Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[james bond]

Oh my, so much wrong in such a short space. Science can show ideas to be wrong. For example the claims of creationists have been shown to be wrong again and again, so much that they no longer do science. And you don't even know what a theory is. Plus the Big Bang theory only tells us what happened after the Big Bang, there still may be a 'before the big bang'. And though the steady state is now thought to be wrong that does not make it psuedoscience. You don't know what psuedoscience is either.



Please we all know that honesty is a huge problem for any creationist. And you know that you can't win since so many of your claims have been shown to be wrong so now you try to change the goals after the fact. That is not honest either.



The problem is that the "studies" that you have linked have been refuted or shown to be utter garbage. It seems you still do not know how serious of a matter it is when a journal retracts an article. That is a major statement on how wrong an idea is. The journal is admitting that they are embarrassed for ever printing that nonsense.




Wrong, that is not what I said. If you want to order it done then the burden of proof is upon you. You know that you can't prove an harm in GMO's. This again is an example of you being dishonest. Seriously if you want to deny being dishonest then you should not have a post with so many examples of your dishonesty.

Been here too long. Was trying to extract what you are really saying from all the fluff and it's that you're mostly wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I know science and scientific theories while you can barely grasp it. You do not know or explain the following in your rants:

1. Science can show ideas to be right, wrong or I don't know, i.e. more research is necessary.

2. Scientific theories are well substantiated explanations of reality using the the scientific method of testing one's hypotheses, and incorporating substantial facts, scientific law, reasoning and logic.

3. The scientific method involves testing that is repeatable and observable. It could be incorporate experiments that are rigorously predefined to test one's hypothesis or aspect of it.

4. It involves documenting the testing in formal scientific language and presenting it for peer review.

Theory can guide our behavior as in this case.

To me, it's right to know and using longer term studies beyond 90 days and two years. These studies should not use humans as guinea pigs and the environment as the testing grounds in order to save time and money when people's and the earth's health and welfare are involved. Much of which hasn't been done by the biotech industry. Instead, they have obfuscated the issues and looked out only for their profits when their patents were involved. They want to use further genetic engineering to solve their initial failures in genetic engineering instead of accepting responsibility, getting sued and paying out compensation for lawsuits against them.

Instead of pointing the finger at me for dishonesty, you should be pointing the finger at the biotech industry for dishonesty. I am pointing the middle one at them and choosing to buy organic and non-GMO foods for the most part until GMO labeling becomes law. You should also be pointing the finger at yourself in the mirror. You do not even know what dishonesty is.

My conclusions are consumers have a RTK and they are allowed choose what to put into their bodies. Biotech has failed miserably in their longer term testing and needs to be sued. Laws protecting them give them carte blanche and go too far and need to be changed. Our islands of Hawaii and their people should not be their laboratory. The same for other parts of the world. Patents giving them control over seeds for food production need to be rescinded. Thus, it is a matter of laws and legislation while you are totally ignorant of this fact. It just goes to show your narrow thinking and views, dishonesty, lack of scientific knowledge, lack of understanding our laws and legal system and lack of common sense. You need to pull your head out, but maybe you just enjoy remaining in the dark.

 

[ChristineM]

What's not good is Borlaug may have supported GMO. He supported Monsanto and they supported him. I mean he would be in favor of practically everything they are doing. Oh well. Another one bites the dust.

And still he saved over a billion lives

Im not sure i could say that of any other person, company, country or religion

And you are disappointed with him. Go figure

 

[Subduction Zone]

Been here too long. Was trying to extract what you are really saying from all the fluff and it's that you're mostly wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

More dishonesty. That was short and to the point considering how foolish the post that you wrote was. I am sorry if it was too difficult for you to understand.

I know science and scientific theories while you can barely grasp it. You do not know or explain the following in your rants:

Please, now you are openly lying. And when you post nonsense you are in no position to call something a "rant".

1. Science can show ideas to be right, wrong or I don't know, i.e. more research is necessary.

By forming ideas into the form of hypotheses they can be tested and seen if they were wrong. They can't be proven to be right. Whether "more research" needs to be done is a judgement call.

2. Scientific theories are well substantiated explanations of reality using the the scientific method of testing one's hypotheses, and incorporating substantial facts, scientific law, reasoning and logic.

So you can copy from other sources, and you should have understood the answer to your first question. By the way, this is not a question on your part it is an observation.

3. The scientific method involves testing that is repeatable and observable. It could be incorporate experiments that are rigorously predefined to test one's hypothesis or aspect of it.

4. It involves documenting the testing in formal scientific language and presenting it for peer review.

Theory can guide our behavior as in this case.

I thought that you wanted those concepts explained to you. They are all fairly straight forward claims that you seem to have copied and pasted from some unattributed source. Was there a point to that? You may copy and paste, you clearly do no understand.

To me, it's right to know and using longer term studies beyond 90 days and two years. These studies should not use humans as guinea pigs and the environment as the testing grounds in order to save time and money when people's and the earth's health and welfare are involved. Much of which hasn't been done by the biotech industry. Instead, they have obfuscated the issues and looked out only for their profits when their patents were involved. They want to use further genetic engineering to solve their initial failures in genetic engineering instead of accepting responsibility, getting sued and paying out compensation for lawsuits against them.

LOL! You keep moving the goal posts. None of the studies that I know of were for less than 90 days, your original claim. Now it is up to two years. Of course you appear to be mixing in animal studies with studies on people Animal studies that involve short lived animals tend to be much shorter than studies involving people. Do understand why?

Instead of pointing the finger at me for dishonesty, you should be pointing the finger at the biotech industry for dishonesty. I am pointing the middle one at them and choosing to buy organic and non-GMO foods for the most part until GMO labeling becomes law. You should also be pointing the finger at yourself in the mirror. You do not even know what dishonesty is.

When you find some I will do so. But to date that has been your problem.

I tell you what. Be prepared to support the claims you make and we can concentrate on the biotech industry. And since they have tested their product and the claims against them tend to be based upon hysteria if you want labeling force on an industry the burden of proof is upon you. What you propose is not the "middle ground". If you want to make sure that you don't want to buy GMO simply continue to buy organic. The use of GMO's is not allowed in organic foods:

Can GMOs Be Used in Organic Products? | Agricultural Marketing Service

Your "solution" is redundant.

My conclusions are consumers have a RTK and they are allowed choose what to put into their bodies. Biotech has failed miserably in their longer term testing and needs to be sued. Laws protecting them give them carte blanche and go too far and need to be changed. Our islands of Hawaii and their people should not be their laboratory. The same for other parts of the world. Patents giving them control over seeds for food production need to be rescinded. Thus, it is a matter of laws and legislation while you are totally ignorant of this fact. It just goes to show your narrow thinking and views, dishonesty, lack of scientific knowledge, lack of understanding our laws and legal system and lack of common sense. You need to pull your head out, but maybe you just enjoy remaining in the dark.

The right to know is only within reason. For example companies are not required to print recipes for their products. Coca Cola is not required to divulge its secret formula. All that is required are general ingredients. If someone wants to give more information they are free to do so. For example I am a fan of this:

They tell you that they are made with 'PLUM TOMATOES FROM ITALY'S SAN MARZANO REGION". When I take the bother to make home made lasagna I take the extra step of buying San Marzano tomatoes, there are several different brands but they are all at least twice as much as domestic brands. The flavor is worth it. Those companies use the extra information given to justify their higher charges.


"I am scared of GMO's" is not a valid reason to demand that companies tell you if they use them.

 

[ChristineM]

More dishonesty. That was short and to the point considering how foolish the post that you wrote was. I am sorry if it was too difficult for you to understand.



Please, now you are openly lying. And when you post nonsense you are in no position to call something a "rant".



By forming ideas into the form of hypotheses they can be tested and seen if they were wrong. They can't be proven to be right. Whether "more research" needs to be done is a judgement call.



So you can copy from other sources, and you should have understood the answer to your first question. By the way, this is not a question on your part it is an observation.



I thought that you wanted those concepts explained to you. They are all fairly straight forward claims that you seem to have copied and pasted from some unattributed source. Was there a point to that? You may copy and paste, you clearly do no understand.



LOL! You keep moving the goal posts. None of the studies that I know of were for less than 90 days, your original claim. Now it is up to two years. Of course you appear to be mixing in animal studies with studies on people Animal studies that involve short lived animals tend to be much shorter than studies involving people. Do understand why?



When you find some I will do so. But to date that has been your problem.

I tell you what. Be prepared to support the claims you make and we can concentrate on the biotech industry. And since they have tested their product and the claims against them tend to be based upon hysteria if you want labeling force on an industry the burden of proof is upon you. What you propose is not the "middle ground". If you want to make sure that you don't want to buy GMO simply continue to buy organic. The use of GMO's is not allowed in organic foods:

Can GMOs Be Used in Organic Products? | Agricultural Marketing Service

Your "solution" is redundant.



The right to know is only within reason. For example companies are not required to print recipes for their products. Coca Cola is not required to divulge its secret formula. All that is required are general ingredients. If someone wants to give more information they are free to do so. For example I am a fan of this:

They tell you that they are made with 'PLUM TOMATOES FROM ITALY'S SAN MARZANO REGION". When I take the bother to make home made lasagna I take the extra step of buying San Marzano tomatoes, there are several different brands but they are all at least twice as much as domestic brands. The flavor is worth it. Those companies use the extra information given to justify their higher charges.


"I am scared of GMO's" is not a valid reason to demand that companies tell you if they use them.

On our old forum, several times i had Americans bemoaning the dismal US tomato. Good to know decent tomatoes are available.

In the uk there were usually 3 or 4 types available in supermarkets, cherry, a couple of round and plumb, all red.

Here in france the range is astounding. Ive seem market stalls with 30+ varieties, from grape size to football, round, plum, pear shaped, smooth, nobbly, red, green, yellow, brown, black, stripes.

The black tomatoes are a delight. If you spot them on sale give them a try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On our old forum, several times i had Americans bemoaning the dismal US tomato. Good to know decent tomatoes are available.

In the uk there were usually 3 or 4 types available in supermarkets, cherry, a couple of round and plumb, all red.

Here in france the range is astounding. Ive seem market stalls with 30+ varieties, from grape size to football, round, plum, pear shaped, smooth, nobbly, red, green, yellow, brown, black, stripes.

The black tomatoes are a delight. If you spot them on sale give them a try.

I posted earlier about a local vegetable stand that has "Yakima Tomatoes". They are from eastern Washington, the climate is totally different east of the Cascades here. They are almost as good as the home grown ones that I ate while growing up. At Trader Joe's they have a variety at times too. I have seen brown ones but never black.

The main problem with "fresh tomatoes" in our stores is that they were bred so that they would survive long distance shipping. Flavor suffered as a result. One aspect of GMO that is promising is that they may be able to re-engineer the favor back into them, though they are trying to breed the flavor back in using standard methods:



A Genetic Fix to Put the Taste Back in Tomatoes

 

[ChristineM]

I posted earlier about a local vegetable stand that has "Yakima Tomatoes". They are from eastern Washington, the climate is totally different east of the Cascades here. They are almost as good as the home grown ones that I ate while growing up. At Trader Joe's they have a variety at times too. I have seen brown ones but never black.

The main problem with "fresh tomatoes" in our stores is that they were bred so that they would survive long distance shipping. Flavor suffered as a result. One aspect of GMO that is promising is that they may be able to re-engineer the favor back into them, though they are trying to breed the flavor back in using standard methods:



A Genetic Fix to Put the Taste Back in Tomatoes

Supermarket tomatoes (and strawberries (and so much other fruit and veg)) tend to be devoid of taste
But the tomato's from the markets here are usually (not always) as tasty (or tastier) as i remember as a kid. I lived in a village with several market gardens so i was spoiled for taste. Im glad to say one of the bonuses of moving to france is getting real tasting food again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Supermarket tomatoes (and strawberries (and so much other fruit and veg)) tend to be devoid of taste
But the tomato's from the markets here are usually (not always) as tasty (or tastier) as i remember as a kid. I lived in a village with several market gardens so i was spoiled for taste. Im glad to say one of the bonuses of moving to france is getting real tasting food again.

Strawberries grow well where I live so we do have decent strawberries every year. When I was a kid my dad had bought an old broken down "Grade B" dairy farm. That meant that it was not using the most modern methods of milk transport and storage. Also the barn was ancient, at least for the area. We were not farmers and did very little in that way. Great place to grow up though. Hills, woods and a lake. All detrimental to farming which kept the price down but great for kids. He also started a "small" vegetable garden. At first we had just a few vegetables form it, but it grew every year. By the time we left we practically never bought vegetables. We not only had more than enough fresh, we also canned and froze enough to last through the winter. It kept us busy and we were spoiled vegetable wise. For years I could not eat corn on the cob after that. In our opinion there was no such thing as "fresh" at a store. When one grows one's own corn one can taste the difference between what was picked today and what was picked yesterday.

When I see a tomato with black cracks where the stem attaches I know it was vine ripened in the Sun and that its flavor would be far superior to the perfect red ones from California.

 

[ChristineM]

Strawberries grow well where I live so we do have decent strawberries every year. When I was a kid my dad had bought an old broken down "Grade B" dairy farm. That meant that it was not using the most modern methods of milk transport and storage. Also the barn was ancient, at least for the area. We were not farmers and did very little in that way. Great place to grow up though. Hills, woods and a lake. All detrimental to farming which kept the price down but great for kids. He also started a "small" vegetable garden. At first we had just a few vegetables form it, but it grew every year. By the time we left we practically never bought vegetables. We not only had more than enough fresh, we also canned and froze enough to last through the winter. It kept us busy and we were spoiled vegetable wise. For years I could not eat corn on the cob after that. In our opinion there was no such thing as "fresh" at a store. When one grows one's own corn one can taste the difference between what was picked today and what was picked yesterday.

When I see a tomato with black cracks where the stem attaches I know it was vine ripened in the Sun and that its flavor would be far superior to the perfect red ones from California.

Ha, ha coincidences, i too was a farm girl, beef with a sideline of dairy. No lake through, i had the river ribble to swim in and a Roman archeological dig to explore.

Here we only have a courtyard but i grow muscat grapes and Charlotte strawberries

 

[gnostic]

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

You are the one who making positive assertion that intelligence is directly involved in changes, so you are the one who should be presenting evidences to back up your claim.

You cannot demand evidences from anyone else, when you started this course of the debate.

So where are your evidences of Intelligent Designer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha, ha coincidences, i too was a farm girl, beef with a sideline of dairy. No lake through, i had the river ribble to swim in and a Roman archeological dig to explore.

Here we only have a courtyard but i grow muscat grapes and Charlotte strawberries

We had a couple of creeks that flowed quite strongly in the spring. Ooh! And an island. The lake was essentially a swamp at one point and one could wade out to an island or take a canoe to it in the spring before it became impassable to that. Sadly no Roman ruins, though Jesse James supposedly used the lake that we lived on as escape route one winter. Still a great place to grow up. Lots of stories of the place of course. And of course tons of stories.

 

[ChristineM]

We had a couple of creeks that flowed quite strongly in the spring. Ooh! And an island. The lake was essentially a swamp at one point and one could wade out to an island or take a canoe to it in the spring before it became impassable to that. Sadly no Roman ruins, though Jesse James supposedly used the lake that we lived on as escape route one winter. Still a great place to grow up. Lots of stories of the place of course. And of course tons of stories.

They made a museum out of it

Ribchester Museum home page

 

[Subduction Zone]

They made a museum out of it

Ribchester Museum home page

You got me beat. My Dad sold his farm and it became a retreat center. Please note, it was still called for the previous owners of it even though my dad owned it for a good ten years:

History | Mount Olivet Conference & Retreat Center

That is the house I grew up in. It is no longer there. They wanted a new building and since there was little historical value, except for some of the hardware, they used it for practice for the fire department. Though it does not look like it parts of it were originally a log cabin. When they burnt it the logs showed up through the clapboards. The small tree in the foreground is a honey locust and it was quite a bit larger when we left.

And a view from the "island". It looks like the lake level may have dropped slightly. We did not have the luxury of a boardwalk:

 

[ChristineM]

You got me beat. My Dad sold his farm and it became a retreat center. Please note, it was still called for the previous owners of it even though my dad owned it for a good ten years:

History | Mount Olivet Conference & Retreat Center

That is the house I grew up in. It is no longer there. They wanted a new building and since there was little historical value, except for some of the hardware, they used it for practice for the fire department. Though it does not look like it parts of it were originally a log cabin. When they burnt it the logs showed up through the clapboards. The small tree in the foreground is a honey locust and it was quite a bit larger when we left.

And a view from the "island". It looks like the lake level may have dropped slightly. We did not have the luxury of a boardwalk:

Lovely place. Nature at its best. Taken in autumn (fall)?

This is my childhood home

House with cowsheds behind at the top on the bend of the river

Museum just below and Roman ruins below that in the trees

And this is where we live now

 

[james bond]

More dishonesty. That was short and to the point considering how foolish the post that you wrote was. I am sorry if it was too difficult for you to understand.



Please, now you are openly lying. And when you post nonsense you are in no position to call something a "rant".



By forming ideas into the form of hypotheses they can be tested and seen if they were wrong. They can't be proven to be right. Whether "more research" needs to be done is a judgement call.



So you can copy from other sources, and you should have understood the answer to your first question. By the way, this is not a question on your part it is an observation.



I thought that you wanted those concepts explained to you. They are all fairly straight forward claims that you seem to have copied and pasted from some unattributed source. Was there a point to that? You may copy and paste, you clearly do no understand.



LOL! You keep moving the goal posts. None of the studies that I know of were for less than 90 days, your original claim. Now it is up to two years. Of course you appear to be mixing in animal studies with studies on people Animal studies that involve short lived animals tend to be much shorter than studies involving people. Do understand why?



When you find some I will do so. But to date that has been your problem.

I tell you what. Be prepared to support the claims you make and we can concentrate on the biotech industry. And since they have tested their product and the claims against them tend to be based upon hysteria if you want labeling force on an industry the burden of proof is upon you. What you propose is not the "middle ground". If you want to make sure that you don't want to buy GMO simply continue to buy organic. The use of GMO's is not allowed in organic foods:

Can GMOs Be Used in Organic Products? | Agricultural Marketing Service

Your "solution" is redundant.



The right to know is only within reason. For example companies are not required to print recipes for their products. Coca Cola is not required to divulge its secret formula. All that is required are general ingredients. If someone wants to give more information they are free to do so. For example I am a fan of this:

They tell you that they are made with 'PLUM TOMATOES FROM ITALY'S SAN MARZANO REGION". When I take the bother to make home made lasagna I take the extra step of buying San Marzano tomatoes, there are several different brands but they are all at least twice as much as domestic brands. The flavor is worth it. Those companies use the extra information given to justify their higher charges.


"I am scared of GMO's" is not a valid reason to demand that companies tell you if they use them.

Just slap on made with homemade GMO tomatoes or made with Napa Valley GMO ingredients label: tomatoes, tomatoes puree, ketchup, roundup, bleccch. Is that so hard?

 

[james bond]

Supermarket tomatoes (and strawberries (and so much other fruit and veg)) tend to be devoid of taste
But the tomato's from the markets here are usually (not always) as tasty (or tastier) as i remember as a kid. I lived in a village with several market gardens so i was spoiled for taste. Im glad to say one of the bonuses of moving to france is getting real tasting food again.

I'm pretty sure the supermarket tomatoes devoid of taste are GMO. They made 'em prettier, but had to sacrifice taste.

Uniform ripening Encodes a Golden 2-like Transcription Factor Regulating Tomato Fruit Chloroplast Development

 

[james bond]

Eh. Is the a GMO cartoon? I can't tell because it's not labeled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just slap on made with homemade GMO tomatoes or made with Napa Valley GMO ingredients label: tomatoes, tomatoes puree, ketchup, roundup, bleccch. Is that so hard?

Your irrational fear is still not letting you post honestly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm pretty sure the supermarket tomatoes devoid of taste are GMO. They made 'em prettier, but had to sacrifice taste.

Uniform ripening Encodes a Golden 2-like Transcription Factor Regulating Tomato Fruit Chloroplast Development

Nope, that is traditional farming. Nothing GMO about them. I can see that you did not understand the article that you linked. They found the gene that allows them to "ripen" perfectly. But that is not an example of GMO, it is good old artificial selection. The same thing that brought you the German Shepherd and the beagle.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm pretty sure the supermarket tomatoes devoid of taste are GMO. They made 'em prettier, but had to sacrifice taste.

Uniform ripening Encodes a Golden 2-like Transcription Factor Regulating Tomato Fruit Chloroplast Development

If you are not sure then dont eat tomatos.

Same applies to any other fruit and veg and meat.

 

[Audie]

I'm pretty sure the supermarket tomatoes devoid of taste are GMO. They made 'em prettier, but had to sacrifice taste.

Uniform ripening Encodes a Golden 2-like Transcription Factor Regulating Tomato Fruit Chloroplast Development

Do you have the same objection to use of ionizing radiation to preserve food?