The World According to Monsanto

[norseamd]

you have a misunderstanding of evolution/natural selection, and science/reasoning in general

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/13/5606070/sperm-pass-trauma-symptoms-through-generations

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fearful-memories-passed-down/

you know you guys are being very deceptive to those who know nothing about science when you claim you guys know what is truth when you do not have any expert knowledge on the subjects

fact is bunnyfubbles you are just trying to win the arguement

also halik is a known supporter of greed and allowing it to effect society so it is not hard to guess his trustworthyness and his thoughts on whether profits can override truth

 

[destrekor]

that is still all of that radiation shit left in that area

Source please.

You clearly have no real grasp on the subject, except for fringe science websites.

Too many people thoroughly misunderstand the physical realities of radiation, decay, the types of radiation, how different forms of nuclear reactions work, the science of the detonation for weapons and what remains, etc etc etc.

People scream "radiation!" and whip up the fear-mongering to a new level. It's a complete lack of scientific understanding.

And the fringe bloggers and tin-foil hat activists just make it all worse because both they lack the necessary knowledge, and all of their readers are equally as clueless.


I loathe Monsanto for their business practices, but the science of what they do is generally quite solid. Like all science, there are some questionable results, and it doesn't work as well when they also have a heavy hand in sponsored research and future funding.

The article in question doesn't even truly put any negative light on the actual GM seeds; it's the business practices and market control, and even worse, government-sponsored market control. We all need to be aware of that and fight it where possible, I absolutely agree. That said, the products they are putting out there are not necessarily bad. There are many variables in farming, and while plants can be hardy due to GM techniques, the "bugs" can adapt/evolve, and nature sure likes to throw a curve ball or two with droughts or other environmental variables.

 

[norseamd]

Source please. You clearly have no real grasp on the subject, except for fringe science websites. Too many people thoroughly misunderstand the physical realities of radiation, decay, the types of radiation, how different forms of nuclear reactions work, the science of the detonation for weapons and what remains, etc etc etc. People scream "radiation!" and whip up the fear-mongering to a new level. It's a complete lack of scientific understanding. And the fringe bloggers and tin-foil hat activists just make it all worse because both they lack the necessary knowledge, and all of their readers are equally as clueless.

no i do not have a total understanding of radiation

i will consider what you say for now

but i am wondering how much you guys know at all

obviously halik is out

and bunnyfubbles is resorting to insults and rhetoric

 

[destrekor]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/13/5606070/sperm-pass-trauma-symptoms-through-generations

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fearful-memories-passed-down/

The discussion is either about plant physiology, or environmentally-induced cancers ("chemicals", radiation, etc).

Where do these articles fit into the discussion? These are entirely unrelated, and show no demonstration of a grasp on the subject at hand. Further, you are only proving it more difficult to demonstrate you can properly link various scientific discoveries to other phenomena.


In relation to your sources, and I fear this will spark yet another off-topic discussion, it's interesting - but it really only provides further insight into how animals pass down information that can be used for either domestication purposes or the generation of instincts. Instincts have to come from somewhere, and it was always natural to assume somehow the memory of events had to be passed down so that future generations could "instinctively" know to avoid a certain situation.
It also strongly explains how animals, through generations of domestication, can become used to, and even co-dependent upon human civilization.

 

[norseamd]

I loathe Monsanto for their business practices, but the science of what they do is generally quite solid. Like all science, there are some questionable results, and it doesn't work as well when they also have a heavy hand in sponsored research and future funding. The article in question doesn't even truly put any negative light on the actual GM seeds; it's the business practices and market control, and even worse, government-sponsored market control. We all need to be aware of that and fight it where possible, I absolutely agree. That said, the products they are putting out there are not necessarily bad. There are many variables in farming, and while plants can be hardy due to GM techniques, the "bugs" can adapt/evolve, and nature sure likes to throw a curve ball or two with droughts or other environmental variables.

agree

i am all for genetic engineering when we learn about exactly what is going on and what does what

for now husbandry guided by genetic engineering knowledge seems like the path forward in designing biological products

monsanto does a lot of science but they need to be broken up and other companies prevented from doing any of this shit in the future to the rest of humanity

 

[BUTCH1]

[QUOTE=bunnyfubbles;
evolution is when a species changes; that change can be lead towards further success of the new species, be inconsequential, or even be a hindrance that leads to a decline or even extinction and an end to that branch on the tree of life.

species don't actively "adapt" to evolve to improve their descendants' chances of survival".

Huh?, fish found living in streams in caves in complete darkness have no eyes or are totally blind, this is an example of a species "adapting" over tens of thousands of generations that eyesight is useless in an environment with zero light, why waste brain and neural capability when it's an unnecessary capability in total darkness. It's possible that a geological situation could change so rapidly that a species does die off before it can adapt to that change, organisms don't just randomly "change" for the heck of it, they do so to survive.

 

[norseamd]

The discussion is either about plant physiology, or environmentally-induced cancers ("chemicals", radiation, etc). Where do these articles fit into the discussion? These are entirely unrelated, and show no demonstration of a grasp on the subject at hand. Further, you are only proving it more difficult to demonstrate you can properly link various scientific discoveries to other phenomena. In relation to your sources, and I fear this will spark yet another off-topic discussion, it's interesting - but it really only provides further insight into how animals pass down information that can be used for either domestication purposes or the generation of instincts. Instincts have to come from somewhere, and it was always natural to assume somehow the memory of events had to be passed down so that future generations could "instinctively" know to avoid a certain situation. It also strongly explains how animals, through generations of domestication, can become used to, and even co-dependent upon human civilization.

not related specifically to plants or such

it had to do with his comment that there is no adaption

 

[norseamd]

Huh?, fish found living in streams in caves in complete darkness have no eyes or are totally blind, this is an example of a species "adapting" over tens of thousands of generations that eyesight is useless in an environment with zero light, why waste brain and neural capability when it's an unnecessary capability in total darkness. It's possible that a geological situation could change so rapidly that a species does die off before it can adapt to that change, organisms don't just randomly "change" for the heck of it, they do so to survive.

the key word is actively

actually darwinian and lamarckism are more or less both true

so a combination of both but darwinianism is probably stronger

 

[BUTCH1]

What data do you have to back up that it MAY have harmful effects? You are you an infallible argument to support your position (ie you can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore we should default that god does exist)

If you watch the video ,the study that went on in Scotland was done by the best of the best over there and when they came out with findings that didn't suit big agri-bussiness they were smeared like bugs on a windscreen. I'm not of the position that "OMG, GMO is deadly!" or other lunatic-fringe crap, the only point I would make is if GMO does in fact come out as a really bad thing we're kinda fucked, it's just wrong to use us as the experiment and NOT label GMO foods as such and let the consumer decide what they want to buy, it's their $$ and their bodies and should be their choice.

 

[destrekor]

evolution is when a species changes; that change can be lead towards further success of the new species, be inconsequential, or even be a hindrance that leads to a decline or even extinction and an end to that branch on the tree of life.

species don't actively "adapt" to evolve to improve their descendants' chances of survival".

Huh?, fish found living in streams in caves in complete darkness have no eyes or are totally blind, this is an example of a species "adapting" over tens of thousands of generations that eyesight is useless in an environment with zero light, why waste brain and neural capability when it's an unnecessary capability in total darkness. It's possible that a geological situation could change so rapidly that a species does die off before it can adapt to that change, organisms don't just randomly "change" for the heck of it, they do so to survive.

I think his argument is that it is not an active, involved process.
It's self-selection of life that is capable of producing off-spring, or is successful enough to attract mates, or is in some form lucky enough.

It's not something the individual species thinks about, or encourages through some special brain-power, such as: "hmmm, I can't do this very well. Well, time to kill off the ol' eyes and develop new senses! huzzah, I'm a super-fish ladies, mate with me!"

Adaptation and evolution just happen. When it's slowly forced due to decreasing odds of survival as a species currently exists, the ones born with a genetic ability to handle it are likely to attract mates. It's life un-consciously selecting for desirable traits. In nature, the winners attract the mates: the one who can provide more for their clan, the one who can defend the clan more, the one who can feed himself more easily, etc.
The one with the longer eye-stalk may or may not get lucky. That longer eye stalk may have no benefit, and yet if it doesn't increase chances of death, it might also survive generations and simply produce a new species or sub-species. It's entirely random and very odd how it all can go down.

But back to the point: it's not an active, thought-about process. The species undergoing the "adaptation" or "evolutionary changes" is likely not even aware of the choices they make in mating, animals just like the look of apparent success, or potential success. They want a winner in their mate.

 

[norseamd]

I think his argument is that it is not an active, involved process. It's self-selection of life that is capable of producing off-spring, or is successful enough to attract mates, or is in some form lucky enough. It's not something the individual species thinks about, or encourages through some special brain-power, such as: "hmmm, I can't do this very well. Well, time to kill off the ol' eyes and develop new senses! huzzah, I'm a super-fish ladies, mate with me!" Adaptation and evolution just happen. When it's slowly forced due to decreasing odds of survival as a species currently exists, the ones born with a genetic ability to handle it are likely to attract mates. It's life un-consciously selecting for desirable traits. In nature, the winners attract the mates: the one who can provide more for their clan, the one who can defend the clan more, the one who can feed himself more easily, etc. The one with the longer eye-stalk may or may not get lucky. That longer eye stalk may have no benefit, and yet if it doesn't increase chances of death, it might also survive generations and simply produce a new species or sub-species. It's entirely random and very odd how it all can go down. But back to the point: it's not an active, thought-about process. The species undergoing the "adaptation" or "evolutionary changes" is likely not even aware of the choices they make in mating, animals just like the look of apparent success, or potential success. They want a winner in their mate.

why i said that adapting probably is happening more on a genetic or biological level than some purposeful organism level

 

[BUTCH1]

I think his argument is that it is not an active, involved process.
It's self-selection of life that is capable of producing off-spring, or is successful enough to attract mates, or is in some form lucky enough.

It's not something the individual species thinks about, or encourages through some special brain-power, such as: "hmmm, I can't do this very well. Well, time to kill off the ol' eyes and develop new senses! huzzah, I'm a super-fish ladies, mate with me!"

Adaptation and evolution just happen. When it's slowly forced due to decreasing odds of survival as a species currently exists, the ones born with a genetic ability to handle it are likely to attract mates. It's life un-consciously selecting for desirable traits. In nature, the winners attract the mates: the one who can provide more for their clan, the one who can defend the clan more, the one who can feed himself more easily, etc.
The one with the longer eye-stalk may or may not get lucky. That longer eye stalk may have no benefit, and yet if it doesn't increase chances of death, it might also survive generations and simply produce a new species or sub-species. It's entirely random and very odd how it all can go down.

But back to the point: it's not an active, thought-about process. The species undergoing the "adaptation" or "evolutionary changes" is likely not even aware of the choices they make in mating, animals just like the look of apparent success, or potential success. They want a winner in their mate.

Good point's, look at the mating rituals some animals go through, fighting almost to the death or sometimes severe injury to ensure the strongest of the lot get to pass along his gene set. In a roundabout way the miracle of antibiotics has in fact weakened the human race, when the plague came around probably everyone was eventually exposed to it, those with the stronger immune-system survived, those who didn't, perished. I had Scarlet fever at 9yrs old, had to be in quarantine for 2 weeks, had to take boatloads of antibiotics and sulfa drugs, in olden times if you got Scarlet fever the child usually died along with his/her under-performing immune system, therefore eliminating any chance of producing offspring and passing along a undesirable genetic trait.

 

[Pulsar]

"all of that radiation shit"

Would you please quantify that?

It's painful reading these posts. Zero scientific reasoning. Essentially, it has the word 'genetic' in it, and that makes it scary.

 

[norseamd]

Would you please quantify that?

you this has already been talked about with deskretor and i will consider what he has to say for now so why are you trying to raise shit with it again?

 

[Pulsar]

you this has already been talked about with deskretor and i will consider what he has to say for now so why are you trying to raise shit with it again?

Because you seem to be completely incapable of using NUMBERS to QUANTIFY the effects of all this 'shit' these companies have done, including Monsanto.

"Oooooo scary" isn't the basis on which to make decisions.

 

[William Gaatjes]

evolution is when a species changes; that change can be lead towards further success of the new species, be inconsequential, or even be a hindrance that leads to a decline or even extinction and an end to that branch on the tree of life.

species don't actively "adapt" to evolve to improve their descendants' chances of survival".

Huh?, fish found living in streams in caves in complete darkness have no eyes or are totally blind, this is an example of a species "adapting" over tens of thousands of generations that eyesight is useless in an environment with zero light, why waste brain and neural capability when it's an unnecessary capability in total darkness. It's possible that a geological situation could change so rapidly that a species does die off before it can adapt to that change, organisms don't just randomly "change" for the heck of it, they do so to survive.

I prefer to see evolution in another light. It can be beneficial, or because the environment allows it, evolution can produce down wards evolution. Meaning that a lack of for example eyes because of some genetic mutation was not beneficial. It is just that the environment was not hazardous enough that a fish without eyes could not survive, for example no predators. However, simultaneously mutations can happen or have happened afterwards or before loosing eyesight were the other senses became better, leaving an advantage over other fish with and without eyes. On the other hand, there are stories that people loosing eyesight get better at using there other senses. But is this also the case for animals ? Could be.

I also hope that Monsanto thinks about the aftermath from introducing GMO crops. The fact that they do not want GMO labels, is just because there business model will suffer from it when people radically turn away from GMO crops. Banning GMO labeling prevents forcing Monsanto to produce proof that every GMO crop is save, not only to eat but also for the environment. We do not want the needed pollinating insects to perish.

 

[norseamd]

Because you seem to be completely incapable of using NUMBERS to QUANTIFY the effects of all this 'shit' these companies have done, including Monsanto. "Oooooo scary" isn't the basis on which to make decisions.

so somehow this gets connected to monsanto?

you guys are just using rhetoric and fud to try to troll your own way around here

 

[norseamd]

I also hope that Monsanto thinks about the aftermath from introducing GMO crops. The fact that they do not want GMO labels, is just because there business model will suffer from it when people radically turn away from GMO crops. Banning GMO labeling prevents forcing Monsanto to produce proof that every GMO crop is save, not only to eat but also for the environment. We do not want the needed pollinating insects to perish.

they are already using genetic engineering to develop natural husbandry as a plan b where gmos will not work

 

[William Gaatjes]

Good point's, look at the mating rituals some animals go through, fighting almost to the death or sometimes severe injury to ensure the strongest of the lot get to pass along his gene set. In a roundabout way the miracle of antibiotics has in fact weakened the human race, when the plague came around probably everyone was eventually exposed to it, those with the stronger immune-system survived, those who didn't, perished. I had Scarlet fever at 9yrs old, had to be in quarantine for 2 weeks, had to take boatloads of antibiotics and sulfa drugs, in olden times if you got Scarlet fever the child usually died along with his/her under-performing immune system, therefore eliminating any chance of producing offspring and passing along a undesirable genetic trait.

One is not always stronger because he/she seem better adept against a given sickness.

You might want to read about the "genetic" disease cystic fibrosis and how it can protect against tuberculosis or typhoid.
One copy of the mutated gene protects, two copies makes you sick.
Another example is sickle cell disease. One copy of the mutated gen increases the chance to survive malaria. Two copies of the gene give sickle cell disease.

 

[norseamd]

One is not always stronger because he/she seem better adept against a given sickness. You might want to read about the "genetic" disease cystic fibrosis and how it can protect against tuberculosis or typhoid. One copy of the mutated gene protects, two copies makes you sick. Another example is sickle cell disease. One copy of the mutated gen increases the chance to survive malaria. Two copies of the gene give sickle cell disease.

yep

thought of sickle cell anemia right away when reading your quote

seems malaria is a very strong influence on survival and that humans of african descent are now found in greater numbers than native americans in areas of malaria

seems this is why we have blood types and great apes have had them for tens of millions of years

all great apes share the same blood type workings

 

[BUTCH1]

One is not always stronger because he/she seem better adept against a given sickness.

You might want to read about the "genetic" disease cystic fibrosis and how it can protect against tuberculosis or typhoid.
One copy of the mutated gene protects, two copies makes you sick.
Another example is sickle cell disease. One copy of the mutated gen increases the chance to survive malaria. Two copies of the gene give sickle cell disease.

Huh, did not know that, interesting, now I feel better about the whole scarlet-fever thing!.. :biggrin:

 

[techs]

I found this well-researched documentary on YT, Damm, the kind of shit Monsanto has done to the worlds food supply-chain is off the chain, complete control of all the seed markets with their GMO product and if you resist somehow your fields "accidentally" wind up with GMO corn, soybeans then guess what? you have to PAY Monsanto royalties for next years seeds, even if they came from your own farm!, sure, go ahead and fight them in court, hope your pockets are deeper than the Grand canyon. Then the complete buy-out of the FDA in getting their product pushed through to market when THEY did the studies and handed the FDA the "cherry-picked" results. I for one am usually one of the last in conspiracy theory's, I have no tinfoil hat, but the person making this was highly praised and she was nominated for several awards for the book and this video, kinda long @1hr49min but I got drawn in and angered by this companies actions and what it has done to harm agriculture around the globe.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

Corporations are people. Why do you hate people? :whiste:

 

[Pocatello]

Corporations are people. Why do you hate people? :whiste:

Because they're the kind of people who crush little people.

 

[BUTCH1]

Corporations are people. Why do you hate people? :whiste:

There was some intelligent conversation going on in this thread until you just posted in it.

 

[Pocatello]

There was some intelligent conversation going on in this thread until you just posted in it.

Really? You really believe that? Really?