, and this DNA must then jump into the agrobacterium gene that is transfered into plants.
But, not only does it need to jump into the gene that will be transfered (called T-DNA), it needs to jump into the T-DNA in the right orientation (I won't go into specifics, complicated to explain). Once these conditions have been met, only then can the terminator gene be introduced into random plant populations. But, remember now, the terminator gene affects seeds! Agro is a soil bacterium that affects the stem, the part of the plant most readily available to the bacterium. Agro would need to somehow get up to the reproductive organs, and then must successfully transform the gametes (pollen, ovlues), the number which are ridiculously numerous. In other words, viable offspring would outnumber those that aren't.
Anyhow, given all these things occur, the rare transformed gamete must combine with another gamete (pollen combine with an ovule following pollination), and that's another crap shoot. After this, the 1 out of hundreds, maybe thousands, hundreds of thousands of seeds must germinate. Then... it dies. Can't give any offspring, because that's what the terminator gene was programmed to do. Or, at most, it manages to pollinate some other plants, and the seeds are sterile, resulting in a genetic dead end. No more offspring, no more gene propagation
So there. I don't think agro is going to pick up the terminator system and kill off any crops. And if you didn't get it from my spiel already, uptake mechanisms aren't enough. You need delivery mechanisms as well, and intraspecies delivery mechanisms are rare and specifically engineered by nature to the point where minor disruptions would cause them to cease working. You know what? I also forgot to mention that bacteria, even with DNA uptake mechanisms, destroy foreign non methylated DNA (Bacterial DNA is methylated in specific patterns, so that's how they tell what's foreign) because that's their defense against viruses. Also, uptake is complicated by the fact that the terminator system isn't just one gene (at least, I don't believe it is, multiple genes are required). Take the scenario I described above, and imagine how complex it gets when 3 genes are needed for the whole thing to work.
And, I haven't even begun to take into the account how eukaryotic DNA would function in prokaryotes.
Bottom line, I don't think this is even a probability issue. I've never, ever, heard of a bacterium that indiscriminately picks up DNA from the environment, DNA that has miraculously survived in unfavorable conditions, and inject that into an organism. There's no evolutionary advantage in this, no reason for anything to gain this sort of ability.
So, application of the inducer causes the recombinase to leave a late promoter for the embryonic toxin. As a result, seed dies, and this is all done by allowing recombinase expression by blocking it's repressor.
No application of the inducer means that recombinase is not transcribed and translated, and therefore the seed does not die.
I thought the point was to add the chemical inducer so that the seeds would be viable, and those who didn't have the chemical inducer would just get normal plants, or non viable seed?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Darwin did come from a big "bang", if you get what I mean! ;D And well, come to think of it, a lot of evidence does point that we all come from a big bang, though not the kind I was originally referring to. You could say that Darwin came from 2 sorts of big bangs! :D
But no, he did not tell me HIMSELF; rather I learned of the THEORY of evolution from a textbook, from a classroom, and from a lecture hall from multiple humans. Now, if this theory was not correctly interpreted, observations that lead us to believe that the theory of evolution is likely to be feasible would not make much sense. Because observations made over the past century or so (advent of genetics, DNA, genes, heredity, etc.) do not disprove evolution and very much support it, I am very confident that evolutionary theory provides a valid explanation regarding the biological lineages of species alive today.
Now, I hope I have illustrated that belief in evolution does not take "faith", at least not in the sense where faith is required to believe in religion. What observations over the past 2000 years lend support to the belief that there are dieties or a singular diety that gave rise to all that exists? I can't think of any. You MUST take it on FAITH, belief without being presented with supporting observations, that such a thing is so.
While certainly people can take on the belief of evolution without knowing the supporting observations (ie, lack of scientific or educational training, these people have faith that there are such supporting observations though; otherwise they'd be fools), a GOOD scientist CANNOT. In order for scientist to believe the theory to be valid, there must be supporting observations present, and if there are no supporting observations, NO ONE should be able to simply believe in the theory, or have FAITH in it's validity.
Doh, reading your post a third time makes more sense. I see that your saying sperm can't power nanobots, which is true. I should've looked at your title first. Still ATP is not JUST fuel for muscles.
This is incorrect; using ATP to power nanobots is analagous to using ATP to power sperm. If you think about it, sperm are really just small biological machines, utilizing ATP to power the movement of their flagella. And, ATP isn't JUST for powering muscles; it's required to power numerous cellular functions not limited to DNA/RNA/protein synthesis. Hydrolysis of the third phosphate from ATP producing ADP releases energy required to power biomolecular machinery that make our bodies work. To say that ATP is fuel only for muscles is saying that electricity can only power light bulbs. Not true.
In addendum, one could possibly consider the protein machinery within our cells as the first true, all natural nanobots.
I don't think that makes any sense at all. I'd wager that the iPhone is getting AT&T a significant number of contracts; AT&T is not helping Apple sell iPhones. In actuality, it's probably making the iPhone less appealing to consumers. Based on that, it makes sense that Apple gets a cut of AT&T's revenue.
Likewise, NBC is not helping Apple sell iPods/iPhones with their content. Ask anyone who owns an iPod/iPhone; NONE will tell you that they got it to watch officially sanctioned NBC/big time media corporation content on their devices. Most of them can get their media through other means (and these means are more likely than not illegal). If anything, Apple is doing these companies a favor by presenting the media in a highly accessible/available/cheap format for the more conscientious consumer. If anything, Apple is helping them sell content that would otherwise be pirated.
Now, it can be argued that the conscientious are provided more incentive to buy an Apple media device with the availability of officially sanctioned content. But I highly doubt that the content would draw significant numbers to warrant Apple giving up revenue. I feel that having video playback capability in the media players is enough to draw customers, even without the availability of actual content, especially when content can be user generated.
I think a friend of mine took that class last spring. Vollhardt, the professor teaching the course, wrote the book and pretty much expected everyone to know everything he had included in the text. If you watch a little into the video, you see that the average of the midterm they just took was around 100 out of 250 points. Based on how the class did, I wouldn't blame them for not going to class =P. The capacity of that room they're in (Pimentel) is around 500, too. Around 300 were probably enrolled, and, hah, it looks like less than 1/10 of that number showed up.
I'd also like to point out that this isn't the norm for attendance; I took the course with Professor Ellman, and his classes were ALWAYS filled to the brim.
What I say is that although it's not the end of the world, I don't think it's fair to consider GM food as safe as "organic" food.
Organic and conventionally bred crops are not necessarily safer than GM foods. GM foods go through so much more testing and regulation that most don't even make it to market. Conventional/organic produce is never tested before reaching the market, and dangerous varieties are only removed after something has happened to consumers.
Furthermore, there HAVE been conventionally/traditionally bred crops, bred to be pest resistant, that had to be pulled off shelves because the level of toxicity found in these crops were at least 7x that of the controls. The specific instance I'm talking about is a celery cultivar that had 6200 ppb of carcinogenic psoralens, as opposed to 800 ppb in the control. Field workers reported rashes after handling this celery variety, and the cultivar was pulled from shelves. I've appended an article that mentions this. Open, and search for "psoralens", and you should find the right passage.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/ma_reding _annex1.pdf
From the other side of the issue, looking at GM foods, the only recall that comes to mind (and I'm pretty positive this is the only major one, or else anti-GM people would've had a field day and gotten GM foods banned internationally already) is that of Starlink corn contaminated foods, which wasn't ever directly linked to actual deaths or illness. The only grounds for recall was that the specific Bt toxin found in Starlink (which isn't toxic to humans at all) wasn't digested as quickly as other Bt toxin proteins, and may have passed through the human stomach and been absorbed by the intestines (I think), posing a threat as a possible allergen. What is interesting, is that Starlink was never approved for human consumption; it was meant for animal feed. In other words, someone on the supply side screwed up, and Starlink corn wasn't properly labeled as such. This allowed Starlink to be sold as normal corn, and it permeated into our food supply. Of course, this isn't the only issue with GM foods, as people point out that transgene insertions are random. The result is that we have no way of being 100% sure that gene expression is not going to be altered in a way that'll harm us. Then again, that's why GM crops are subject to numerous tests and regulations.
Point: Anything can be potentially dangerous. I don't think saying one thing is worse than the other is going to do any good; rather, responsible development of all forms of technological/agricultural advancement is the way to go, and, of course, this is much easier said than done.
Really? Can you make a tomato that contains fish genes by traditional agriculture?
>If you want natural; starve, along with the billions of others that this planet couldn't naturally support.
GM is not about feeding people. It's about starving people who can't afford to pay for your seeds.
Your statement that GM isn't about feeding people is erroneous. GM by big companies isn't about feeding people. It's about profiting from people who can afford to buy their seeds, and not doing anything positive or GENERALLY negative (I doubt cross pollination was ever intentional, though it does happen, and Monsanto needs to fix things) to those who can't afford it. GM by the public sector (read: universities) is ENTIRELY devoted to developing something that can feed people.
"World hunger" is not an issue of food production.
Current farming practices are certainly doing nothing much in this regard either.
Of course. Farming practices do nothing to get rid of despots who manage their countries into poverty and starvation.
GM crops could possibly be grown in areas where other crops do not thrive thus allowing people to grow their food locally,
GM crops do not help when people cannot grow their food locally because of land mines, government thugs, gunmen, militias and other such problems.
1. World hunger certainly isn't an issue of food production. It's an issue of getting food to the needy who can afford to have it imported/brought to them. One solution is to get crops that can be farmed by these people, to these people. These crops may end up being GM crops that can grow in conditions that these people live in (ie, drought, pathogen infestation, nutrient deficiency). Another is to get developed nations to get food to these people free of charge (to these people. Someone back home is going to have to help pay for them).
2. Farming practices won't get rid of despots. Absolutely true. But what about places without despots, also suffering poverty and starvation? There are surely places like which exist, and the people there can't survive with current farming practices.
3. Of course GM crops won't be grown in politically/militarily unstable environments. But you're thinking too small. Or you just want to be a smartass. There are other situations where GM crops may be engineered to grow, where conventional crops won't. For example, the aforementioned drought plagued lands.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/
Harvest of Fear is a documentary on GMOs as well, produced by PBS. If anyone watches Future of Food, they should watch Harvest of Fear. This is primarily because I thought Future of Food (as another reply to this parent pointed out) seems to have been designed to scare the viewer shitless. Harvest of Fear, on the other hand, provides arguments and counter arguments for nearly every topic brought up, without the dramatics and theatrics featured in the Future of Food. You might find yourself agreeing with one viewpoint, and another take on that viewpoint will be brought up, and it gets you thinking.
In any case, it's good to watch the 2 and compare/contrast the views.
Evidence please?
So far the figures indicate that there's more than enough food being produced (some estimates indicate 17%, but you can see here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e05.htm and not everyone needs 2700 calories ), the main problem is corrupt governments and distribution.
There's still plenty of arable land (and ocean) to grow food on if we need to expand.
Organic farms also produce plenty of food in 3rd world countries - they're just not all of one sort of food and labour intensive (but labour is cheap in those places). Of course more than enough food is being produced. In the fucking United States, and other more developed nations. How fuck are the poor in nations like Africa going to get access to that food? They're too poor, infrastructure sucks, and the costs of getting the food to the desired location is going to cost more than what these people can pay.
And organic farming provides enough for 3rd world countries?!!
What sort of mad fucking utopia do you live in! People in Africa have been farming organically for years! Does it look like they're doing OK? No! With extreme drought conditions and a lack of nitrogen fertilizer, a good number can't farm jack shit! Furthermore, some crops are pathogen plagued, and yields don't even approach what they could be in areas that are actually arable. Last but not least, despots, warlords, and petty wars have made a pretty much impossible situation worse.
With regards to organic farming in 3rd world nations, I think these points are important: organic crops can't do it alone for the most desperate of third world nations, especially those in Africa. The amount of nitrogen these crops are going to require cannot be produced without enough grazing land for cattle (to produce manure). This means clearing more forest land, or trying to obtain land not available due to drought conditions. Purchasing this nitrogen fertilizer is out of the question when the people are just to poor, and importing is impossible with unstable political conditions. Also, organic farming isn't going to do anything when the soil is to dry to farm. Lastly, even with enough water and nitrogen fertilizer, your crop isn't going to do ok when there are pathogens you can't control.
Why do I mention these points? GMO's can provide a solution. It's not as easy as it sounds, but it can be done, and in some cases, it has been done, and not by big money grubbing corporations as well. People like to point to Monsanto, equate them with GMO's, and start screaming "SATAN!", but the public sector is largely ignored. Universities have been working with GMO's to solve these problems as well, and if they can get something out, the public sector can certainly do some good. An example lies here [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070
Now, all that being said, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying GMO's pwnZ0rz the organics. I'm saying GMO's can help. And quite frankly, there's nothing to say that organic farming (which is only a specific method of farming) cannot be used in conjunction with GM crops (aside from stupid certification rules). Personally, I think if agriculture is going to move forward, we're going to need a combination of organic farming methods and GMO's.
I must point out though, and this is very obvious, GMO's cannot solve the problem of political instability in Africa. Africa's going to need a whole mess of help, and I think GMO's, organic farming, political aid, or humanitarian aid are all going to play an important part in the solution.
At the moment, I have to call total BS. What you're saying is non factual and irresponsbile alarmist talk.
c u.html] These were done by giving adult bees and larvae Bt pollen at 100x normal concentrations.
There's little to no evidence whatsoever that GMO's are killing bees. Some scientists are worried about a link, but it's highly unlikely. Bt insect resistance doesn't even target bee species; it targets lepidoptera, diptera and coleoptera. In otherwords, butterflys/moths, flys, and beetles. What order are honey bees in? Hymenoptera.
Furthermore, resistant plants target the larvae of susceptible insects; these bugs ingest the Bt protein, which is only toxic in basic insect midguts, and forms pores and destroys their gut. Do honey bee larvae grow on plants? No, I didn't think so. And while they do ingest pollen that worker bees bring back to hives, tests have shown that pollen with Bt is not toxic at all. [http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/safety_science/68.do
To sum it up, honey bees are fine after contact with Bt crops. Even larvae, which are Bt corn targets in susceptible species, were fine. Long story short, we're going to have to keep looking for a cause for CCD, and people need to stop screaming, "OMFGIT'SGMOS!" at the first sign of trouble. It's completely irresponsible, especially when there are more likely reasons for CCD, such as pathogens with extremely deleterious effects to colony health.
Sugar cane isn't just a good source because it has a higher sugar content; the bagasse that's left over from pressing the cane is burnt to fuel part of the ethanol conversion process, making it more energy efficient than corn. The result is a 8:1 energy ratio. 8 units out, 1 unit in.
The problem is that crops tend to be specialized for certain climate zones. For instance, sugar cane is a decent source of ethanol, yielding 8 units of energy for every 1 put into production, if I remember correctly (this is due to the use of bagasse to fuel the ethanol conversion process).
Unfortunately, sugar cane wouldn't grow where corn does in the US because of the climate, so sugar cane isn't a viable source of ethanol in the US. The same principle applies to plants with high cellulose yields already; it's not likely that they'll be able to be grown all over the world.
Egh, wait. I just realized you lumped roundup/resistant crops with increased pesticide use, newer chemicals, and increased ground water pollution. As far as I know, herbicide and pesticide resistant crops were created to, aside from increasing profits, allow farmers to switch from nastier cocktail chemicals to less deadly stuff. Round-up (glyphosate) is rated Type IV or Type III (practically nontoxic, latter is slightly toxic). By comparison, another herbicide is paraquat (viologen), rated Type I (most toxic).
Then there's Bt corn, which eliminates synthetic pesticides altogether. While Bt may survive digestion in the stomach (making it a possible allergen), it seems to me that it's a better alternative to organophosphates, which disrupt nerve functions in living organisms and are not only used as pesticides but nerve gases as well (sarin/VX).
You got any specific sources for what you're claiming?
On the flip side, if the public sector makes the "big discovery" first, we might not have to put up with Monsanto's bullshit.
While Monsanto is pervasive force in the modern agricultural world, I think it'd be a mistake to count the public sector, namely universities, out. Most professors/principle investigator's have good intentions (Ingo Potrykus for one), and even if they don't, I believe they would be kept in check by their peers. As a result, these public institutions have great potential to do a lot of good.
It's my hope that, in the near future, the public sector will grab more of the pie from Monsanto, and as a result, we won't need to worry about the monopolization of agriculture and it's implications.
The Spiegel link is bad. Here's a better one: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,363604,00.html
You've apparently missed MY point.
Nowhere in my post did I ever say, "Why should we try?" What I did say, is that we need to do more than piss money onto Africa. For instance, providing actual manpower and expertise, and using that manpower to build infrastructure (and yes, I did touch on this, if barely. I don't think I'm qualified enough to discuss it though) required to distribute food and aid to the hungry.
You also imply that not enough focus is put into helping humanity. I'm not sure about that. I think a lot of people are putting their efforts into helping humanity; unfortunately, I don't think people are doing a good job of it. See my fish and feeding analogy. I feel that we're simply propping developing nations up with our current methods, rather than teaching them to stand on their own.
Furthermore, your statement that we've protected endangered species only to fail is not all inclusive. There are numerous instances where we've protected species and succeeded. The American bison and the bald eagle are prime examples of where we have succeeded, and I assure you, protecting them cost less than the billions poured into helping Africa.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this. I agree that we need to help humanity. You're absolutely right. It's of the utmost importance, that's for sure. But I think we're already devoting a large part of our efforts to doing so, but we're not doing it efficiently enough, or correctly. If we fixed how we gave aid to developing nations, we could probably get them finally take care of themselves. But, even if we don't do all these things, I'm sure there will be resources available to help the Galapagos that would never make it to helping developing nations anyway.
What? You think throwing money at the starving of Africa is going to solve their problems?
1 8,363604,00.html]. They need economic, agricultural, political, and health aid. Also, in Africa you have crazy war mongers creating extremely unstable environments in numerous African nations, committing genocide and human rights violations left and right. I don't know what sort of aid will solve this, but trust me, I don't think anyone is going to be willing to give it.
t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_oak_death]. And, whatever an environmental psychopath society will spend to solve the issue, I think it will certainly be vastly less than what is needed to help the rest of the world. I'm sure that people are still donating towards causes like Africa, and on top of that there will be donations/funding for the protection of the Galapagos Islands. I realize the severity of both issues are different, but I'm certain we're not going to end up sending 50 million to the Galapagos and 1 million to Africa; rather, people will spend what is needed in the Galapagos, but whatever is going to Africa will most likely dwarf that.
Africa's got a shitload of problems that, in order to be solved, need more than rich fucks funneling money in their direction. Billions have already been poured into Africa, and damn near ZERO (I exaggerate, but it feels like it) progress has been made [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,15
With it's problems, Africa needs more than money. It needs help from the international community/UN. All that will probably require a gross monetary sum larger than what would be required for the restoration of the Galapagos, and if we really want to fix things in Africa, it'll probably cost lives too. Even helping 3rd world countries develop infrastructure is going to be a bitch. You can't just develop it for them; you have to teach them a whole lot of shit too. Like the saying goes, give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he'll eat every day for the rest of his life.
Lastly, you can't just write off the loss of the Galapagos animals as non issue. You have no idea how this will impact the overall ecosystem. Time and time again, we have been shown that biological changes in a location have vast impacts, usually negative, on the surrounding ecosystem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching][ht
Oh Yeah. Stupidity gets people killed, sure, but it also wastes money by throwing it at a problem and hoping it will go away.
Your description of your roommate could feasibly work for anyone forced to stay away from something they enjoy. And well, what happens when you tell a teen that they can't hang out with their friends? They get grumpy and easily irritable. Of course, the same could be said of drug addicts.
I figure a person can be addicted to ANYTHING, given that they obtain a great satisfaction from that activity of their choice. Of course keeping them from that activity will make them irritable and grumpy. And you have a point, gaming addiction should be recognized, but people should also realize addiction isn't just limited to drugs and gaming (dare I add incessant web surfing and repeatedly checking for slashdot updates?).
Now, the important thing is to have a healthy addiction, in other words, a healthy or productive hobby. I don't know if this'll keep anyone from being irritable and grumpy when they can't do what they want, but I guess having multiple "addictions", enjoying all these activities, and having people who share the same interests might do the trick.
Eh heh, you'd think so, and I'd hope so =P Scientist are silly people.
You bring up a good point, and as I said before, I definitely believe cognition is a mental process. And, I'm pretty sure a plant doesn't have a central command center like our brain, so I don't believe their capable of mental processes.
I have to disagree with you on memory though. With human memory, we can recall one memory multiple times, and our response to that memory can be different. For example, hate your dad's imposing rules and vow you'll never do the same to your kid? Get older, you realize your dad was just trying to raise you to be a good kid, and you use the same rules on YOUR kids. This is essentially learning behavior, but it relies on having our sort of memory. Plants can't do this, and their sort of memory is probably more analogous to that of our adaptive immune system; sees a pattern it doesn't like, builds a response to that pattern, and always responds the same way. There may be an initial learning/imprinting process, but new responses to that stimuli can't be developed.
As a result, I think using the single term memory for all types is misleading, and one needs to make differentiation between types.
Depends on your definition of cognition, I guess. Plants do respond to stimuli, and in order to do so, they have to detect it somehow. But, it's not a mental faculty, which cognition implies. It's more like, cell mechanism detects this, tells other mechanisms to do that to respond.
Plants don't, at least I believe they don't, have cells specialized to serve the purpose of nerves and neurons. There's no nervous system that leads to a brain, which then decides what to do, and tells the plant to start an action. This also excludes plants from having any sort of "memory" or they type of memory that we have. I'm sure plants have cellular mechanisms that allow plants to respond to repeated stimuli as if they had memory, but it certainly wouldn't be the kind of memory WE have.
Regarding the article; I wonder if plants are able to recognize kin via a method resembling the self incompatibility mechanism (where mechanisms in certain plants species prevent self fertilization). Perhaps the plant roots of related plants secrete the same signal molecule, and it doesn't elicit any sort of response from the plants. But, when unrelated plants secrete different signal molecules, a competitive response is elicited.
Erm, please excuse my lack of clarity.
Agro introduces a specific set of genes into plants; the same set of genes every single time. The only reason agro does this is because the set of genes it introduces causes the plant to secrete nutrients vital to agro's survival.
In order for the agro to somehow pick up the terminator gene, and THEN transform a plant with it, multiple things need to happen. 1, the terminator gene must become a mobile genetic element, perhaps via transposon. The agro must then take in this DNA, and this DNA must then jump into the agrobacterium gene that is transfered into plants.
But, not only does it need to jump into the gene that will be transfered (called T-DNA), it needs to jump into the T-DNA in the right orientation (I won't go into specifics, complicated to explain). Once these conditions have been met, only then can the terminator gene be introduced into random plant populations. But, remember now, the terminator gene affects seeds! Agro is a soil bacterium that affects the stem, the part of the plant most readily available to the bacterium. Agro would need to somehow get up to the reproductive organs, and then must successfully transform the gametes (pollen, ovlues), the number which are ridiculously numerous. In other words, viable offspring would outnumber those that aren't.
Anyhow, given all these things occur, the rare transformed gamete must combine with another gamete (pollen combine with an ovule following pollination), and that's another crap shoot. After this, the 1 out of hundreds, maybe thousands, hundreds of thousands of seeds must germinate. Then... it dies. Can't give any offspring, because that's what the terminator gene was programmed to do. Or, at most, it manages to pollinate some other plants, and the seeds are sterile, resulting in a genetic dead end. No more offspring, no more gene propagation
So there. I don't think agro is going to pick up the terminator system and kill off any crops. And if you didn't get it from my spiel already, uptake mechanisms aren't enough. You need delivery mechanisms as well, and intraspecies delivery mechanisms are rare and specifically engineered by nature to the point where minor disruptions would cause them to cease working. You know what? I also forgot to mention that bacteria, even with DNA uptake mechanisms, destroy foreign non methylated DNA (Bacterial DNA is methylated in specific patterns, so that's how they tell what's foreign) because that's their defense against viruses. Also, uptake is complicated by the fact that the terminator system isn't just one gene (at least, I don't believe it is, multiple genes are required). Take the scenario I described above, and imagine how complex it gets when 3 genes are needed for the whole thing to work.
And, I haven't even begun to take into the account how eukaryotic DNA would function in prokaryotes.
Bottom line, I don't think this is even a probability issue. I've never, ever, heard of a bacterium that indiscriminately picks up DNA from the environment, DNA that has miraculously survived in unfavorable conditions, and inject that into an organism. There's no evolutionary advantage in this, no reason for anything to gain this sort of ability.
So, application of the inducer causes the recombinase to leave a late promoter for the embryonic toxin. As a result, seed dies, and this is all done by allowing recombinase expression by blocking it's repressor. No application of the inducer means that recombinase is not transcribed and translated, and therefore the seed does not die. I thought the point was to add the chemical inducer so that the seeds would be viable, and those who didn't have the chemical inducer would just get normal plants, or non viable seed?