Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on September 20, 2011, 11:04:20 pm
-
And the Christians wonder why we need to teach evolution in schools
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=analysis:-super-weeds-pose
[edit]:rolleyes:[/edit]
-
I've been coughing for over a month thanks to a profoundly antibiotic-resistant lung infection. Thanks, evolution. =(
inb4 ignorant comments and ****storm
-
Secretary of Dept. of Agriculture is former Monsanto lobbyist
(http://i4.bebo.com/049/0/mediuml/2009/06/29/05/3439155085a11125392072ml.jpg)
Yay capitalism! Yay greed! Yay US politics and corporate ownership of government! Yay "**** forward thinking, I could be making more money NOW!"
-
well, no here's the thing, now they can sell a NEW (more expensive) herbicide/seed, you show your own short sightedness by calling "**** forward thinking". totally forward thought.
-
:nono:
You couldn't just discuss the article.. you just had to make that topic title didn't you? Whatever ****storm this results in is your own doing and you obviously did it on purpose.
-
some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world's top-selling herbicide
I thought that was gasoline
-
Well, that was a good read. Pity the same can't be said for the thread title. :blah:
-
i admittingly dont like bible thumpers either. not because they oppose science, but because they worship the bad guy. when will they learn that they should be worshiping satan? so dont go making an anti-bible thumper title for a topic about growing dope. its so very misleading.
-
GMO companies like Monsanto have turned a decent idea for more food production to feed everyone into a nightmare where only their one-use 'terminator' seeds grow, and the foods produced are to say the least much less healthy than their natural counterparts. I think there's a need for much more research into GMO, and making sure to make things that are as close to their natural counterparts and do not cause illnesses and such, as well as the removal of companies such as Monsanto before it can and will be able to be used for positive means.
It doesn't have anything to do with christianity or evolution though. DNA mutation perhaps.
-
show me evidence that any GM food has caused any illness.
if they didn't have the terminator gene the GM crops would be growing wild, and I'm sure no one would be complaining about that.
-
Super Weeds Pose Growing Threat to U.S.
=
[/b][/size](http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/marijuana_bustsepia_1.jpg)
-
show me evidence that any GM food has caused any illness.
if they didn't have the terminator gene the GM crops would be growing wild, and I'm sure no one would be complaining about that.
Plenty, do a google search for 'gmo causes cancer'. Too much to link, though a lot to sift through.
EDIT: Also interesting is 'gmo causes infertility'. Strange why pretty much all the GMO has that effect.
It's a interesting perspective to say that the terminator seeds would be growing wild, but it causes the seed costs to be much higher, as farmers would have to keep coming back to Monsanto. Also with a lot of Roundup in the soil, only Monsanto's stuff could grow. Loads of profits to be made there, ingeniously so.
-
Recently, some documents were exposed about companies faking the test results to make their GMO seem more healthy than it is. While I'm not against GMO itself, I'm against stuff sold by corporations who lie to us. Their stuff is not safe, they just don't tell us, because it's be expensive.
-
Topic renamed.
-
It doesn't have anything to do with christianity or evolution though. DNA mutation perhaps.
DNA mutation does have something to do with evolution, and well, this has too. Plants resistent to a certain amount of roundup survive, and thus those quite resistant plants multiply. The farmer uses more roundup, the most resistant plants survive and multiply. And so on and so on. It's a textbook example of evolution.
Plenty, do a google search for 'gmo causes cancer'. Too much to link, though a lot to sift through.
Breathing also causes cancer*. Everyone can shout that 'X' shouts cancer, but you really have to come up with a decent research first.
* it truly does by the way. Oxygen causes our DNA to wither very slowly. Its why we age.
-
Super Weeds Pose Growing Threat to U.S.
=
[/b][/size](http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/marijuana_bustsepia_1.jpg)
why do they all look high? even the dog.
-
/*runs away*/
NO.
You are the one telling me GM food contains magic that causes all what ails you, you are the one making a claim, you provide evidence to support it, unless you don't mind looking like a tin foiler.
also this has everything to do with evolution, this is evolution, or more accurately not taking evolution into account.
-
Yep. If we weren't so quick to use herbicides and pesticides and antibiotics, then there wouldn't be as much pressure to become resistant. In a world without herbicides, being herbicide resistant would probably be a hindrance since it probably sacrifices something to become resistant.
-
Plenty, do a google search for 'gmo causes cancer'. Too much to link, though a lot to sift through.
A Google-search for "2012 Nibiru" returns over 4 million results discussing some mystical celestial body smashing into us next year with Armageddon-style results, but that doesn't mean it's in the slightest bit true.
We'd like to see articles and investigations that convincingly show not just correlation, but a causal effect, between GMO and cancer/infertility.
-
and not just blog posts from whole foods sites.
-
And the Christians wonder why we need to teach evolution in schools
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=analysis:-super-weeds-pose
[edit]:rolleyes:[/edit]
Bah, when they can resist a hoe or good old fasioned pulling, they'll concern me.... :p
-
And the Christians wonder why we need to teach evolution in schools
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=analysis:-super-weeds-pose
[edit]:rolleyes:[/edit]
Bah, when they can resist a hoe or good old fasioned pulling, they'll concern me.... :p
With the way things are going in Mexico we won't have to worry about running out of cheap latinos to pull them anytime soon either. :P
-
GMO companies like Monsanto have turned a decent idea for more food production to feed everyone into a nightmare where only their one-use 'terminator' seeds grow, and the foods produced are to say the least much less healthy than their natural counterparts. I think there's a need for much more research into GMO, and making sure to make things that are as close to their natural counterparts and do not cause illnesses and such, as well as the removal of companies such as Monsanto before it can and will be able to be used for positive means.
It doesn't have anything to do with christianity or evolution though. DNA mutation perhaps.
*throws BULL**** flag on the field*
I defy you to find even ONE peer-reviewed article that shows GMO or artificially-selected crops are any less nutritional and healthy than "natural" foods. Humans have been conducting artificial selection on crops for thousands of years; everything you eat has been evolutionarily "guided."
Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that you know zilch about the science of genetics. Quit posting on this subject and go educate yourself, I'm getting tired of correcting your nonsense.
@Everyone: Not all herbicide-resistant crops are considered genetically-modified organisms. Many strains of crops sold by companies such as Monsanto are the products of selection and isolation techniques that manually sort and breed particular seed variants based on characteristics they show in experimental field studies. Of those that are GMOs, the typical addition is a herbicide-resistance gene that allows it to resist applications of herbicides like Roundup. These genes do not affect the nutritive value of the plant or seed, and are non-transmissible (meaning that there is no way the new GMO seed can be a cause of cancer if its parent seed was not).
The Internet is a great tool, but by far the majority of people who publish information on it, especially on controversial topics, have no idea what the **** they're talking about. If you want to learn about new scientific advances, do it from journals and reputable websites, not ridiculous Google searches. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an idiot.
-
Personally, I find this whole "GM food is baaaad" stuff hilarious, given that the standard selection/breeding process for the crops we consume every day and have consumed for bloody millenia amount to what is effectively a very slow form of gene manipulation.
-
One would think those people would be scared ****less of the modern banana...
-
the unhealthy thing is questionable, but the system of farmers depending on Monsanto is perhaps not the greatest system. the farmers can't keep the seeds from the crops they grow and having to come back to Monsanto year after year for next crops seeds. that's kinda more an economics issue than an environmental one tho. plants can be cheaper and survive in places they normal couldn't tho. which can be good in places such as 3rd world countries where not all modern farming techniques/irrigation and whatnot is available. allows plants to be more disease resistant or require less water or tolerate higher temperatures. additionally the shrinking amount of genetic diversity in crops is a potential problem. if you have a disease that affects one or a few strains, then it is likely to wipe out several to most because the diversity of crops is much lower than it once was. btw Im not crying foul over GMOs. They have their ups and downs just like everything else.
-
I defy you to find even ONE peer-reviewed article that shows GMO or artificially-selected crops are any less nutritional and healthy than "natural" foods. Humans have been conducting artificial selection on crops for thousands of years; everything you eat has been evolutionarily "guided."
May this whet your appetite? I'm curious to hear what you think - It's a learning process for me as well. I apologize if earlier posts came off as grand standing, i meant it in a very laid-back manner.
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf
Further health effects:
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Travik.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18648843
More can be found on those websites as well.
Following two sources as I'd have to link a lot of individual sources. Copy the headers and Google for original sources - I found the information gathered to be intriguing no matter who hosts it.
http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm#risks_of_gm_food
http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2005/usept05.html#deadly
Article:
http://www.rense.com/general32/Eating.htm
A little background:
http://www.psrast.org/criticssuppr.htm
Lastly, a .PDF of a complete book on the subject, a big but interesting read:
http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/SeedsOfDestructionTheHiddenAgendaOfGeneticManipulation/SeedsOfDestructionTheHiddenAgendaOfGeneticManipulation.pdf
Now look, I'm not trying to say, nor claim, that I am some kind of super scientist that knows it all I want to learn just as much. There are concerns about GMO that should be addressed.
On my earlier statement that it's not about evolution - I do feel its much more a 'negative' mutation rather than a natural mutation. One of the sources above debates it from a few angles.
Hope it puts a little more perspective in the issue.
-
the unhealthy thing is questionable, but the system of farmers depending on Monsanto is perhaps not the greatest system.
the farmers can't keep the seeds from the crops they grow and having to come back to Monsanto year after year for next crops seeds.
that's kinda more an economics issue than an environmental one tho.
That's nothing specific to GM seeds, it's almost common in industrialized farming and called hybrid seed.
The economic benefit is a higher yield per acre than conventional seeds.
Yeah, he must buy the seed, but if he don't buy seed he is forced to store them until next year ( with the risk that the seed may became rotten or lost to mice and other vermin).
In the western world it's more economic to leave that risk to the breeders of the seed and buy the seed each year.
Two populations of breeding stock with desired characteristics are subject to inbreeding until the homozygosity of the population exceeds a certain level, usually 90% or more. Typically this requires more than ten generations. After this happens, both populations must be crossed while avoiding self-fertilization. Normally this happens in plants by deactivating or removing male flowers from one population, taking advantage of time differences between male and female flowering or hand-pollinating.[4]
In 1960, 99 percent of all corn planted in the United States, 95 percent of sugar beet, 80 percent of spinach, 80 percent of sunflowers, 62 percent of broccoli, and 60 percent of onions were hybrid. Such figures are probably higher today. Beans and peas are not commercially hybridized because they are automatic pollinators, and hand-pollination is prohibitively expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid
-
I defy you to find even ONE peer-reviewed article that shows GMO or artificially-selected crops are any less nutritional and healthy than "natural" foods. Humans have been conducting artificial selection on crops for thousands of years; everything you eat has been evolutionarily "guided."
May this whet your appetite? I'm curious to hear what you think - It's a learning process for me as well. I apologize if earlier posts came off as grand standing, i meant it in a very laid-back manner.
-snip-
Now look, I'm not trying to say, nor claim, that I am some kind of super scientist that knows it all I want to learn just as much. There are concerns about GMO that should be addressed.
On my earlier statement that it's not about evolution - I do feel its much more a 'negative' mutation rather than a natural mutation. One of the sources above debates it from a few angles.
Hope it puts a little more perspective in the issue.
I'm going to ignore the special interest websites because their motives are suspect and stick to the journal articles published on PubMed (because that at least is a reputable source and a fairly good guarantee of peer-review). Maybe this will be a good lesson in sourcing. Since BiolSci is a journal's web page, we'll run with that one too.
Let's start with the journals. We have three publications here: Histochemical Cell Biology, Critical Review in Food Sciences and Nutrition, and the International Journal of Biological Sciences. Names like these sound impressive, but sadly these are three fairly minor journals. Not to say their authors findings aren't worthwhile, but often the value of a study becomes pretty clear simply from where it gets published - larger journals (Nature and its derivatives; Science) are pretty selective and tend to publish major findings. Lesser discoveries, or those with shaky experimental design often end up in other journals. Not to say an author's work isn't worthwhile, but publication is important. Something like schooling; somewhere like Hopkins, Stanford, or Berkeley have much better reputations than a local college.
That said, next step is dates. We have 2008, 2009, and 2009. Pretty recent. It's always worthwhile to see if there's anything more current (which I haven't done, as I don't have the time), but I won't fault articles 2-3 years old, although I would suspect there is research that either qualifies, adds to, or debunks this now published.
Enough snobbery on my part. To the articles!
"A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health " is an interesting beast. The finding here is "signs of toxicity." To be clear, many foods produce signs of toxicity. The question is whether or not the foods actually produce toxicity, a question the authors merely speculate on. There aren't a whole lot of specifics here, and while the authors report they got statistical significance at certain p values, they don't actually show their data and statistical reference - in other words, we know the level of statistical significance, but that's it. Which is a little odd; usually we get some statistical data rather than just the assertion. The only problem is, the authors actually admit flaws in the methodology to begin with (sample size is far too low, but it's the data they had to work with), which brings the true significance of their findings into question. The real story here, though, is this: "If a “sign of toxicity” may only provoke a reaction, pathology or a poisoning, a so-called “toxic effect” is without doubt deleterious on a short or a long term. Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity." And this: "Even if the significant differences are around 5% of all comparisons for each GM corn, we believe that they either constitute a very good possibility to represent signs of toxicity, or at the very least should be considered as sufficiently strong evidence to justify a repeat of the experiments incorporating longer feeding times, for several reasons." See the qualifiers in the phrasing? The results of this study are an indication of a need for more research with a better methodology, not that GMOs are inherently unhealthy. The authors also caution against lumping all GMOs together - they repeatedly mention this paper covers only three varieties of GMO maize (corn), and should not be broadly applied to GMOs as a category.
Onward...
Alas, I can't get full access to "Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods" here at home, but the abstract is certainly nicely vague. More reference to possible effects, more calls for further study. Nothing concrete. An interesting few sentences from the abstract: "The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment." In short, not much is known, we need more study. (Again, lots of things cause those common toxic effects, not the least of which is barbecued or overcooked/charred meats).
To "A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing." I love long-term studies, and love them aprticularly on mice (which are a great model organism for humans). I'd love this one much better if I could actually get more than the abstract *sigh*. But let's go from the abstract; it'll highlight the key points, anyway. Which are: "This study demonstrates that GM soybean intake can influence some liver features during ageing and, although the mechanisms remain unknown, underlines the importance to investigate the long-term consequences of GM-diets and the potential synergistic effects with ageing, xenobiotics and/or stress conditions." In plain English: there may be changes to the biochemical pathways in the cells as they get older, we have no idea why, but we think it's worth studying more. [Please fund us.]
See a trend? "may be," "possible," "signs of," and calls for more research. No concrete evidence. Hell, no suspicious evidence. Signs of different cellular response to novel foods - not something that I'd call unexpected, given that some of these foods are indeed very different. But here's the other trouble - while animal models are good for a great many things, responses to foods can be very different, because we naturally eat different things in different ways. Studies try to mitigate this as much as possible, but the fact of the matter is the only way to know with certainty what the effects of a food are in a human is usually to feed them to a human. Same thing with medications.
The trouble with the articles you posted is they don't have any context. Non-GMO foods of various types are perfectly capable of producing the same signs of toxicity under the right circumstances. These articles are more a cautionary point about generalizing all GMO/non-GMO foods as safe/unsafe or healthy/unhealthy than they are a sweeping denouncement that GMO foods in general are inherently bad. That's what I was getting at with my "I defy you to find ONE study..." comment - you can't generalize.
As for negative mutation versus natural mutation - I have no idea what this is talking about or referring to. Both of those terms have scientific and contextual meaning, so you're going to have to elaborate on what exactly you're trying to say.
EDIT: I don't have time to go through and dissect the crap that SayNoToGMOs is publishing on their site, but it's an excellent example of how easy it is to contextualize the facts differently and prey upon people's misconceptions in order to fear-monger. A half-way critical perspective in reading those pieces will thoroughly debunk any of the claims they are attempting to make. Maybe someone else around here can run through a couple of those pieces and break them down to demonstrate.
-
I appreciate the lengthy and constructive response - It's a good exercise in learning a lot more myself and have a good discussion.
What I meant is, that since the weeds reacted much faster and more agressively to Roundup than they would to other changing situations, the mutation itself seems a forced process instead of a natural adaption. I'm thinking that because of the genetic modification already present, the plant's DNA have changed in such a way that they have become resistant to it that way.
I do agree the SayNoToGMOs website was not the best source in itself, but I tested if the information's original source was similar and the same and from a quick glance they don't look modified themselves so I felt it would have been a decent addition.
Once again thanks, I appreciate being able to discuss the subject in this matter instead of what happened before.
-
What I meant is, that since the weeds reacted much faster and more agressively to Roundup than they would to other changing situations, the mutation itself seems a forced process instead of a natural adaption. I'm thinking that because of the genetic modification already present, the plant's DNA have changed in such a way that they have become resistant to it that way.
But the weed was not genetically modified, the crops were.
-
I'm thinking that the weeds were pollinated by the crops or that Roundup has some weird growth hormone to it? Nonetheless your point is well taken, it's more of a mystery to me then, than thought before. At the least its a very interesting example of how plants can adapt, but I'd have to look up what Roundup truly does to crops and to weeds. I'm curious if others have seen more examples of Roundup changing weeds or crops like this?
-
Roundup does not change anything. It just kills it, and the 'Roundup ready' plants can not be killed by the Roundup (its basically IFF for pesticides). But what does not kill you, makes you stronger...
-
The principle is similar to how bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics.
There is selective pressure to develop resistance and the other choice is to die.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Antibiotic_resistance.svg)
-
I'm thinking that the weeds were pollinated by the crops or that Roundup has some weird growth hormone to it? Nonetheless your point is well taken, it's more of a mystery to me then, than thought before. At the least its a very interesting example of how plants can adapt, but I'd have to look up what Roundup truly does to crops and to weeds. I'm curious if others have seen more examples of Roundup changing weeds or crops like this?
Roundup doesn't contain growth factors. It's a herbicide. The active ingredient is a glyphosate salt, and its herbicidal properties are a result of a biochemical block it creates in three amino acid synthesis pathway, inhibiting further growth and ultimately preventing cellular regeneration, which kills the plant. It's non-selective, so it will kill anything not resistant to it (anything using the enzyme it blocks). Roundup-Ready crop varieties (canola being the most famous) contain gene(s) that allow the plant to overcome the block and synthesize the required amino acids. Round-Up does not directly alter genetic makeup; genetically unaltered plants that survive Round-Up already have innate resistant to it.
Ghostavo is pretty much correct; the mechanism by which weeds gain resistance to herbicides is analogous to bacterial antibiotic resistance. A large population will always have a select number of individuals which have innate resistance to a compound toxic to others of its species. In antibiotic treatments, we use large doses to kill as many of the infectious bacteria as possible, which always leaves a few with either partial or complete resistance to the drug (this is why it's important to ALWAYS FINISH YOUR ANTIBIOTIC COURSE. Stopping when you feel better just allows the bugs with partial immunity to survive, whereas a full dose will kill them). The body's natural bacteria will out-compete the resistant bugs, keeping them in check, and your immune system may kill them outright (or may not; our bodies have a complex microbial community that lives in and on us).
For herbicides, a large enough dose will kill everything without resistance to it. There will always be some remaining weeds that have innate resistance, but they should be fairly few and the plants you want (e.g. crops) will out-compete them in an ideal world. However, if a few tenacious individuals survive, they can reproduce with other survivors and therefore produce offspring with partial or complete resistance to the herbicide. Essentially it's identical to a selection experiment - you knock out large numbers of the population without a selective trait, and allow the survivors to reproduce. With weeds, it's an unintended consequence, and a reason that chemical application should be used to complement and not replace sustainable agricultural practices (e.g. field rotation, tilling, manual maintenance, etc).
At any rate, weed resistance to herbicides is almost certainly not the result of genetic modification in the crop; rather, it's virtually identical to natural selection - those that out-compete the competition survive. The weeds aren't developing or gaining resistance to herbicides, it's just that the individuals which had resistance already are surviving to reproduce.
-
Just to add a bit more, nowadays to prevent (or at least diminish) resistance from spreading, we give two or more antibiotics instead of just one. The idea is that bacteria that are resistant to both will be extremely rare.
I assume similar methods are used in agriculture.