Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[Subduction Zone]

Borlaug is now super-spinning like a top from your comments and to know what Monsanto does. Your continued argument using Borlaug has turned specious. Monsanto could be shortening lives of billions across the world with their toxin-laced foods. Foods which they claim was safe due to low level of toxins which affect insects, but not humans and humans would just pass it.

The only thing we agreed was individual's choice. I can't help it if you don't want to learn or can't figure out the rest.

This guy was in France, so you must've heard of it. In Europe, one gets more protection from the GMO foods and its non-disclosure unlike the US which you already know. Even then they had to retract and republish due to commercial pressure.

You are ready to buy anything that supports your beliefs. When someone makes a rather strong claim they need strong evidence. In the world of science that evidence is supplied through the peer review process. If their claim has not passed peer review it is almost certainly worthless.

 

[james bond]

What? Yes i said he saved over a billion lives a week ago. You contradicted by claiming it as millions until you educated yourself. A point you have never acknowledged as an error, however that is not the pointed

Your error was saying i agree with you and you lied

Again, Borlaug saved a billion lives.

Was he also Christian, too?

"In his Nobel Lecture, Borlaug noted, “Man’s survival, from the time of Adam and Eve until the invention of agriculture, must have been precarious because of his inability to ensure his food supply.” And even the invention of agriculture did not free man from fear of food shortages, hunger, and famine."

The Christ Follower Who Saved a Billion People

The environmental activists tried to stop him from teaching Africa his ways because he saved too many people. A billion is too many to save. That seems to jive with not caring for sustainability of US farmlands. A dark secret.

I thought where we agreed was eating organic food. Didn't we agree on that, too? Our reasons why are different. I think you said because of the taste while I said nutrition and health. I think fresh foods taste good whether organic or non-GMO.

 

[ChristineM]

Again, Borlaug saved a billion lives.

Was he also Christian, too?

"In his Nobel Lecture, Borlaug noted, “Man’s survival, from the time of Adam and Eve until the invention of agriculture, must have been precarious because of his inability to ensure his food supply.” And even the invention of agriculture did not free man from fear of food shortages, hunger, and famine."

The Christ Follower Who Saved a Billion People

The environmental activists tried to stop him from teaching Africa his ways because he saved too many people. A billion is too many to save. That seems to jive with not caring for sustainability of US farmlands. A dark secret.

I thought where we agreed was eating organic food. Didn't we agree on that, too? Our reasons why are different. I think you said because of the taste while I said nutrition and health. I think fresh foods taste good whether organic or non-GMO.

Yes he was christian so does that mean you think gm is ok now or is it just another straw man?

What you thought is not the point. You obviously were concerned otherwise why try to derail me?

 

[james bond]

You are ready to buy anything that supports your beliefs. When someone makes a rather strong claim they need strong evidence. In the world of science that evidence is supplied through the peer review process. If their claim has not passed peer review it is almost certainly worthless.

There have been three different studies criticizing Roundup and Bt toxin by Monsanto.

1. Dr. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois in 2009 and 2012 on Bt.
2. Gilles-Eric Séralini which was just discussed.
3. Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc 2011 article with pregnant women.

So, you're saying that none of these were peer reviewed? You're wrong. See below. What we just discussed was peer-reviewed.

Then in 2015, 17 scientists came out against Roundup as causing cancer and labeled it a carcinogen. This was done by the IARC, the France-based cancer research arm of the World Health Organization.

See table
17 Scientists Speak Out: Monsanto's Roundup is Causing Cancer

This refers to Seralini and the peer review of his report. They're talking about his peer review.

"Here's the thing. Peer review is not perfect. It's not a panacea. It's simply the basic level of due diligence. By submitting work for peer review, a scientist has allowed people outside her own team to critique her work. And the journal might require some changes to the paper based on the critique — anything from edits for clarity to requesting that the scientist perform another experiment in a different way. If a paper hasn't gone through peer review, you should be more skeptical of it. Avoiding peer review means that the researcher decided to show the public her results before allowing those results to be critiqued by independent experts."

It deflates your haughty peer review argument. Just admit you are wrong ha ha.

Of GM corn and rat tumors: Why peer reviewed doesn't mean "accurate"

 

[james bond]

Yes he was christian so does that mean you think gm is ok now or is it just another straw man?

What you thought is not the point. You obviously were concerned otherwise why try to derail me?

I think GM is safe, with some reservations, but that doesn't mean it's okay. We just discussed it. You should have gotten that I think it's mainly junk food and fast food, not healthy nor nutritious, and most importantly, GMO producers need to disclose because the public has a right to know what they are eating.

Moreover, it's Borlaug the man and what he represented. I think Borlaug would be more interested in feeding those billions healthy and nutritious foods than making money as his #1 goal because of his faith. What I got BEFORE knowing he was Christian was he would help feed the billions or making their lives easier through biotechnology. I didn't think he would allow for toxins in GMO because of his ideals. He seems like a guy who thinks for himself.

Of course, what I interpreted your statements as is important. I'm not a mind reader. Just because you sent a message does not mean I received it the way you meant it. We learned this as kids playing telephone. We're not going to have much common ground here. So far, it's only been on two points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There have been three different studies criticizing Roundup and Bt toxin by Monsanto.

1. Dr. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois in 2009 and 2012 on Bt.

Do you mean this one that was retracted due to an improper study and an unjustified conclusion?

RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize - ScienceDirect
2. Gilles-Eric Séralini which was just discussed.
It appears that work was retracted too:
Séralini affair - Wikipedia

Oh wait, that appears to be the same article:

Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study

Still retracted.

3. Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc 2011 article with pregnant women.

So, you're saying that none of these were peer reviewed? You're wrong. See below. What we just discussed was peer-reviewed.

Actually since some of your work was retracted only one is currently peer reviewed and that has problems as well. Here is just one source that deals with some of the problems of that paper:

Many Women, no Cry - OGM : environnement, santé et politique

Remember, peer review is just a minimal requirement in the world of science. A paper's claims must hold up on further investigation and that may not be the case with even that paper.

But at least you are trying.

Then in 2015, 17 scientists came out against Roundup as causing cancer and labeled it a carcinogen. This was done by the IARC, the France-based cancer research arm of the World Health Organization.

See table
17 Scientists Speak Out: Monsanto's Roundup is Causing Cancer

This refers to Seralini and the peer review of his report. They're talking about his peer review.

"Here's the thing. Peer review is not perfect. It's not a panacea. It's simply the basic level of due diligence. By submitting work for peer review, a scientist has allowed people outside her own team to critique her work. And the journal might require some changes to the paper based on the critique — anything from edits for clarity to requesting that the scientist perform another experiment in a different way. If a paper hasn't gone through peer review, you should be more skeptical of it. Avoiding peer review means that the researcher decided to show the public her results before allowing those results to be critiqued by independent experts."

It deflates your haughty peer review argument. Just admit you are wrong ha ha.

Of GM corn and rat tumors: Why peer reviewed doesn't mean "accurate"

No one has claimed that peer review is perfect. That is a strawman that tells you you are dealing with a science denier. What it does do is to set a minimal level of competence in the scientists that publish there. Many, many peer reviewed articles are later found to be wrong. But almost all articles that avoid peer review but should have been are shown to be false. Scientists that are truly sure about their claims put them through the peer review process. Even then they know that there is a good chance that they are wrong. As shown by the articles that were retracted.

 

[ChristineM]

I think GM is safe, with some reservations, but that doesn't mean it's okay. We just discussed it. You should have gotten that I think it's mainly junk food and fast food, not healthy nor nutritious, and most importantly, GMO producers need to disclose because the public has a right to know what they are eating.

Moreover, it's Borlaug the man and what he represented. I think Borlaug would be more interested in feeding those billions healthy and nutritious foods than making money as his #1 goal because of his faith. What I got BEFORE knowing he was Christian was he would help feed the billions or making their lives easier through biotechnology. I didn't think he would allow for toxins in GMO because of his ideals. He seems like a guy who thinks for himself.

Of course, what I interpreted your statements as is important. I'm not a mind reader. Just because you sent a message does not mean I received it the way you meant it. We learned this as kids playing telephone. We're not going to have much common ground here. So far, it's only been on two points.

Now we are getting somewhere. Gm is what it is, a way to create more food in an increasingly food scarce world. Disclosure is a different thing, as i said, that is political

Borlaug did create healthy, nutritious foods. You are the one dissing gm, who mentioned money as an argument??? Oh you did. Faith probably had little to do with his work, assuming of course he was a normal human being, not obsessed with one-upmanship of christians are best because god, thats a whole other argument that better than you have not won.

Thats called interpretation, you know exactly what i meant, you chose to misrepresent it because it suited your ego.

 

[james bond]

The focus now turns to Argentina. Monsanto's GM soy is causing problems and it shows that the people who control agriculture and their scientists have been paid off. I had my suspicions of this going on when politicians here did huge favors for Monsanto and the biotech food companies. People are saying that Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye were paid off in the US to be spokespersons promoting GMO foods. It's pointing to the toxins in the GMO corn and soy. I'm not ready to say it's due to transgenic crops or GMO crops. It's not conclusive.

Argentina's Roundup Human Tragedy

 

[james bond]

Do you mean this one that was retracted due to an improper study and an unjustified conclusion?

RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize - ScienceDirect
2. Gilles-Eric Séralini which was just discussed.
It appears that work was retracted too:
Séralini affair - Wikipedia

Oh wait, that appears to be the same article:

Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study

Still retracted.



Actually since some of your work was retracted only one is currently peer reviewed and that has problems as well. Here is just one source that deals with some of the problems of that paper:

Many Women, no Cry - OGM : environnement, santé et politique

Remember, peer review is just a minimal requirement in the world of science. A paper's claims must hold up on further investigation and that may not be the case with even that paper.

But at least you are trying.




No one has claimed that peer review is perfect. That is a strawman that tells you you are dealing with a science denier. What it does do is to set a minimal level of competence in the scientists that publish there. Many, many peer reviewed articles are later found to be wrong. But almost all articles that avoid peer review but should have been are shown to be false. Scientists that are truly sure about their claims put them through the peer review process. Even then they know that there is a good chance that they are wrong. As shown by the articles that were retracted.

Ha ha. I'm amazed at what you don't read of my posts. Seralini was criticized heavily, so the journal retracted his paper and then he fixed it and resubmitted in another journal. What is important is the dangers of toxic chemicals because it can cause health and maybe environmental problems.

Then, you do a 180 on peer-review when you found out his paper WAS peer-reviewed and still heavily criticized. Suffice it to say, Seralini won his lawsuit and his group was able to keep Roundup out of Europe. That's a win for him in my book.

I am not a science denier. I'm an atheist science denier. Big difference.

 

[james bond]

Now we are getting somewhere. Gm is what it is, a way to create more food in an increasingly food scarce world. Disclosure is a different thing, as i said, that is political

Borlaug did create healthy, nutritious foods. You are the one dissing gm, who mentioned money as an argument??? Oh you did. Faith probably had little to do with his work, assuming of course he was a normal human being, not obsessed with one-upmanship of christians are best because god, thats a whole other argument that better than you have not won.

Thats called interpretation, you know exactly what i meant, you chose to misrepresent it because it suited your ego.

My one-upmanship is part of my skills. Nothing to do with my faith unless it's one-upmanship for God.

I'm dissing GMO because of the RTK as mentioned, toxins and I don't think corporations should have patents on seeds. Haven't got a chance to talk about that. It has made Monsanto food Nazis. I don't think our food source should be in the hands of so few. The abundance of local farmers have gone. Now, there are farmers who band together so they aren't put out of business by Big Agra. Did you get that when I mentioned apples being sold locally before? It was 100% local. Now, they're being trucked thousands of miles and being sprayed with chemicals to keep their freshness. All processed foods, packaged foods and produce are handled this way. That lowers the taste of fresh foods. It's not as fresh anymore. Instead of supermarkets, we buy from farmer's markets when we can. The farmers even set up their booths in parking lots when there are community events and parades. There are better ways to handle the pesticide herbicide problem as shown in the youtube video. Monsanto went that way in order to make more money. They also didn't care about healthy and nutritious foods. And it seems that they didn't care about people's environments or their long-term health. How can one fight against food patents and corporate protection laws? This isn't a fair fight at all, so its good many people won't accept GMO food.

My intent wasn't misrepresentation. We talk about so much that I don't know what issues are most important to you.

 

[ChristineM]

My one-upmanship is part of my skills. Nothing to do with my faith unless it's one-upmanship for God.

I'm dissing GMO because of the RTK as mentioned, toxins and I don't think corporations should have patents on seeds. Haven't got a chance to talk about that. It has made Monsanto food Nazis. I don't think our food source should be in the hands of so few. The abundance of local farmers have gone. Now, there are farmers who band together so they aren't put out of business by Big Agra. Did you get that when I mentioned apples being sold locally before? It was 100% local. Now, they're being trucked thousands of miles and being sprayed with chemicals to keep their freshness. All processed foods, packaged foods and produce are handled this way. That lowers the taste of fresh foods. It's not as fresh anymore. Instead of supermarkets, we buy from farmer's markets when we can. The farmers even set up their booths in parking lots when there are community events and parades. There are better ways to handle the pesticide herbicide problem as shown in the youtube video. Monsanto went that way in order to make more money. They also didn't care about healthy and nutritious foods. And it seems that they didn't care about people's environments or their long-term health. How can one fight against food patents and corporate protection laws? This isn't a fair fight at all, so its good many people won't accept GMO food.

My intent wasn't misrepresentation. We talk about so much that I don't know what issues are most important to you.

ROFLMAO

Yet you dont dis food grown intensively for using those same toxins.

Once again, American food problems are political.

So you think Monsanto poisoning the american public is a good business model?

 

[gnostic]

Right, unless you have proof there was or wasn't intelligence involved, that is all anyone has..

You are the one who make positive claim that “intelligence” is involved with directing nature, then you are the one who needs to put up the evidences to support your claims.

If you are not going to back your claims of intelligent design, then your argument is baseless...as well as pointless.

 

[George-ananda]

You are the one who make positive claim that “intelligence” is involved with directing nature, then you are the one who needs to put up the evidences to support your claims.

If you are not going to back your claims of intelligent design, then your argument is baseless...as well as pointless.

Now I have offered my reasons. But don’t claim proofs.

My reasons include the argument against chance for self-replicating organisms (ala Flew), the teachings of many masters I respect, and my view that Consciousness is fundamental and the creator of absolutely everything.

The only claim I am making is what position on the isssue I find most believable.

 

[gnostic]

I have to echo the famous Antony Flew who was an atheist philosopher before having to accept intelligence as the most reasonable understanding of DNA.

Being a philosopher, don’t make Flew knowledgeable in science.

Flew isn’t a biologist, nor a biochemist, so do I really give a rat’s a## what he has to say about Intelligent Design?

His background on philosophy is on religion, not in science, so what he has to say in regarding to DNA, isn’t worth much at all.

 

[George-ananda]

Being a philosopher, don’t make Flew knowledgeable in science.

Flew isn’t a biologist, nor a biochemist, so do I really give a rat’s a## what he has to say about Intelligent Design?

His background on philosophy is on religion, not in science, so what he has to say in regarding to DNA, isn’t worth much at all.

I don’t give Flew any over importance. I just happened to mention him as someone who thinks like me. There are many others too that find a naturalistic cause unlikely.

 

[james bond]

ROFLMAO

Yet you dont dis food grown intensively for using those same toxins.

Once again, American food problems are political.

So you think Monsanto poisoning the american public is a good business model?

Sure, it's become political but it's our food and RIGHT TO KNOW! And I'm being the social liberal here siding with activism. You're siding with conservative big business and agri-science. We've learned only they can afford GM on this scale. The only thing conservative is organic food as it was how farming was done in the past. What's wrong with using our lands locally and getting rid of the pre-packaged crap we have now trucked thousands of miles just because it's economics of scale. Letting some corporate businesses go bankrupt for the good of all would be good.

You know, you keep bringing up and supporting Monsanto? Why do you think it's a good business model? Was McDonald super sizing our kids a good business model? I just found out that they elected to not use GMO potatoes, so the anti-GMO is working. I was nostalgic about McDonald's but it can go out of business tomorrow and I'd be fine.

And I keep telling you that Borlaug would be against GMO foods ha ha!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, it's become political but it's our food and RIGHT TO KNOW! And I'm being the social liberal here siding with activism. You're siding with conservative big business and agri-science. We've learned only they can afford GM on this scale. The only thing conservative is organic food as it was how farming was done in the past. What's wrong with using our lands locally and getting rid of the pre-packaged crap we have now trucked thousands of miles just because it's economics of scale. Letting some corporate businesses go bankrupt for the good of all would be good.

You know, you keep bringing up and supporting Monsanto? Why do you think it's a good business model? Was McDonald super sizing our kids a good business model? I just found out that they elected to not use GMO potatoes, so the anti-GMO is working. I was nostalgic about McDonald's but it can go out of business tomorrow and I'd be fine.

And I keep telling you that Borlaug would be against GMO foods ha ha!

Borlaug was not ignorant so why do you think that he would be against GMO's?

And you are the one that keeps attacking Monsanto. Just try to deal with the facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha. I'm amazed at what you don't read of my posts. Seralini was criticized heavily, so the journal retracted his paper and then he fixed it and resubmitted in another journal. What is important is the dangers of toxic chemicals because it can cause health and maybe environmental problems.

Then, you do a 180 on peer-review when you found out his paper WAS peer-reviewed and still heavily criticized. Suffice it to say, Seralini won his lawsuit and his group was able to keep Roundup out of Europe. That's a win for him in my book.

I am not a science denier. I'm an atheist science denier. Big difference.

Please. don't lie, I pointed out that you do not have any peer review. You probably still don't. And I pointed out more than once that peer review is the bare minimum. I also pointed out many times that peer review can be wrong too. And worse yet Seralini's paper was not just criticized. It was so heavily flawed that it was retracted. That is the same as saying that it was terribly wrong. Peer reviewed papers are shown to be wrong every day. Very very few are retracted, when they are that tells you that the author was probably dishonest. If his second publisher was just a pay to publish source, and there are countless examples of those it is worthless.

So what source did he republish in?

 

[james bond]

Borlaug was not ignorant so why do you think that he would be against GMO's?

And you are the one that keeps attacking Monsanto. Just try to deal with the facts.

Because Borlaug thinks like me. He thinks for himself. One, he knew about natural selection (I'm guessing rapid NS vs slow NS). Thus, he introduced hybridization into agriculture as well as the use of chemicals. But, let's pause right here. We know chemicals can be helpful, such as when we can grow and extract extraordinary coffee from specific beans or potently caffeinated coffee from another kind of bean. With what he knew at the time, he thought that chemicals would eradicate the bad insects, pathogens and parasites that are enemies of food crops. He also knew that these chemicals could be weaponized to be used against human enemies in time of war. Monsanto provided those types of chemicals, too. After observing what is happening through the spread of GM farming, he would see the mutation dangers that was happening besides what he expected. Monsanto isn't accepting that. It's impossible to prove, but they must have know about the dangers just like tobacco companies in the late 40s and early 50s. One needs an executive memo or similar evidence to use as a smoking gun to show they knew.

That said, I also know about genetics and destiny, genetics and environment, and recently, about genetics and epigenetics. This is why educated people who are against GMOs have said that we do not know the full effects of GE and GMO foods and that longer term studies need to be done. They see the mutations occur in Argentina and in Hawaii where these biochemical companies have grown GMO crops all over and sprayed chemicals relentlessly. We can't just use genetics and how genes have determined our physical selves and that our lives have been predestined in this sense. When one performs GE, then one has to account for the epigentic and environmental factors that are present. Monsanto knows of this epigenetic inheritance and environmental factors, too.

I'm not the only one attacking Monsanto. Other scientists and doctors attack Monsanto for the same reasons I mentioned. It's the non-GMO movement and they have the science starting to back them up..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because Borlaug thinks like me. He thinks for himself. One, he knew about natural selection (I'm guessing rapid NS vs slow NS). Thus, he introduced hybridization into agriculture as well as the use of chemicals. But, let's pause right here. We know chemicals can be helpful, such as when we can grow and extract extraordinary coffee from specific beans or potently caffeinated coffee from another kind of bean. With what he knew at the time, he thought that chemicals would eradicate the bad insects, pathogens and parasites that are enemies of food crops. He also knew that these chemicals could be weaponized to be used against human enemies in time of war. Monsanto provided those types of chemicals, too. After observing what is happening through the spread of GM farming, he would see the mutation dangers that was happening besides what he expected. Monsanto isn't accepting that. It's impossible to prove, but they must have know about the dangers just like tobacco companies in the late 40s and early 50s. One needs an executive memo or similar evidence to use as a smoking gun to show they knew.

Please, you are merely deluding yourself. We all know that your claims about yourself are just not true.

And once again you make attacks on Monsanto that you are not able to substantiate. Not every Christian on your part.

That said, I also know about genetics and destiny, genetics and environment, and recently, about genetics and epigenetics. This is why educated people who are against GMOs have said that we do not know the full effects of GE and GMO foods and that longer term studies need to be done. They see the mutations occur in Argentina and in Hawaii where these biochemical companies have grown GMO crops all over and sprayed chemicals relentlessly. We can't just use genetics and how genes have determined our physical selves and that our lives have been predestined in this sense. When one performs GE, then one has to account for the epigentic and environmental factors that are present. Monsanto knows of this epigenetic inheritance and environmental factors, too.

No, no you don't know about genetics. Once again your antiscience stance tells us that this is not so. And no, educated people are not against GMO's. You have only been able to find people that are either hysterical, incompetent or dishonest.

I'm not the only one attacking Monsanto. Other scientists and doctors attack Monsanto for the same reasons I mentioned. It's the non-GMO movement and they have the science starting to back them up..

Nope, in this thread you are the one attacking Monsanto and you rely upon the ignorant.

Perhaps we should start on what is and what is not science. Then we can move on to the concept of evidence. Perhaps once you understand these concepts you will not continue to make the same errors that you keep making.