I found this neat article on GMOs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2014, 08:05 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 08:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Random mutation provides variation and cumulative selection retains the functional.

If you don't believe that please describe a mechanism that does the work. Endosymbiosis is an event, not a process. It does not explain evolution, just evolvability.

There is no substantive difference between gene splicing and mutation. If you think there is, let's hear a coherent explanation of it.

Endosymbiosis is not a process? Wow. That's so strange, I could have sworn my cells were just swimming with mitochondria right now. Angel

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2014 08:15 PM by cjlr.)
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. It's called agriculture. Maybe you've heard of it?
Cool

Yes, of course I've heard of it. It is my major, as I've already stated. You want to check the attitude?

That's as much of a joke as the line it's responding to.
(I thought that was the point of smileys?)

(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Anti-GMO science is almost uniformly dogshit awful. The methodology is inadequate, the analysis is superficial, the results are cherrypicked, and the conclusions are unfounded.

"Citation needed" is truthfully the only thing that can even be said to this.

Why don't you suggest a study critical of GMOs, and I'll see how it stands up?

(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... that's still false equivalence.
(and the reason there are not more articles saying "gee, turns out GMOs aren't bad after all" is the same reason there aren't lots of articles saying "gee, looks like gravity's still a thing")

To say they (define "they" - can one define GMO in such a way as to preclude human artificial selection?) are bad (define bad) requires one to propose a plausible mechanism for any putative badness.

That is to say, one must be able to state, very clearly, what they are talking about, and say, very clearly why the specific differences might have an adverse effect, by what means and under what circumstances.

In your earlier post you alluded to transgenic modification. That, at least, is a reasonable distinction to draw. One still lacks - utterly - a plausible mechanism for adverse effects.
(for example - can one establish that any such changes are not in principle possible through random mutation? of course not, and that's before considering viral transmission; being unlikely does not here matter, if the point is to demonstrate how it is most certainly not a difference in kind...)

I actually don't adhere to the random mutation theory as the sole driver of evolution.....and neither does anyone who is worth their salt in their field. I'm leaning more towards serial endosymbiosis myself, but if we want to argue evolution itself we should probably just start another thread.

Indeed. I never said you did.

(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  This is a red herring, and you KNOW it is. Kale and broccoli are the same genetic species, they were artificially bred by humans, but the traits in each of those subspecies could have come about by natural means by geographical isolation or a million other factors. You KNOW it isn't the same thing as injecting corn with bacterial genes that were never in it's genome to begin with. Anyone with a half a brain knows that, seriously.

"It seems different to me" is not a substantive comment.
(or should I say, "anyone with half a brain knows that, seriously"? but no, that'd be kind of rude)

What is the difference? I explicitly just said "but it's unlikely to have happened otherwise" isn't a reasonable argument. Or:
(08-07-2014 08:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no substantive difference between gene splicing and mutation. If you think there is, let's hear a coherent explanation of it.

Without an actual mechanism for manifesting "bad" effects, there's not even anything to look into...

(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  My ass we don't. Genetic modification as a process is as utterly harmless as selective breeding.

See above. If you can't tell the difference, you need to go back to kindergarten.

Oh, and I suppose another "citation needed" is in order. But that will just start the epic back-and-forth, tit-for-tat that ALWAYS happens with internet conversations of this sort.

Except that's the null hypothesis here. Between "there is an effect" and "there is not an effect" I'll take the latter until convincingly shown otherwise.

(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  [
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  All that is then left is for one to go full conspiracy and say, "but they put bad things in it because reasons rabble rabble monsanto rabble reptiloids", but, that's quite a different claim.
(I stress that you are not making it; there are those who do, and they are idiots)

You just proved my point about GMO apprehensives being viewed as stoned hippies who are just trying to stick it to the man. I am a college student with a 3.6 GPA.

Uh, no. There are literally people who make those sorts of claims. I have met some. They are crazy.

In answering your post and especially in the line I put at the end of mine, I was explicitly acknowledging that you are not like that. But, uh, okay. Whatever.

(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  All of my professors, except for one, are in agreement that more studies need to be done on GMOs, and at the very least, the laws in the United States need to be changed to protect small farms.

The second half of that sentence has literally nothing to do with the first half of that sentence.

(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Btw, the one professor who "knows" that GMOs are 100% safe and there is nothing wrong with them whatsoever, is the exact same one who thinks climate change is a "liberal conspiracy."

You can't make this shit up.

Thanks for sharing?

(08-07-2014 07:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Anyway, shall we continue then? We aren't going to get anywhere. I've already done this dozens of times before. It always ends the same way.

If there's a credible hypothesis for a means by which modern biotechnology manifests adverse reactions (how is this even defined?) in ways more established techniques don't, I'm all ears.

Until then... yeah. Not so worried.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:13 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2014 08:22 PM by cjlr.)
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 08:03 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Except that isn't true. Monsanto is one of the greatest bogeymen of our time. Nothing more.

Please consider my rebuttal, in the form of, you know, the exact wording within the act itself.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?...DEV3002796

Copypasta of the act is not a rebuttal either.

Monsanto has never sued simply for cross-pollination.

Nor does that actually have anything whatsoever to do with genetic modification. So there's that.

(08-07-2014 08:03 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Repeating something unverified doesn't make it true - but it doesn't make it false, either. It's simply not going to convince anyone.

As I already mentioned--I've ACCEPTED that people are going to argue me into infinity over the internet when I discuss GMOs. I could have piles and piles of proof, and it won't make a difference.

The only way we'll know whether proof convinces me (although, I'm pretty sure it would) would be to provide some.

(08-07-2014 08:03 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  This is one of those things that skeptics and science crusaders have latched onto as a flagship issue. Nothing I say is going to be taken seriously even though this is my field of study in real life.

Or you could draw attention to credible evidence.

But no, snark works too.

(08-07-2014 08:03 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Additionally, you haven't actually addressed anything I've said.

You've said little.
(and responding to requests for citations and clarification with "NO U" doesn't help)

(08-07-2014 08:03 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  You just keep repeating your own opinion and claiming victory, just as I said you would.

The sum total of what you've said is that "uh, maybe it's not perfectly safe, because reasons". You've alluded to studies, which even you say are not decisive. You call them equally weighted, which I certainly dispute. Is there a coherent theory linking those results? Is there a proposed explanation and mechanism?

I can just as easily say you're being very defensive because you're espousing what you know to be a minority view. That's not a helpful comment either.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:14 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
Here's a few review articles I found last time the topic came up:
(13-06-2014 11:02 AM)cjlr Wrote:  See, for example, these fine folks among others.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 08:05 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 08:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Random mutation provides variation and cumulative selection retains the functional.

If you don't believe that please describe a mechanism that does the work. Endosymbiosis is an event, not a process. It does not explain evolution, just evolvability.

There is no substantive difference between gene splicing and mutation. If you think there is, let's hear a coherent explanation of it.

Endosymbiosis is not a process? Wow. That's so strange, I could have sworn my cells were just swimming with mitochondria right now. Angel

Then you appear not to understand the difference between an event and a process.

At one time there were no eukaryotes. Then, an event occurred that created the first eukaryote.

There are now many eukaryotic species, genera, families, orders, etc. They came about by the process of evolution, which is driven by mutation and cumulative selection.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-07-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
Okay. I'm taking a deep inhalation here and limiting myself to responding to only one of your sentences. A lot of that was immature potshots.

(08-07-2014 08:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If there's a credible hypothesis for a means by which modern biotechnology manifests adverse reactions (how is this even defined?) in ways more established techniques don't, I'm all ears.

Until then... yeah. Not so worried.

First, I am not saying for certain that I believe GMOs "manifest adverse reactions." For the FOURTH time--I am saying that the currently published research (even that which is independently funded) is CONFLICTING enough that we need to look into the matter further JUST TO BE CERTAIN that harmfulness is not the case.

Ok. Are we seriously clear on that, or are we just saying we are?

Anyhow. Moving on!

Second, there could never be a single hypothesis that covers all possibilities, and it's incredibly limiting that you would demand one. Is there only a single cause of colony collapse disorder, or are there many?

See? Biological processes don't always fit into neat categories. The only outlines of such a unifying theory would include something along the lines of "messing with nature." It's one thing to have random mutations change a gene over time, but it's another to inject entire codons for working proteins into an organism that might suffer ill consequences because of it. (And sorry, unrelated note, but I still mutation served more of a purpose when the species barriers were all but nonexistent.)

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
Every time I make a new post in here, there are already three or four that I haven't read yet. I'm just going to come back tomorrow and sort all this out then.

I can't keep up with a new reply every second.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 08:23 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  (And sorry, unrelated note, but I still mutation served more of a purpose when the species barriers were all but nonexistent.)

What does that mean? What purpose? Whose purpose? And what are 'species barriers' and when were they 'all but nonexistent'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:37 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 08:23 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Okay. I'm taking a deep inhalation here and limiting myself to responding to only one of your sentences. A lot of that was immature potshots.

Nothing that was not a response in kind.
(that's my last counter-snark, I promise)

(08-07-2014 08:23 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 08:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If there's a credible hypothesis for a means by which modern biotechnology manifests adverse reactions (how is this even defined?) in ways more established techniques don't, I'm all ears.

Until then... yeah. Not so worried.

First, I am not saying for certain that I believe GMOs "manifest adverse reactions."

I know that. I feel you are overstating the ambiguity and making an overly-generalised case.

As well you know, it's exactly the stance taken by "skeptics" towards other settled positions. That's why it's annoying.

(08-07-2014 08:23 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  For the FOURTH time--I am saying that the currently published research (even that which is independently funded) is CONFLICTING enough that we need to look into the matter further JUST TO BE CERTAIN that harmfulness is not the case.

Ok. Are we seriously clear on that, or are we just saying we are?

And I do not find the research at all balanced.

More investigation is never, in principle, a bad thing. But how many times must a thing be confirmed before we move on?

(08-07-2014 08:23 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Anyhow. Moving on!

Second, there could never be a single hypothesis that covers all possibilities, and it's incredibly limiting that you would demand one.

If the claim is GMO is bad, that is a blanket statement. It requires that all GMO is bad in ways that no non-GMO is.

(08-07-2014 08:23 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Is there only a single cause of colony collapse disorder, or are there many?

To my knowledge, no one knows that answer.

(08-07-2014 08:23 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  See? Biological processes don't always fit into neat categories. The only outlines of such a unifying theory would include something along the lines of "messing with nature."

Sure. Then what is "messing" with nature? How is today's genetic modification different from a century ago? A millennium ago?

If there is no single hypothesis then there neither is nor ever will be grounds for saying all GMO is bad.

In which case we'd just have to examine things case by case to see whether individual varieties and products are harmful.

Which is exactly what we already do.

If you mean to say, "I think sometimes existing biotechnology regulation is insufficient", I'd definitely agree, but that's not where this thread started.

(08-07-2014 08:23 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  It's one thing to have random mutations change a gene over time, but it's another to inject entire codons for working proteins into an organism that might suffer ill consequences because of it. (And sorry, unrelated note, but I still mutation served more of a purpose when the species barriers were all but nonexistent.)

Okay. That organism might suffer ill consequences. It's therefore a problem of specific instances. It might be harmful or not in any given case.

But once again, that's not new, and it doesn't go unaddressed...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 08:26 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Every time I make a new post in here, there are already three or four that I haven't read yet. I'm just going to come back tomorrow and sort all this out then.

I can't keep up with a new reply every second.

I'd welcome your thoughts on the articles I linked to, whenever you have the chance.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: