• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

james bond

Well-Known Member
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.



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.



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.

After seeing your responses, I can see that you have very little. Aren't you just being controlled by your own confirmation biases? Do you work in biotechnology or agricultural sciences?

How can I be ignorant when I just provided a mountain of evidence for the dangers of GMO foods? It's happening in our own country now -- the sickouts and strange deaths of animal and marine life in Hawaii. When thousands of people protest there and around the world that something is wrong and they want answers and don't get them, then there is something wrong going on. The biotech companies continue to refuse to provide the answers. Borlaug would give you the answers.

Puhleeze, I have the science right here. Can you just accept it and not come back acting like a crybaby?

Epigenetics and Implications for GM Crops Using RNAi

Epigenetics in Plant Breeding: Hard Science, Soft Tool - Science in the News
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
After seeing your responses, I can see that you have very little. Aren't you just being controlled by your own confirmation biases? Do you work in biotechnology or agricultural sciences?

How can I be ignorant when I just provided a mountain of evidence for the dangers of GMO foods? It's happening in our own country now -- the sickouts and strange deaths of animal and marine life in Hawaii. When thousands of people protest there and around the world that something is wrong and they want answers and don't get them, then there is something wrong going on. The biotech companies continue to refuse to provide the answers. Borlaug would give you the answers.

Puhleeze, I have the science right here. Can you just accept it and not come back acting like a crybaby?

Epigenetics and Implications for GM Crops Using RNAi

Epigenetics in Plant Breeding: Hard Science, Soft Tool - Science in the News
Please you posted self aggrandizing nonsense. And you did not provide evidence. All you have posted is hysteria to date. That was explained to you.

Why did you not relink the article that was republished? Was it because you knew that I was right . . . again?

But then I did offer to go over the basics with you After you learn the basics and understand how to filter your choices then we can move on.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Please you posted self aggrandizing nonsense. And you did not provide evidence. All you have posted is hysteria to date. That was explained to you.

Why did you not relink the article that was republished? Was it because you knew that I was right . . . again?

But then I did offer to go over the basics with you After you learn the basics and understand how to filter your choices then we can move on.

I know you too well. You got the crybaby genes. I already showed you the republished article. There's nothing more to see here.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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!


I am siding with no one, im attempting to show your misrepresentation and misinterpretation.

It is the government who dictates and legislates what is disclosed on food packaging so yes, it is political.

If scale is the way to feed the population of earth then what is your problem with saving lives?

There was nothing wrong with using land to feed the population, unfortunately the population has increased beyond the ability for earth to naturally provide. Luckily science has an answer. And it works. Unluckily destroying rain forest is h alternative, it doesnt work?

It s impolite to respond to a valid question with an unrelated, ad hom question, i asked do you think its a good business model for a company (doesnt matter which) to kill their clients?

And actually i believe you have brought up monsanto as the periah far more; often than i have mentioned them

Dont talk nonsense, how could a man whose life was inventing ways to feed a dying population my creating disease and drought resistant cops using genetic manipulation be anti gm?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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..

How could Borlaug possibly think like you? He died 7 or 8 years ago
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Please, don't lie about me, I don't lie about you. If you reposted it you did not make it clear. Where is this supposed article?

Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerantgenetically modified maize

Remember I gave you the last word? Then you continued your ranting on the safety of GMO foods even though I started to agree after reading the studies. You should've left good enough alone. That's when I found the mountain of evidence questioning excess toxins in the foods and how they may not leave the body.

You're still stuck on the safety studies and what Borlaug did (I agreed, except I don't think Borlaug would support what Monsanto is doing with excessive toxin spraying). In the real world, we see people reacting very negatively to GMO farming. Not only that, we discovered GMO corn and soy being used in our junk foods and fast foods. We looked up McD and SSM. We found the report from France and that Seralini won his defamation case. GMO farming is still banned in Europe and other parts of the world. We found out about chemical weapons used in the Vietnam war and Monsanto and the biotech companies provided them. I presented the dangers of GE with new studies coming out using epigenetics. Monsanto knew about all of it since they use epigenetics, too, for their still to be released products. You didn't properly address those. Thus, I am going back to my previous stance of avoiding GMO foods and being active against them.

I found Campbell soup labels their soups as using genetically engineered ingredients. What's a coincidence is I started to go to organic and other soup brands before they started doing this. Not because of GMO, but they seemed to offer lower sodium advantages. Now, I got reason to avoid them even further. I still think they're a reputable company though. Same with McD. Their foods aren't exactly healthy, so limit to moderation. However, if they're GMO, then that's a different level of danger with excessive toxins present.

And you are still ranting on with your same meme. That's acting like a crybaby when new evidence is presented against you. Why don't you present some further evidence of how wonderful a company Monsanto is and what is going on in Africa, for example?
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
I am siding with no one, im attempting to show your misrepresentation and misinterpretation.

It is the government who dictates and legislates what is disclosed on food packaging so yes, it is political.

If scale is the way to feed the population of earth then what is your problem with saving lives?

There was nothing wrong with using land to feed the population, unfortunately the population has increased beyond the ability for earth to naturally provide. Luckily science has an answer. And it works. Unluckily destroying rain forest is h alternative, it doesnt work?

It s impolite to respond to a valid question with an unrelated, ad hom question, i asked do you think its a good business model for a company (doesnt matter which) to kill their clients?

And actually i believe you have brought up monsanto as the periah far more; often than i have mentioned them

Dont talk nonsense, how could a man whose life was inventing ways to feed a dying population my creating disease and drought resistant cops using genetic manipulation be anti gm?

See my post #228. I've presented evidence and not misrepresentation and misinterpretation. It's not just me, but millions of people being against GMO foods.

Let's continue to discuss Borlaug. What did he do in Africa? What has happened in Africa since? Have they accepted GMO foods? Where is your evidence for all of the above or is it just political attacks on me?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
How could Borlaug possibly think like you? He died 7 or 8 years ago

I've read his bio and he presented his reasoning for working at DuPont, start of WWII and for the Rockerfeller Foundation. I can't find the article now, but here's a similar one.

"From 1942 to 1944, Borlaug was employed as a microbiologist at DuPont in Wilmington, Delaware. It was planned that he would lead research on industrial and agricultural bacteriocides, fungicides, and preservatives. However, following the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, Borlaug tried to enlist in the military, but was rejected under wartime labor regulations; his lab was converted to do research for the United States armed forces. One of his first projects was to develop glue that could withstand the warm saltwater of the South Pacific. The Imperial Japanese Navy had gained control of the island of Guadalcanal, and patrolled the sky and sea by day. The only way that U.S. forces could supply the troops stranded on the island was by approaching at night by speedboat, and jettisoning boxes of canned food and other supplies into the surf to wash ashore. The problem was that the glue holding these containers together disintegrated in saltwater. Within weeks, Borlaug and his colleagues had developed an adhesive that resisted corrosion, allowing food and supplies to reach the stranded Marines. Other tasks included work with camouflage, canteen disinfectants, and insulation for small electronics.[6]

In 1940, U.S. Vice President Henry A. Wallace received a request by Mexican government officials for assistance in developing a program to train a new generation of Mexican agricultural scientists. The agrarian reforms that had been instituted following the Mexican Revolution of 1910 had resulted in much lower yields, and the Mexican government feared their agricultural industry was being left behind. The U.S. government passed the program on to the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation contacted E.C. Stakman and two other leading agronomists. They developed a proposal for a new organization, the Office of Special Studies, as part of the Mexican Government, but under the direction of the Rockefeller Foundation. The organization was to be staffed with both U.S. and Mexican scientists, focusing on soil development, maize and wheat production, and plant pathology. Stakman chose Dr. J. George "Dutch" Harrar as project leader. Harrar immediately set out to hire Borlaug as head of the newly-established Cooperative Wheat Research and Production Program in Mexico; Borlaug declined, choosing to finish his war service at DuPont.[7] In July 1944, after rejecting DuPont's offer to double his salary, and temporarily leaving behind his pregnant wife and 14 month old daughter, he flew to Mexico City to head the new program as a geneticist and plant pathologist.[6]

In 1964, he was made the director of the International Wheat Improvement Program at El Batán, Texcoco, on the eastern fringes of Mexico City, as part of the newly-established Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research's International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo, or CIMMYT), an autonomous international research training institute developed from the Cooperative Wheat Research Production Program, with funding jointly undertaken by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Mexican government. Borlaug officially retired from the position in 1979; however, he remains a senior consultant at the CIMMYT. Since his retirement, he has continued to be involved in plant research at CIMMYT with wheat, triticale, barley, maize, and high-altitude sorghum, in addition to taking up charitable and educational roles."

Norman Borlaug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
See my post #228. I've presented evidence and not misrepresentation and misinterpretation. It's not just me, but millions of people being against GMO foods.

Let's continue to discuss Borlaug. What did he do in Africa? What has happened in Africa since? Have they accepted GMO foods? Where is your evidence for all of the above or is it just political attacks on me?

You have presented some micro objection of negative thought on GM. The billion plus lives saved and the affordability of food for the less well off by far outweighs the dissent.

I am not interested in irrelevant and straw man arguments, not am i attacking you, i am countering your anti gm stance based on insufficient evidence but much personal hatred of your governments stance on GM.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerantgenetically modified maize

Remember I gave you the last word? Then you continued your ranting on the safety of GMO foods even though I started to agree after reading the studies. You should've left good enough alone. That's when I found the mountain of evidence questioning excess toxins in the foods and how they may not leave the body.

I did not "continue to rant, I merely responded to your ignorant posts. And you did not post evidence. That is why I offered to go over the scientific method and the concept of evidence with you so that you would not continue to make those errors.

As to the article of Serlani it appears that you forgot my warning. You needed to show that it was published in a well respected professional journal. Springer Open is pay to publish. It is not highly respected and when one pays to publish the incentive for the journal is to accept almost anything. That shows up in its Impact Factor. It has an Impact Factor of less than one where a well respected professional journal such as Nature will often have one of approximately forty:

Environmental Sciences Europe

By the way there is no mention of their first article or why it was retracted and what they did to clean up their errors. It appears that they simply did what the title says. They republished it. Since this was so bad that it was retracted why did they not explain how they corrected their errors in the past? You need to vet your sources better.
You're still stuck on the safety studies and what Borlaug did (I agreed, except I don't think Borlaug would support what Monsanto is doing with excessive toxin spraying). In the real world, we see people reacting very negatively to GMO farming. Not only that, we discovered GMO corn and soy being used in our junk foods and fast foods. We looked up McD and SSM. We found the report from France and that Seralini won his defamation case. GMO farming is still banned in Europe and other parts of the world. We found out about chemical weapons used in the Vietnam war and Monsanto and the biotech companies provided them. I presented the dangers of GE with new studies coming out using epigenetics. Monsanto knew about all of it since they use epigenetics, too, for their still to be released products. You didn't properly address those. Thus, I am going back to my previous stance of avoiding GMO foods and being active against them.


Sorry but the trial does not help your case at all. You do not seem to know what it was about and why it would fail in the U.S.. The trial itself only said that calling his research "fraud" was going to far. It in no way substantiated the research at all. One can be a complete idiot and publish lunacy, like Seralini did. That does not make his publication a "fraud". That was what the trial was about. Read more here:

Séralini GMO article vindicated by courts – absolutely not


We see people reacting emotionally. We do not see them reacting scientifically or even skeptically. That is why you cannot post any valid evidence. You have failed when it comes to peer review, you have failed when it comes to evidence.

I found Campbell soup labels their soups as using genetically engineered ingredients. What's a coincidence is I started to go to organic and other soup brands before they started doing this. Not because of GMO, but they seemed to offer lower sodium advantages. Now, I got reason to avoid them even further. I still think they're a reputable company though. Same with McD. Their foods aren't exactly healthy, so limit to moderation. However, if they're GMO, then that's a different level of danger with excessive toxins present.

If you want to claim that GMO is harmful then the burden of proof is upon you. All you have is hysterical rantings on your side, like the belief that DNA can be transmitted from a GMO to people. That is something that is just not possible according to the experts in the field.

And you are still ranting on with your same meme. That's acting like a crybaby when new evidence is presented against you. Why don't you present some further evidence of how wonderful a company Monsanto is and what is going on in Africa, for example?

Please, you rant. We refute. Try a little honesty for once. If anything you are a crybaby here. I gave you reasonable standards, the same standards that are applied to any other scientific claim and you failed. All you can find is emotion, articles that failed real peer review, and red herrings (the libel trial is an example of that). I can and have linked articles from well respected journals on GMO's. I can do so again.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
I did not "continue to rant, I merely responded to your ignorant posts. And you did not post evidence. That is why I offered to go over the scientific method and the concept of evidence with you so that you would not continue to make those errors.

As to the article of Serlani it appears that you forgot my warning. You needed to show that it was published in a well respected professional journal. Springer Open is pay to publish. It is not highly respected and when one pays to publish the incentive for the journal is to accept almost anything. That shows up in its Impact Factor. It has an Impact Factor of less than one where a well respected professional journal such as Nature will often have one of approximately forty:

Environmental Sciences Europe

By the way there is no mention of their first article or why it was retracted and what they did to clean up their errors. It appears that they simply did what the title says. They republished it. Since this was so bad that it was retracted why did they not explain how they corrected their errors in the past? You need to vet your sources better.



Sorry but the trial does not help your case at all. You do not seem to know what it was about and why it would fail in the U.S.. The trial itself only said that calling his research "fraud" was going to far. It in no way substantiated the research at all. One can be a complete idiot and publish lunacy, like Seralini did. That does not make his publication a "fraud". That was what the trial was about. Read more here:

Séralini GMO article vindicated by courts – absolutely not


We see people reacting emotionally. We do not see them reacting scientifically or even skeptically. That is why you cannot post any valid evidence. You have failed when it comes to peer review, you have failed when it comes to evidence.



If you want to claim that GMO is harmful then the burden of proof is upon you. All you have is hysterical rantings on your side, like the belief that DNA can be transmitted from a GMO to people. That is something that is just not possible according to the experts in the field.



Please, you rant. We refute. Try a little honesty for once. If anything you are a crybaby here. I gave you reasonable standards, the same standards that are applied to any other scientific claim and you failed. All you can find is emotion, articles that failed real peer review, and red herrings (the libel trial is an example of that). I can and have linked articles from well respected journals on GMO's. I can do so again.

I would think no other journal would re-publish his findings because of the controversy. I don't have the time to look up everything to your scientific desires and standards. You have to look it up yourself. OTOH, I found the evidence that I need. It has made me even more against GMO foods because of Roundup use. Again, one has wonder how much Monsanto knew, but still went on and exacerbated the problem. For certain, GMO labeling is required in all of the United States. Let the people decide.

And how do you know about Springer studies? What's your background?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
@Subduction Zone @ChristineM

Toxicology Fact Sheet on Roundup (PDF form)
http://fundacionterrazul.org/Archivo/Glyphosate_Fact_Sheets.pdf

You have to wonder how much Monsanto knew? Seralini showed that glyphosate and inert ingredients were the dangers.

Glyphosate - Toxipedia
Using sources that you do not understand does not help your case. Their conclusion gave it a rather low toxicity. It is Toxicity III that is next to the lowest level of toxicity possible. It indicates that care must be used in handling it. Don't eat it or rub it directly on your skin and you should be okay.

Toxicity class - Wikipedia

No one is telling you to take a bath in the material, you do need to watch yourself when applying it. The trace amounts that are left after a season of rain and wind and growing on a finished product has not been shown to be harmful at all.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
>>SZ: If you want to claim that GMO is NOT harmful then the burden of proof is upon you. All you have is hysterical rantings on your side, like the belief that DNA can be transmitted from a GMO to people. That is something that is just not possible according to the experts in the field.<<

No, it's up to Monsanto and crazy people like you to show glyphosate and inert ingredients, i.e. Roundup ingredients, are safe. It's clear they're not and has been shown in 1995 (!).
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
Using sources that you do not understand does not help your case. Their conclusion gave it a rather low toxicity. It is Toxicity III that is next to the lowest level of toxicity possible. It indicates that care must be used in handling it. Don't eat it or rub it directly on your skin and you should be okay.

Toxicity class - Wikipedia

No one is telling you to take a bath in the material, you do need to watch yourself when applying it. The trace amounts that are left after a season of rain and wind and growing on a finished product has not been shown to be harmful at all.

So you do admit Roundup is cancerous.

There you go foaming again about how do I not understand. What is your background? Maybe you flunked out of UMH. Why should I believe anything you post? It seems like it's you who does not understand that dangers were covered up by these biotech companies. Remember I also pointed out these companies produced chemical weapons of war which were later banned.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You have presented some micro objection of negative thought on GM. The billion plus lives saved and the affordability of food for the less well off by far outweighs the dissent.

I am not interested in irrelevant and straw man arguments, not am i attacking you, i am countering your anti gm stance based on insufficient evidence but much personal hatred of your governments stance on GM.

May i refer you to this staff post regarding abuse of the funny rating
Abuse of the "Funny" Rating
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
>>SZ: If you want to claim that GMO is harmful then the burden of proof is upon you. All you have is hysterical rantings on your side, like the belief that DNA can be transmitted from a GMO to people. That is something that is just not possible according to the experts in the field.<<

No, it's up to Monsanto and crazy people like you to show glyphosate and inert ingredients, i.e. Roundup ingredients, are safe. It's clear they're not and has been shown in 1995 (!).


Erm... You have spent the last 10 days claiming gm was harmful
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I would think no other journal would re-publish his findings because of the controversy. I don't have the time to look up everything to your scientific desires and standards. You have to look it up yourself. OTOH, I found the evidence that I need. It has made me even more against GMO foods because of Roundup use. Again, one has wonder how much Monsanto knew, but still went on and exacerbated the problem. For certain, GMO labeling is required in all of the United States. Let the people decide.

And how do you know about Springer studies? What's your background?


Pay to publish journals have been shown to publish almost anything. It is why they are not held in great respect. By the way, I looked up the Impact Factor of that journal for you. Did you not see the links? I supported my claims. Its impact factor is appalling. And no, you did not find evidence. All you have is confirmation bias. Once more since you do not understand the concept of evidence why don't we discuss that concept first?

And anyone can look up the various Springer articles and find their impact factor. You could use the source that I linked. Simply use their search engine. My background is in geology, but impact factors are used in all sciences.
 
Top