GMOs

[Kerr]

I slept in today and was out all day, otherwise I'd have answered. Never seen such ridiculous misuse of a thread. You apparently choose to humiliate yourselves by abusing what should be typical policies in a thread. I have chosen not to report that for now.

This belongs in evolutionism vs. creationism because in my opinion atheists are the majority voice behind GMOs. I am an ex-atheist myself, but after observing an interview with a scientist stating that animals who had GMOs tested on them could not have children by the third generation you'd think people would come to their senses on this matter. There's little else to say. Gene therapy has never produced solid results, from cloning to GMOs - it's dangerous science and it belongs beside atrocities like the Holocaust in history. I'm sure one day it will find it's place there.

Are you implying that if you are an atheist you have to support GMOs?

Personally I am sceptical about GMOs, but for pragmatic reasons rather then religious ones. There is just so much that can go wrong. At least theoretically. But I am not completely opposed to the idea itself, I guess. I just dont have much faith in humanitys ability to not screw up.

 

[mycorrhiza]

This belongs in evolutionism vs. creationism because in my opinion atheists are the majority voice behind GMOs. I am an ex-atheist myself, but after observing an interview with a scientist stating that animals who had GMOs tested on them could not have children by the third generation you'd think people would come to their senses on this matter. There's little else to say. Gene therapy has never produced solid results, from cloning to GMOs - it's dangerous science and it belongs beside atrocities like the Holocaust in history. I'm sure one day it will find it's place there.

I have yet to find a single serious study supporting that GMO products are harmful. It's just insertion of one or several genes, and which gene differs from crop to crop. Even if one GMO product turned out to be harmful, that wouldn't mean that all are.

Let's take a look a one of the more common features of GMO crops: BT toxins. BT toxin is natural, specific and allowed in organic farming. It targets certain insects and thus is not harmful towards animals such as us humans. It's one of the least environmentally harmful pesticides there are.

Many other compounds in food we eat is harmful towards other species but not to us. Chocolate is toxic to dogs, but we can eat as much of it as we like without any harm. Many non-GM food plants produce their own specific toxins that kill or impair insects without doing any harm to humans.

Another GMO feature: added nutritional value. What harm would vitamin A do to us? It being produced by a GMO crop doesn't magically turn it into poison, because it's still has the same chemical structure.


As with everything artificial there is a lot of junk science and fear mongering going on. New technology will always scare some people, that's how it always has been. There are still people who are afraid of microwave ovens, thinking that it will make their food poisonous!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You say that now, before the third generation has happened. That is what I was stating should be graspable. If in three generations due to the pesticides in our own bodies we cannot reproduce how will we continue to survive, buddy? Call that laughable?

Yes.

Do you honestly believe that's going to be the case? That there aren't millions of scientists in agriculture and food standards research who would have blown the whistle on pesticides that cause infertility? Are you serious?

I'm talking about inevitable extinction vs. some going hungry.

No, you're talking absolute nonsense. I would absolutely love to see the science that supports your claims.

And you're pretty much guaranteed that the poor people they're feeding that wheat to don't know they're eating something that will prevent their children's children's children reproduce.

And here's your answer for requests of an article. gmo animal infertility - Bing

Oh wow, you can type a random phrase into a search engine and it will spew lots of uninformed articles from new age health food and alternative medicine websites that have absolutely no basis whatsoever in reality. I already explained the vast majority (if not all) of the food we consume is genetically modified.

This kind of uninformed scare-mongering and total lack of understanding of modern agricultural and farming methods is what perpetuates this ridiculous idea that "GM = frankenfood!" People simply have no idea what they are talking about, and you have fallen for the same garbage.

Go and read some of the actual science involved.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, as there are plenty of Christians and other theists who do accept evolution (Saint Frankenstein and myself being among them). Deists would certainly have no dogmatic problem with evolution.

You should probably familiarize yourself with theistic evolution.

Yes. The Catholic Church accepts evolutionary theory and is heavily involved in the sciences. The Vatican operates a prestigious academy for the sciences and an observatory. Many of the most prominent theologians that connect evolution to belief in God have been Catholic. Teilhard, a Catholic priest, was one of the first and many others have followed suit. It's really only the most conservative and right-wing religious groups that don't accept evolutionary theory. Since those groups have more social power in America, we have a much higher number of people rejecting evolution, which really sets us apart from the rest of the West.

 

[KMGC]

Many, or most pantheists, deists, and theists believe in evolution. And there are Christians, Jews, and even Muslims who believe in evolution (actually, not just believe, but being convinced based on the evidence they've seen).

Here's the problem:

Every cat is a four legged animal.

Does that mean that every four legged animal is a cat?

No!

Even if every atheist is an evolutionist, it does *not* mean that every evolutionist is an atheist.

Your logic is flawed.

Or put it this way, KMGC is a poster on RF, therefore every poster on RF is KMGC?

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Based on this site Hindus accept a different type of evolution, Two and only two Catholics in upper areas of scientific delusion have accepted that intelligent design is impossible, and the rest of them accept evolution as a plausible theory while there is no evidence of God present to be observed by the majority. Then there's a whole massive list of churches at the bottom who fully do not support evolution. I guess you could say I may have seen most religiousness coming from that big list, but to me evolution would never have been theorized of had it not been for atheists being among them as no person who believed in God would naturally come to the conclusion that nothing exploded became a zygote and then transformed over many years into life as we know it. Consciousness evolves, physical doesn't truly. And there is a difference between the transformation of a caterpillar into a connected species and a fish fully disconnecting from it's original DNA and blood and into human form only by reproduction instead of transforming in it's life.

Belief in God doesn't undermine evolution: Column
Then there's this study, which states that 60% of americans (and that's america only) believe in evolution. Furthermore it states that about 24% of adults in the US believe a supreme being "guided the evolution of living things"
That's only 24% which puts me in the higher percentile as far as accuracy goes, despite that it also says 90% believe in God. But I'm not American, and this was the only study I could find. So as far as I'm concerned America is just a contradictory country.

Or put it this way. KMGC is a valid poster on RF, therefore, every theist on RF is valid.

 

[KMGC]

I have yet to find a single serious study supporting that GMO products are harmful. It's just insertion of one or several genes, and which gene differs from crop to crop. Even if one GMO product turned out to be harmful, that wouldn't mean that all are.

Let's take a look a one of the more common features of GMO crops: BT toxins. BT toxin is natural, specific and allowed in organic farming. It targets certain insects and thus is not harmful towards animals such as us humans. It's one of the least environmentally harmful pesticides there are.

Many other compounds in food we eat is harmful towards other species but not to us. Chocolate is toxic to dogs, but we can eat as much of it as we like without any harm. Many non-GM food plants produce their own specific toxins that kill or impair insects without doing any harm to humans.

Another GMO feature: added nutritional value. What harm would vitamin A do to us? It being produced by a GMO crop doesn't magically turn it into poison, because it's still has the same chemical structure.


As with everything artificial there is a lot of junk science and fear mongering going on. New technology will always scare some people, that's how it always has been. There are still people who are afraid of microwave ovens, thinking that it will make their food poisonous!

There's a difference between putting vitamins in a plant and putting something designed to kill in them. Cigarettes were put down under certain laws inevitably, and so will GMOs.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is it just me or are atheists believing that as all was once one molecule that altered itself "naturally" there is no reason not to combine the DNA of other molecules.

A rather incoherent non-sequitur.

 

[KMGC]

Yes.

Do you honestly believe that's going to be the case? That there aren't millions of scientists in agriculture and food standards research who would have blown the whistle on pesticides that cause infertility? Are you serious?



No, you're talking absolute nonsense. I would absolutely love to see the science that supports your claims.


Oh wow, you can type a random phrase into a search engine and it will spew lots of uninformed articles from new age health food and alternative medicine websites that have absolutely no basis whatsoever in reality. I already explained the vast majority (if not all) of the food we consume is genetically modified.





This kind of uninformed scare-mongering and total lack of understanding of modern agricultural and farming methods is what perpetuates this ridiculous idea that "GM = frankenfood!" People simply have no idea what they are talking about, and you have fallen for the same garbage.

Go and read some of the actual science involved.

Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and GMOs
I challenge you to find and provide ONE peer-reviewed paper that is tested in it's results by another and post it in this thread. When you find it, please let me know. I really want you to actually, I just don't think it's possible.
And it is possible to avoid GMO food if you go organic, and avoid wheats. I choose not to risk not having children, while I have a choice.
Try this video on for size. It's a little while to watch, but it might enlighten you about just what is going on behind the scenes, and if you ask me it's just a fattening of the pockets of scientists with money by corporations like Monsanto, to make them just a little lazy about their test results. Try to take this next video seriously.

I'm posting this again so you watch it, and learn some of how it is probable that in many cases all we are getting is numbers and percentages instead of adequate, peer reviewed documentation as was previously introduced by the scientific community before the big bucks came in.

Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and GMOs

 

[KMGC]

You're kind of "evidence challenged" aren't you?

...He said, not providing opposing evidence...

 

[McBell]

...He said, not providing opposing evidence...

Unfortunately for you, you are the one making a claim.
It is on you to support your claim.

Thus far you have not done so.
And no, merely pointing to random articles by unqualified people does not support your claim.


Now the question is...
Are you going to present some actual peer reviewed scientific research that supports your claim or are you satisfied with the hit to your credibility?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and GMOs

Dr. John Huber is a fraud, and most definitely not an expert on GMOs.

Dr. Huber turns down my generous offer « Biology Fortified, Inc.
Don Huber, controversial activist scientist promoting mysterious GMO superbug scare, has no data | Genetic Literacy Project

I challenge you to find and provide ONE peer-reviewed paper that is tested in it's results by another and post it in this thread. When you find it, please let me know. I really want you to actually, I just don't think it's possible.

Erm, find a peer-reviewed paper on what, exactly?

And it is possible to avoid GMO food if you go organic, and avoid wheats.

No, actually it isn't. All of those crops you eat are still artificially selected for, which is a form of genetic modification - or did you not know that GM doesn't just mean "grown in a lab"?

I choose not to risk not having children, while I have a choice.

While you're at it, I heard not hopping up and down on on leg everywhere you go reduces your chance of child rearing as well, so you might as well do that just to be safe. It has just as much credibility as your claims thus far.

Try this video on for size. It's a little while to watch, but it might enlighten you about just what is going on behind the scenes, and if you ask me it's just a fattening of the pockets of scientists with money by corporations like Monsanto, to make them just a little lazy about their test results. Try to take this next video seriously.

I will watch it when I have the chance, but frankly you are in no position to lecture me on what is "going on behind the scenes" considering you have provided me with nothing but links to crackpots, misinformation and flat-out garbage thus far. You've already demonstrated a concerning lack of understanding of what GMO food actually is.

I'm posting this again so you watch it, and learn some of how it is probable that in many cases all we are getting is numbers and percentages instead of adequate, peer reviewed documentation as was previously introduced by the scientific community before the big bucks came in.

Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and GMOs

Once again, John Huber is not a "toxicology expert". Read the links I provided above.

 

[Parsimony]

I guess you could say I may have seen most religiousness coming from that big list, but to me evolution would never have been theorized of had it not been for atheists being among them as no person who believed in God would naturally come to the conclusion that nothing exploded became a zygote and then transformed over many years into life as we know it.

So now you're lumping the Big Bang in with evolution?

Charles Darwin still believed in God when he wrote The Origin of Species. It was only later in life that he became agnostic. As such, Darwin had no atheistic motivations for theorizing evolution.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So now you're lumping the Big Bang in with evolution?

Charles Darwin still believed in God when he wrote The Origin of Species. It was only later in life that he became agnostic. As such, Darwin had no atheistic motivations for theorizing evolution.

Wasn't Mendel a priest?

 

[Parsimony]

Wasn't Mendel a priest?

Something like that I believe, yes. Though I would consider Mendelian inheritance to be as compatible with creationism as it is with evolution, since creationists accept microevolution.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Something like that I believe, yes. Though I would consider Mendelian inheritance to be as compatible with creationism as it is with evolution, since creationists accept microevolution.

I've remarked before that what was interesting was a year after Darwin has Origin of Species published, Mendels work is republished. There was a perfect opportunity right there for Darwins theory to be shut down, if what Mendel had written about in his studies of classical genetics had varied even slightly it could have easily gone against what Darwin had written.

Now with what we know about DNA and DNA sequencing and genomes it's amazing that evolution is still fought so strongly again. Even if you got rid of the fossil record how do you explain the DNA evidence?

 

[Parsimony]

Even if you got rid of the fossil record how do you explain the DNA evidence?

By saying it was "designed that way" (although that explanation falls quite short for some things like pseudogenes and ERV elements. Doesn't stop the creationists from saying it any way).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

By saying it was "designed that way" (although that explanation falls quite short for some things like pseudogenes and ERV elements. Doesn't stop the creationists from saying it any way).

Which falls flat against a literal interpretation of Genesis. To say that God uses the exam same constructs for all life is to ignore that in Genesis that Man's creation is separate and special (at least in Genesis 2). In Genesis 2 mans creation is not only done with Gods own hand, but in Gods own image. Are you to say that Chimpanzees are also in Gods image? Or just a little bit of it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's a difference between putting vitamins in a plant and putting something designed to kill in them. Cigarettes were put down under certain laws inevitably, and so will GMOs.

The real problem with GMO food is that they are propitiatory seeds that locks farmers into contracts that have heavy restrictions on them and the seeds have to be used with propitiatory pesticides. They also cause great damage to the natural crops grown around them and may lead to their extinction. There is a very good chance that these propitiatory seeds may end up completely dominating the food's supply, putting control of the world's food in the hands of a small number of (mainly chemical) corporations. This is extremely alarming.

Please watch:

[youtube]6VEZYQF9WlE[/youtube]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_According_to_Monsanto

We do not need any nefarious tin foil hat theories about sterilizing agents in order to hate GMOs. There are plenty of other, much more valid reasons.

 

[KMGC]

Dr. John Huber is a fraud, and most definitely not an expert on GMOs.

Dr. Huber turns down my generous offer « Biology Fortified, Inc.
Don Huber, controversial activist scientist promoting mysterious GMO superbug scare, has no data | Genetic Literacy Project


Erm, find a peer-reviewed paper on what, exactly?


No, actually it isn't. All of those crops you eat are still artificially selected for, which is a form of genetic modification - or did you not know that GM doesn't just mean "grown in a lab"?


While you're at it, I heard not hopping up and down on on leg everywhere you go reduces your chance of child rearing as well, so you might as well do that just to be safe. It has just as much credibility as your claims thus far.


I will watch it when I have the chance, but frankly you are in no position to lecture me on what is "going on behind the scenes" considering you have provided me with nothing but links to crackpots, misinformation and flat-out garbage thus far. You've already demonstrated a concerning lack of understanding of what GMO food actually is.


Once again, John Huber is not a "toxicology expert". Read the links I provided above.

It should be pretty obvious what peer reviewed papers I'm talking about, we're talking about GMOs.

If Don - and to clarify, his name is DON - Huber is not a toxicology expert who is?
No high up scientist in their right mind would accept an offer from a random audience member to examine and thusly potentially verify as false their work. It's like saying a pro wrestler would up and allow themselves to get in a fight with an audience member (not a paid actor) who could be hiding a weapon or anything like that.
The validity of the article you posted is questionable just by the format. Reminds me of dozens of other scams I've read. He's not a crackpot because he's against GMOs, and I'm presently of the opinion that due to your immature jokes and lack of ability to adequately represent your opinion without expressing childish jokes or attempts at deluding others by entering some sort of mob psychology prompt where because you joked about me they'll side with you instead, you may as well not post at all.
Just because he has a theory running where he has no peer-reviewed papers, doesn't make everything he has ever known useless. If you're going to present that he himself has no data with evidence that it's because there are no peer-reviewed papers... you only back up my argument that there is NO DATA on GMOs that is peer reviewed, and I'm QUITE certain that if that is even required, it has been peer reviewed. Furthermore, you state that he is NOT a toxicology expert, providing evidence that he has a theory which has not peer reviewed and that he rejected someones "generous offer." IN NO WAY does this prove that he is not a toxicology expert. It's enough for me to say you are just another among a massive number of hypocritical, convinced critics of pro-health pro-organic, anti-GMO people who just want to watch others play God. You provide ZERO evidence that is directly linked to your statements.
It is rare for me to not to buy food from an organic food store in which all the labels say NON-GMO, but I'm pretty broke of late. Are you suggesting that even those foods are GMO'd?

As well I am not female, despite your presumption, so I have more an issue with impotency. I was tempted to respond in kind, but have decided not to harass you with points that might not even apply to you, as you have done unto me.

Finally, on your statement that he is a crackpot, as derived from the two articles you shared, means nothing. Also, you suggest that wikipedia allows crackpots and misinformers to write on their site, which they likely do not, not that I make any definite claim. Everything I have read on there has come with perfect source material and a good deal of advanced research, unlike your google search for evidence against - Don - Huber, who you are calling a fraud for showing concern that a toxin that targets GROWING POINTS in it's victim is now being widely ingested - essentially- by the human race. It's no wonder animals are infertile.

I ask kindly that you re-read my posts, both of the last two, and not quickly scan over them and the articles you provide for OPINIONS instead of facts. Hell, while I'm at it, I'll clearly state... THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A CRACKPOT THEORY WITH NO DERIVATIVES IN A REALITY IN WHICH A GOD EXISTS. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE DELUDED BY THE ANCIENT SKULLS WE'VE DISCOVERED, THOSE COULD SIMPLY BE ANOTHER SPECIES THAT WENT EXTINCT. SO FAR WE'VE GOT BILLIONS OF BELIEVERS IN A HIGHER POWER IN GENERAL WITH LOADS OF WRITTEN (If no evidence available to the naked eye) EVIDENCE FOR IT, AND A FEW DEAD BODIES AS SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION. Btw, this is coming from someone who used to be an evolutionist. I mean, do you really think we just coincidentally achieved multiple different bodies and forms, can reproduce, and THINK? SERIOUSLY... FOR YOU TO PRESUME THERE ISN'T A DIVINE BEING WHO CAUSED ALL THIS ALIGNMENT IS PLAIN RIDICULOUSNESS. THE CHANCES OF EVERYTHING ALIGNING SO PERFECTLY, EVEN IF AFTER MILLIONS AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS, IS NIL.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It should be pretty obvious what peer reviewed papers I'm talking about, we're talking about GMOs.

If Don - and to clarify, his name is DON - Huber is not a toxicology expert who is?
No high up scientist in their right mind would accept an offer from a random audience member to examine and thusly potentially verify as false their work. It's like saying a pro wrestler would up and allow themselves to get in a fight with an audience member (not a paid actor) who could be hiding a weapon or anything like that.
The validity of the article you posted is questionable just by the format. Reminds me of dozens of other scams I've read. He's not a crackpot because he's against GMOs, and I'm presently of the opinion that due to your immature jokes and lack of ability to adequately represent your opinion without expressing childish jokes or attempts at deluding others by entering some sort of mob psychology prompt where because you joked about me they'll side with you instead, you may as well not post at all.
Just because he has a theory running where he has no peer-reviewed papers, doesn't make everything he has ever known useless. If you're going to present that he himself has no data with evidence that it's because there are no peer-reviewed papers... you only back up my argument that there is NO DATA on GMOs that is peer reviewed, and I'm QUITE certain that if that is even required, it has been peer reviewed. Furthermore, you state that he is NOT a toxicology expert, providing evidence that he has a theory which has not peer reviewed and that he rejected someones "generous offer." IN NO WAY does this prove that he is not a toxicology expert. It's enough for me to say you are just another among a massive number of hypocritical, convinced critics of pro-health pro-organic, anti-GMO people who just want to watch others play God. You provide ZERO evidence that is directly linked to your statements.
It is rare for me to not to buy food from an organic food store in which all the labels say NON-GMO, but I'm pretty broke of late. Are you suggesting that even those foods are GMO'd?

As well I am not female, despite your presumption, so I have more an issue with impotency. I was tempted to respond in kind, but have decided not to harass you with points that might not even apply to you, as you have done unto me.

Finally, on your statement that he is a crackpot, as derived from the two articles you shared, means nothing. Also, you suggest that wikipedia allows crackpots and misinformers to write on their site, which they likely do not, not that I make any definite claim. Everything I have read on there has come with perfect source material and a good deal of advanced research, unlike your google search for evidence against - Don - Huber, who you are calling a fraud for showing concern that a toxin that targets GROWING POINTS in it's victim is now being widely ingested - essentially- by the human race. It's no wonder animals are infertile.

I ask kindly that you re-read my posts, both of the last two, and not quickly scan over them and the articles you provide for OPINIONS instead of facts. Hell, while I'm at it, I'll clearly state... THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A CRACKPOT THEORY WITH NO DERIVATIVES IN A REALITY IN WHICH A GOD EXISTS. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE DELUDED BY THE ANCIENT SKULLS WE'VE DISCOVERED, THOSE COULD SIMPLY BE ANOTHER SPECIES THAT WENT EXTINCT. SO FAR WE'VE GOT BILLIONS OF BELIEVERS IN A HIGHER POWER IN GENERAL WITH LOADS OF WRITTEN (If no evidence available to the naked eye) EVIDENCE FOR IT, AND A FEW DEAD BODIES AS SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION. Btw, this is coming from someone who used to be an evolutionist.

Majority view does not mean the correct view. Belief in a higher power as well differs not only between religions, but within denominations and within the individuals in those denominations.

Within the Abrahamic Spectrum of belief the written evidence does not mean the same to each group. Would you say that the Jewish Belief if less correct than the Christian belief or vice versa? How about the Islamic belief? There's a lot of core belief variations between all three not even in how to practice but in who/what the creator even is.

You mention that a few dead bodies as evidence to support evolution, but again why is your focus on the fossil record? THe theory of evolution works fine without it you can see that in real world applications as well. The fossil record only shows you how far evolution can go, but it does not itself make evolution. So why is your focus only on that?