PDA

View Full Version : They Are Turning Our Crops, Animals And Even Our Babies Into Freakish Genetic Monsters




John F Kennedy III
07-03-2012, 01:32 PM
They Are Turning Our Crops, Animals And Even Our Babies Into Freakish Genetic Monsters


What Could Go Wrong?

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The greatest environmental threat that we are facing is genetic modification. All over the globe, scientists are treating the fabric of life as if it was a playground where anything goes.


Behind closed doors, scientists all over the planet are creating some of the most freakish and most bizarre monsters that you could possible imagine, and very few people seem concerned about it. But the truth is that messing with the building blocks of life is going to have some very serious consequences. Scientists claim that they are making our crops stronger, more productive and less vulnerable to insects. Scientists claim that they can alter our animals so that they are more “useful” to us. Scientists claim that genetic modification is only going to “enhance” humanity. But what if something goes seriously wrong? For example, what if we learn that eating genetically modified food is really, really bad for us? Well, at this point more than 70 percent of the processed foods sold in the United States contain at least one ingredient that has been genetically modified. It would be kind of hard to go back now. We have rushed ahead and have created hordes of freakish genetic monsters without ever seriously considering the consequences. Someday, future generations may look back on us and wonder how we could have ever been so incredibly foolish.

Frankenfood

We were promised that genetically modified crops would enable us to feed the world. Well, the world is still starving, but we sure have seen super weeds, super pests and super diseases all develop as a result of genetic modification.

A recent article by George Dvorsky discussed how bollworms in China are now becoming resistant to the toxins grown inside Bt cotton….


As far as the real world mutated bollworms are concerned, they’re starting to take off in China. The researchers discovered that resistance-conferring mutations in cotton bollworm were three times more common in northern China than in areas of northwestern China where less Bt cotton has been grown.

A recent NPR article detailed how we are seeing something similar happen in the United States. Rootworms are becoming resistant to the toxins grown inside Bt corn, and this is starting to cause major problems….


The scientists who called for caution now are saying “I told you so,” because there are signs that a new strain of resistant rootworms is emerging. In eastern Iowa, northwestern Illinois, and parts of Minnesota and Nebraska, rows of Bt corn have toppled over, their roots eaten by rootworms. Entomologist Aaron Gassmann at Iowa State University, who authored the PLoS One paper, collected insects from some of these fields and found many with a greater-than-expected ability to tolerate Bt.

This wasn’t supposed to happen.

But it is happening.

Meanwhile, we are also now learning that Bt corn may not be quite as “safe” for humans as we had been promised. The following is from a recent article by Dr. Mercola….


Last year, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found Bt-toxin in the blood of:
93 percent of pregnant women tested
80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies, and
67 percent of non-pregnant women

The study authors speculate that the Bt toxin was likely consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class—which makes sense when you consider that genetically engineered corn is present in the vast majority of all processed foods and drinks in the form of high fructose corn syrup. They also suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn, which most livestock raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO, or so-called “factory farms”) are.

These shocking results raise the frightening possibility that eating Bt corn might actually turn your intestinal flora into a sort of “living pesticide factory”… essentially manufacturing Bt-toxin from within your digestive system on a continuing basis.

If this hypothesis is correct, is it then also possible that the Bt-toxin might damage the integrity of your digestive tract in the same way it damages insects? Remember, the toxin actually ruptures the stomach of insects, causing them to die. The biotech industry has insisted that the Bt-toxin doesn’t bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals (which would include humans). But again, there are peer-reviewed published research showing that Bt-toxin does bind with mouse small intestines and with intestinal tissue from rhesus monkeys.

Are you sure that the food that you are eating is safe?

For much more on the dangers of eating genetically modified food, check out this article.

Turning Our Animals Into Monsters

Scientists all over the world seem to have no problem messing with our animals either.

Recently it was revealed that scientists in China have genetically modified 300 cows to produce milk that has many of the same qualities that human breast milk does.

So how did they do this?

Well, they inserted human genes into the cows.

So those cows are now essentially part human and part cow.

Are you disturbed yet?

You should be.

In a previous article, I detailed quite a few other examples of how they are turning our animals into genetic monsters….

-Scientists in Japan have created a genetically modified mouse that tweets like a bird.

-One U.S. corporation can now produce a very muscular “monster salmon” which can grow up to three times as fast as normal salmon do.

-In Japan, scientists have discovered that they can grow rat organs inside of mice. The researchers hope to use the same technology to grow human organs inside of pigs.

Scientists are even creating “spider goats” and fluorescent cats now. And these are just the things that they are admitting to publicly.

Can you imagine what kind of bizarre monsters are being created in private?

Genetically Modified Humans?

Sadly, now even human babies are being genetically modified. Recently it was reported that scientists have created babies that have three parents. The following is from a recent Daily Mail article….


The world’s first geneticallymodified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.

The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.

So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three ‘parents’.

Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults –two women and one man.

The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their ‘germline’ means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.

The implications of this are staggering.

Will those babies be allowed to reproduce someday?

If so, that genetic material will get into the general population, and once that happens there will be no retrieving it.

But scientists are so excited that they are able to do some of these things that they never stop to ask whether they should be doing these things.

Scientists all over the globe have also been creating creatures that are part-human and part-animal in an attempt to find cures for various diseases. In a previous article, I quoted a Daily Mail article which discussed the “human-animal hybrid embryos” that are secretly being created in British labs….


Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in British laboratories.

The hybrids have been produced secretively over the past three years by researchers looking into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.

The revelation comes just a day after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.

Who in the world decided that this would be a good idea?

This kind of mixing of animals and humans is even happening in the heartland of the United States. The following is from an article posted on MSNBC a number of years ago entitled “Scientists Create Animals That Are Part-Human“….


On a farm about six miles outside this gambling town, Jason Chamberlain looks over a flock of about 50 smelly sheep, many of them possessing partially human livers, hearts, brains and other organs.

What does being “part-human” mean?

Is there something fundamental that sets us apart from the animals?

If so, when is that line crossed?

It is absolutely amazing that more people are not upset about this stuff.

That same MSNBC article described some of the other things that scientists are doing with human genetic material….


In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk.

Should science be able to do whatever it wants to with human DNA?

Are we absolutely certain that all of these bizarre experiments will never have any very serious unintended consequences?


Down in Missouri, scientists have been growing animals that are part pig and part human with the hope of being able to provide organs for human transplants.

If you ever need an organ transplant, you might want to check where the organ is coming from. If you are not careful, doctors might implant an organ from a monster that is part-human and part-pig inside of you.

Another very disturbing scientific movement that is gaining a lot of momentum right now is transhumanism. The idea is that humans can be greatly “enhanced” using computers, microchips, nanobots, “micro-machines“, genetic engineering and other cutting edge technologies.

By merging humans and technology, those promoting transhumanism believe that humans can become much stronger and much more intelligent. They believe that aging, sickness, disease, disabilities, physical suffering and even death can eventually be totally eliminated.

But at some point would such “super humans” cease to be human?

And what would that mean for the rest of us?

These are very important questions.

Our world was created with incredible precision and with a natural balance between “the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees”. When we start messing with the basic building blocks of life, we open up “Pandora’s Box” and we might not like the consequences.

It is incredibly arrogant to think that we can turn our crops, our animals and even our babies into freakish genetic monsters and that everything will be just fine.

We are ripping nature to shreds and we are rapidly destroying the environment that has been entrusted to us.

In the end, I am afraid that we will pay a great price for our pride.


article here:
http://www.infowars.com/they-are-turning-our-crops-animals-and-even-our-babies-into-freakish-genetic-monsters-what-could-go-wrong/

originally here:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/they-are-turning-our-crops-animals-and-even-our-babies-into-freakish-genetic-monsters-what-could-go-wrong

jkr
07-03-2012, 01:43 PM
buh buh buh they are SMARTER than me...

kathy88
07-03-2012, 02:12 PM
That was horrifying.

MelissaWV
07-03-2012, 03:03 PM
I refuse to have a life-saving organ transplant where the organ might come from some hybrid monster! That's disgusting!

I will only accept an organ from a recently-dead human being from which it was harvested and flown to me in a cooler.

QueenB4Liberty
07-03-2012, 03:29 PM
That sucks if we are all eating corn that is toxic. I wonder if this is also included in ethanol made with corn.

AuH20
07-03-2012, 03:30 PM
I'm not very religious, but it sounds like a hell of a time for a flood. :)

Warrior_of_Freedom
07-03-2012, 04:58 PM
I think we can learn a lot from it, but feeding us the product of it is a no-no.

rhelwig
07-04-2012, 04:18 AM
Whenever you hear or read something like "they inserted human genes into the cows" you know the speaker/author is using FUD. There's no such thing as "human genes" or "cow genes". Genes are what makes organisms human or cows or fish, not the other way around.


article by Dr. Mercola LOL

Pauls' Revere
07-04-2012, 06:27 AM
Isn't corn a subsidized crop?

PaulConventionWV
07-04-2012, 07:17 AM
I refuse to have a life-saving organ transplant where the organ might come from some hybrid monster! That's disgusting!

I will only accept an organ from a recently-dead human being from which it was harvested and flown to me in a cooler.

I sense a hint of satire in your post, but that actually seems like a completely reasonable objection to me.

KingNothing
07-04-2012, 07:24 AM
Does the OP ever bring to a light an article that Infowars wasn't part of?

I'd be an illogical conspiracy theorist to if I brainwashed myself into believing all of this stuff, and never gave myself a chance to learn full, unbiased truth.

PaulConventionWV
07-04-2012, 07:33 AM
Does the OP ever bring to a light an article that Infowars wasn't part of?

I'd be an illogical conspiracy theorist to if I brainwashed myself into believing all of this stuff, and never gave myself a chance to learn full, unbiased truth.

He posts infowars articles because they are the best ones. The attacks are really unnecessary and illogical themselves.

MelissaWV
07-04-2012, 09:22 AM
I sense a hint of satire in your post, but that actually seems like a completely reasonable objection to me.

Any objection can be reasonable, but I personally think it's funny to characterize an organ grown with the assistance of pig tissue as gross or creepy, when our organs currently come from dead bodies. It might behoove us to continue along the path of contriving fully artificial versions, with an overgrowth of the person's own tissue grafted on to assist in incorporation to the body, but in the meantime I think there are a whole lot of people who'd rather live than die in this hypothetical.

I would hope that the physicians involved would be forthcoming about where the organ comes from, because it gives the person a chance to object. They might object because the organ came from a black person (I can think of some that would). They might object because the donor organ came into contact with pig tissue (definitely might be a problem for certain religious groups).

PaulConventionWV
07-04-2012, 10:20 AM
Any objection can be reasonable, but I personally think it's funny to characterize an organ grown with the assistance of pig tissue as gross or creepy, when our organs currently come from dead bodies. It might behoove us to continue along the path of contriving fully artificial versions, with an overgrowth of the person's own tissue grafted on to assist in incorporation to the body, but in the meantime I think there are a whole lot of people who'd rather live than die in this hypothetical.

I would hope that the physicians involved would be forthcoming about where the organ comes from, because it gives the person a chance to object. They might object because the organ came from a black person (I can think of some that would). They might object because the donor organ came into contact with pig tissue (definitely might be a problem for certain religious groups).

I'm not grossed out by the idea of getting my organs from a dead body like I am from a pig. There's a big difference there. At least it's still human. I'm not saying you could actually be part pig/part human, but I would rather die than become a hybrid of the two. Regardless, I don't think human organs grown inside of pigs are actually hybrids. They are just human organs that happen to be growing inside of a pig.

Tod
07-04-2012, 10:58 AM
Wife opens kitchen window and yells to her heart-transplanted husband


"SoooooEEEE, soooooooEEEEE, supper is ready, honey, time to come in and stop your rooting around in the yard."

Mini-Me
07-04-2012, 11:22 AM
Heh. My thoughts on this depend on the specifics of where it's going in the future: I'm cool with genetically engineered food in general, but I'm scared to death of companies like Monsanto and their terminator genes. I'm weirded out by the idea of growing organs independently from the rest of a body for instance, but then again, it's a lot more ethical than creating pigmen for slaughter. In that sense, I'm less concerned about the organs themselves and more concerned about the implications of potentially creating human/animal hybrids and dismantling them for parts. It's no worse than raising pigs for food if their minds are truly still the minds of pigs, but that's the real question. The article even referred to brains with human genetic lineage, so at the extreme end of things, imagine the implications of a creature with the appearance of a beast and the mind of a human being...like a person being trapped in an animal's body, then mistreated because its looks do not match its sentience. That's a pretty extreme example in the realm of, "The only reasons to do that are morbid curiosity and cruelty," but still, the thought is pretty messed up.

A lot of this is a simple emotional fear of the unknown. It's valid to be concerned when you don't know what's on the horizon, but it doesn't have to lead to a future of abominations either. It remains to be seen where this technology is going to go, and the specifics will determine whether it ends up being a good idea. To use an example of already accepted technology, knives can be used to cut sandwiches as they usually are, or they can be used to flay people alive, as they are on occasion, but we're learned over the course of thousands of years to live with the threat of the latter. The example of creating a baby from three sets of genes seems pretty harmless to me in the event it goes right (which apparently it did). After all, you yourself have a mixture of genes from not just two parents but four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, etc., plus the assorted random mutations along the way...all in all, your genes are a mixture of genes from millions of people or more, plus chaos. The "power of two" relationship isn't special either, because once you go back far enough, some of your ancestors descended from common ancestors. Once you put things into perspective like that, it shouldn't sound so horrible anymore to think genes from three people are mixed in a single generation. The real ethical horrors here do not involve the final result but the trial and error process that likely preceded it: How many botched experiments were conducted that may have inflicted horrible maladies on the poor babies born from them?

Back to specifics, I have no problem with the idea of creating genetic treatments to cure cancer, or stop and reverse the aging process, or enhance the healing process (e.g. regenerate lost limbs instead of scarring over them). This whole "transhumanist" thing may be the worst thing that could ever happen to us, or it could be the best...it's really too early to tell. It might be Pandora's Box, but you could say the same thing about almost any major medical advance in history too. Once we get into genetically tweaking people to be stronger or smarter, it's more important to start asking questions about who exactly is going to be "enhanced," how, and what their disposition is likely to be to the rest of us. Barring identical twins, every single person's genes are different from everyone else's in some way, and it's a matter of degree. At various times, human genetics have made relatively big jumps by apparent chance mutations and circumstance, and adaptive traits were widely passed on (compare our brains to the brains of the **** erectus or something). In principle, "creating our own luck" doesn't have to be such a bad idea...but are we talking about allowing ordinary people tweak their future kids' genetics with intelligently selected mutations to make them smarter or stronger or more resilient, or are we talking about governments and other powerful interests keeping this technology for themselves and using it to oppress? Are we going to have to deal with manufactured genius-level super-soldier clones engineered to have no empathy and obey orders without question?

Once you get into nanotechnology and cybernetics, it seems that the danger and likelihood of the technology being used as a means of control or to create twisted semi-mechanical abominations would only increase. Using current surveillance technologies like RFID chip implants as a reference, the immediate future in this area looks grim. With nanotechnology in particular, the odds of something going horribly wrong by accident may also start to mount. (I suspect it would be impossible to create truly "omnivorous" nanobots resulting in a "strange gray goo" apocalyptic event, but I'm not so sure it's wise to tempt fate either.)

In conclusion, I think a lot of this technology could be a very good thing under better circumstances, but I fear we may not be ready for it. We're progressing technologically much faster than we're progressing socially and politically, which is leading to technology being used to enslave instead of to liberate. Time will tell I guess, because I don't see any chance of this potentially reckless pace slowing down.

teacherone
07-04-2012, 12:01 PM
Pigmen for Slaughter is a good band name.

Mini-Me
07-04-2012, 08:12 PM
Pigmen for Slaughter is a good band name.

Double points if it's a Christian Death Metal band screaming about unholy mutated abominations. :D

John F Kennedy III
07-04-2012, 09:58 PM
He posts infowars articles because they are the best ones. The attacks are really unnecessary and illogical themselves.

This. Thank you.

oyarde
07-04-2012, 11:50 PM
Gotta say , the Frankenfood is a catchy title .

oyarde
07-04-2012, 11:53 PM
I will have to ensure no other people are at home when I tell the Grand Kids , they better get to bed or I will make them eat some Frankenfood ;)

wrestlingwes_8
07-05-2012, 12:44 AM
I'm cool with genetically engineered food in general

You must not have a clear understanding of the dangers that ANY genetically engineered plant poses to our ecosystems

Do you really believe that these stupid f****** humans are smarter than Mother Nature? That in less than 100 years we have improved something that took MILLIONS of years to develop? If you do, you know nothing about plants...

"Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge" ~Thomas Edison

Mini-Me
07-05-2012, 07:44 AM
You must not have a clear understanding of the dangers that ANY genetically engineered plant poses to our ecosystems

Do you really believe that these stupid f****** humans are smarter than Mother Nature? That in less than 100 years we have improved something that took MILLIONS of years to develop? If you do, you know nothing about plants...

"Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge" ~Thomas Edison

Considering Mother Nature allows for random genetic mutations every single day, I find it a bit odd that you'd freak out about any and all handpicked mutations.

PaulConventionWV
07-05-2012, 08:20 AM
Considering Mother Nature allows for random genetic mutations every single day, I find it a bit odd that you'd freak out about any and all handpicked mutations.

Mutations, in general, are harmful.

wrestlingwes_8
07-05-2012, 10:58 AM
Considering Mother Nature allows for random genetic mutations every single day, I find it a bit odd that you'd freak out about any and all handpicked mutations.

Yep, it is very clear you do not understand anything about the plant kingdom or nature in general. Almost every single one of those mutations leads to the death of that particular organism. It is EXTREMELY RARE to witness a mutation that allows an organism to continue to survive.

Besides, those mutations are built into the natural system of Mother Nature. When humans start pretending they are God and that they can do whatever they want without consequences, we are in big trouble.

That would be like saying rain initiated by cloud seeding is just as natural as rain that comes from a storm..


Seriously, you need to stop watching movies and pretending that today's scientists know what they are doing.

Mini-Me
07-05-2012, 02:20 PM
Mutations, in general, are harmful.

...which is why we should have remained **** erectus, correct?

I understand you're presupposing a literal Creationist point of view, but I think it's worth pointing out that's where one of the divides is here: Creationists presuppose we are exactly how we always have been and always should be, and evolutionists argue our current existence is just one point in a very long and ongoing web of change...so naturally, the latter would be more open to handpicking mutations.


Yep, it is very clear you do not understand anything about the plant kingdom or nature in general. Almost every single one of those mutations leads to the death of that particular organism. It is EXTREMELY RARE to witness a mutation that allows an organism to continue to survive.
Yes. That's what happens when they're totally random, because adaptive mutations are uncommon. Handpicking them kind of changes the odds there. It's a bit like the difference between randomly flipping/adding/inserting/removing bytes in a software binary and actually writing a bug patch intelligently, although perhaps not as extreme.


Besides, those mutations are built into the natural system of Mother Nature. When humans start pretending they are God and that they can do whatever they want without consequences, we are in big trouble.

That would be like saying rain initiated by cloud seeding is just as natural as rain that comes from a storm..
No, it's not. We might as well be comparing scalpels to rocket launchers.

Cloud seeding is a reckless attempt at creating large-scale change in weather patterns with a blunt instrument, and it carries a risk of causing unforeseen chain reactions in the atmosphere (which could spill into electromagnetic issues) which might be violent, depending on the scale and rate of tampering.

Tweaking genes uses precise instruments to cause changes that are confined to individual organisms. The changes will only propagate in the wild if the organisms procreate, and that will only happen on a large enough scale if they're adaptive (i.e. the opposite of what you assume them to be). The chain reaction is limited by the adaptivity of the new genes.

IF you're right about the mutations being so maladaptive, you don't have to worry about them. Now, if they're TOO good, that could be a problem (genetically engineered viruses and bacteria, rabid sharkmen, super-soldiers, etc.). The danger depends entirely on the application, just like any other tool that can be used for good or evil. (By the way, if your aim is to ban this, enforcement would be...difficult.)

It's a different matter when huge agricorporations use the government to run everyone else out of business and populate their fields with genetically identical crop strains, because that runs a risk of creating a monoculture that's susceptible to being wiped out at once. Terminator genes are especially dangerous in combination with this trend, because the supply of ordinary seeds is getting so low (no one thinks they need them).


Seriously, you need to stop watching movies and pretending that today's scientists know what they are doing.

Seriously, you need to stop treating me like a child. We have differences of opinion, and I respect your firm belief against meddling with genetics for any reason, but it's arrogant for you to talk down to people in complete confidence that your own [presumably more religious] concept of nature is undoubtedly correct. Do scientists know what they're doing? Yes and no, depending on the context...but at least they're learning. That's the point of science: To actually learn by experimentation, instead of assuming outright that you have all the answers already. There are always going to be idiots ready to bite off more than they can chew, but it's unfair to lump everyone into that category, and it's impractical to "stop them!" anyway. There were people who thought the first nuclear weapon test might immediately destroy the world - and until we learned otherwise, they may have been right - but the point here is that despite the immense stakes, no one found a way to stop them anyway. Sometimes the most you can do is hope for the best.

For you to presume I take the status quo in science as gospel because of "movies" and a blind trust in scientific authority figures is insulting. I happen to find the scientific community's general consensus on evolution to be more compelling than currently existing counterarguments, but at least I'm not sitting around crapping on people who don't...and no, I'm not an atheist either. I don't believe in the global warming hysteria, because the climate "science" is transparently politically driven, and there's a decent amount of genuine science that casts doubt on even the more modest fundamental claims underlying the political agenda. I believe there's a lot of institutional inertia in the field of physics that causes people on the side of the status quo to refuse to even consider alternative interpretations of empirical evidence, but I have come to this conclusion more from the intellectual honesty and fairness of debate participants than from a deep understanding of physics itself (which I do not possess). I come to my own tentative conclusions about these matters independent from religious groupthink OR scientific community groupthink. My mind is open to change if you have compelling logical arguments, but bald assertions and patronizing attitudes do not impress me.

jbauer
07-05-2012, 02:46 PM
Come on guys, come back to reality.

BT corn is derived from: Bacillus Thuringiensis a naturaly occuring bacterium that "eats" common root worms, army worms etc. The "scientists" created hi-bred plant that has the bactirum grow with it. This is something they could have cultivated through corn mutations/bevolution over a longer time.

FYI, it is perfectly acceptible to use in organic farming. You can litterly put the bactirum (in pouder form) in salt shaker and shake it all over the plant if you so choose.

The question isn't is genetically modififed crops safe, its is it more or less safe then the current crops we have? If you're able to GM a corn plant so that we use less herbacides/pesticides/insecticides would you rather we continue to use those or use the GM plant? I kind of put the whole GM debate in the same corner as vacinations. You can't ONLY look at the problems/deaths per 1M or whatever number it is. You have to look at what the problem/death rate is of the disease and of the vacination for that disease to see tell the whole story.

Lets take disease ABC. If the death rate is 1/1M vacinated or 1/100k from the disease itself which would you choose? Most logical people would take the lower risk path.

jbauer
07-05-2012, 02:49 PM
Mutations, in general, are harmful.

WHAT? Are you serious? Mutations and selective breeding has been going on for eons. Its the basis for all living things on this planet.

For the record. I do believe that we were created by God. But I also see that there is room for evolution within creation. Each time two animals/plants procreate we are evolving from the 2 parents.

parocks
07-05-2012, 06:06 PM
Come on guys, come back to reality.

BT corn is derived from: Bacillus Thuringiensis a naturaly occuring bacterium that "eats" common root worms, army worms etc. The "scientists" created hi-bred plant that has the bactirum grow with it. This is something they could have cultivated through corn mutations/bevolution over a longer time.

FYI, it is perfectly acceptible to use in organic farming. You can litterly put the bactirum (in pouder form) in salt shaker and shake it all over the plant if you so choose.

The question isn't is genetically modififed crops safe, its is it more or less safe then the current crops we have? If you're able to GM a corn plant so that we use less herbacides/pesticides/insecticides would you rather we continue to use those or use the GM plant? I kind of put the whole GM debate in the same corner as vacinations. You can't ONLY look at the problems/deaths per 1M or whatever number it is. You have to look at what the problem/death rate is of the disease and of the vacination for that disease to see tell the whole story.

Lets take disease ABC. If the death rate is 1/1M vacinated or 1/100k from the disease itself which would you choose? Most logical people would take the lower risk path.

No they couldn't. The genes from bacteria don't just naturally become part of potatoes or corn. They used to spray bt on potatoes. They they said - let's take a gene from a bacteria, and splice it in to a potato. No way in hell is a bacteria going to cross breed with a potato.

Monsanto is evil.

wrestlingwes_8
07-05-2012, 11:39 PM
I do not have time for this bullshit

Go ahead, support GM crops and watch it fuck up the planet....Jesus Christ it's like I'm talking to fucking two year olds


Just research 'permaculture' ..I do not have the time or energy to dissect your ignorance

jbauer
07-06-2012, 07:16 AM
Right back at you. Just use google you'll find plenty of opinioin for and against the topic. I'll openly admit there isn't decades of testing because they've only been around since the 90s. But hey beleive what you want to beileve. Thats whats cool about America.....atleast for now.


I do not have time for this bullshit

Go ahead, support GM crops and watch it fuck up the planet....Jesus Christ it's like I'm talking to fucking two year olds


Just research 'permaculture' ..I do not have the time or energy to dissect your ignorance

PaulConventionWV
07-06-2012, 07:33 PM
...which is why we should have remained **** erectus, correct?

I understand you're presupposing a literal Creationist point of view, but I think it's worth pointing out that's where one of the divides is here: Creationists presuppose we are exactly how we always have been and always should be, and evolutionists argue our current existence is just one point in a very long and ongoing web of change...so naturally, the latter would be more open to handpicking mutations.

Did I say any of that?

What I said was, "Mutations, in general, are harmful." This is a fact. It is not up for debate. Someone asked why people are worried about mutations when "nature has allowed them to happen..." I gave a reason why. Mutations, in general, are harmful. That is a true fact.

You deliberately use the word "presuppose" for my position, and then you tell me that evolutionists "argue" (implies a more logical view). This is just a form of propaganda on your part. I try not to use that, but I see you are not above it.

Mini-Me
07-16-2012, 01:08 PM
Did I say any of that?

What I said was, "Mutations, in general, are harmful." This is a fact. It is not up for debate. Someone asked why people are worried about mutations when "nature has allowed them to happen..." I gave a reason why. Mutations, in general, are harmful. That is a true fact.
Yes, but the general (average) case should only especially relevant to you if you do not believe in evolution through natural selection in the first place. If you do, mutations are the reason we are no longer, say, **** erectus.


You deliberately use the word "presuppose" for my position, and then you tell me that evolutionists "argue" (implies a more logical view). This is just a form of propaganda on your part. I try not to use that, but I see you are not above it.

I know this was ten days ago, but I was away, and I want to clear something up: I was not trying to put you down or propagandize with my creationism/evolution comparison. I used the word "presuppose" for a specific reason that I assumed you were aware of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
"Presupposition" seems to be considered the most modern and logically self-consistent basis for biblical faith, and I've gotten the impression from the Calvinists on this board that it's the most popular as well. The reason I brought this up was just to point out that the fundamental divide on this issue rests squarely between our perspectives on evolution.

ZenBowman
07-16-2012, 01:35 PM
Another freedom-hating article from infowars.

Cannot say I am surprised. If I want to select my child's genes, who the hell is Alex Jones to stop me?