jowrose

my bad bascule, bout the avatar... well i guess you're right and i'm wrong. i'm done arguing. maybe i'll go back to the threads where i am more knowledgeable... like potato guns.

its ok ecoli. i can understand why that would seem hypocritical. bascule, mutations are different that inserting genes. a random genetic mutation might cause a rabbit to have lighter fur rather than brown, enabling him to survive better in winter environments. or perhaps an organism is randomly mutated by increasing his ability to see or hear predators better. aka a hawk. but these are most often very slowly accomplished, and take many many generations to create a "finished" gene. however, like you said, more abrupt mutations can occur. however, genes to not suddenly "appear," giving an organism some fantastical ability. organisms, with the exception of bacteria and viruses (well viruses aren't really organisms but you know what i mean) are relatively stable beings. It is when these mutations happen quickly, and when genes are inserted that could NEVER be there in nature is what gets me worried. Scenarios? ok, here's one off the top of my head. say a plant is genetically engineered to resist a strain of pesticides. a reasonable idea. say one of these plant's seeds is released into the environment where it interbreeds with a similar, less desirable, organism. now you have a plant you dont want that will never be killed with pesticides. can you see a bad thing happening? Most genetic modifications that i think would be probable involve increasing vitamins and minerals produced by a plant, or enabling the plant to survive better in different environments. the vitamin/mineral modifications could harm surrounding animal populations, while the survival modifications could influence an ecosystem as a whole. when a newly introduced plant runs rampant through an ecosystem, more often than not bad things will happen. take algae for example. Up in minnesota, where i used to go on vacation, bottoms of boats were searched when they were taken out of a lake to be sure there was no algae that could be spread to a different lake. And what is so important about using gm crops for africa? what makes them better than regular crops? you keep trying to guilt trip me into thinking that i am wanting to kill africans because i dont want gm crops to be introduced too quickly. whats wrong with regular crops? if you are worried about the water issue, it wouldn't matter would it? if you can engineer a plant to grow in less water, it will still be far less nutritious because there will be far less water in the consumable portion of the plant. couldn't we help africans more by shipping food over, or by introducing crop technologies so food could be grown in the temperate regions of africa? and isn't it possible that the problem is more with leadership than with the crops themselves? why dont you answer some of my questions rather than simply pointing out inaccuracies you think are within my opinion? out of curiosity, is your icon mocking me or is it just something you created? no offense meant if it is the latter.

do we need gm crops to help africans? really? i can't understand why that would be. they're starving, and i am not apathetic about that. They need food, that's inarguable. but why gm food? why can they not plant regular crops in the temperate zones of middle africa? why can't american and european governments begin extensive shipping of foodstuffs? I think the lack of food is more of a leadership problem than an environmental one. I dont believe gm crops are necessary. and no, bascule, i was making an exagerration. i do not think any plant could survive 1,000 degrees... But i have read that scientists were planning on inserting a salmon gene into a tomato plant to make hte plant resistant to cold. now could you seriously do that with selective breeding? INSERT a new gene? no, you cannot. you are wrong. gm does things selective breeding could never do. ecoli, i am for gm crops, i think that have a ton of potential to help people everywhere (aka not only africa). however, i believe a lot of research, not only government-sponsored research, MUST be done on possible environmental side effects before use of these crops can become widespread. this is something humanity has not dealt with, and we must be cautious. bascule, I have made this argument probably 15 times on this thread. is there no truth in it? why do you consider me ignorant for wanting foresight?

look, i wouldn't consider a student a layman. I have enough information to support my opinion, regardless of what you people think. for the last time, we dont need gm crops to help starving people in africa (which was a most excellent example by helix, i think it was). oh yeah, wasn't it helix who said that all genetic engineering could be done by selective breeding? hmm, lets ponder that. if that's possible, why are gm crops needed? so i guess i could selectively breed plants to survive 1,000 degree temperatures couldn't I. or to live without water for 5 years. how come nobody but me realizes this? how come I am the only one arguing for research? How come I am the only one who does not have blind faith in the government to do all the necessary testing? am I just stupid?

oh if isuit just left, i'm gonna be mad. i gotta find this out... if anyone has ever listened to lewis black's "rules of enragement" they know what i'm talking about.

you could selectively breed a plant to resist cold? really? why has that not been attempted then? why has humanity not selectively bred crops (a procedure that has been available for a long time...) to grow plants in siberia, or alaska? just didn't feel like it? I guess you could selectively breed crops to grow in deserts too, like the sahara. if this is true, WHY DO WE NEED GM CROPS IN THE FIRST PLACE?! you cannot selectively breed crops like this! that is the point of GENETICALLY altering them! to do things to them that are otherwise impossible in nature! genetically altering plants involves inserting genes that were not there before. genes that are impossible to accomplish via natural selection or random evolution. "Do you think you've magically forseen a disaster scenario with GMO crops that the scientists actually trained in the field have not? Do you think you've seen one that the top scientists at the EPA, FDA, and USDA have not forseen? And even if such a scenario hasn't been forseen by scientists in any of these groups, do you think there's a disaster scenario which could occur in the wild which wouldn't crop up in the extensive testing processes laid out by the EPA, FDA, and USDA?" no, i do not. but do you think it is possible that, in the rush to market some new super-crop, that these governmental agencies overlook something? do you assume that they are omniscient? and what about other governments whose agencies are not as great as the (as you assume) american ones? should there be no independent research done? oh, well, because the americans are screwing around with nature, i guess we can. second-guessing science puts you in the same category as creationists? well, you see, technically it has been science that has been second guessing creationists, seeing as the christian idea of the world has been around longer than the contemporary scientific one. i'm not a creationist, mind you, but they've been arguing their points longer. and isn't second-guessing science its most important aspect? when you do an experiment, do you just attempt it once? or do you say "hmm, maybe that's not right, why dont I try it again?" are theories postulated once, and accepted as truth? When galileo speculated that the sun was the center of our solar system, did everyone immediately go "oh, he's right, we're wrong"? NO. thousands of poeple had to prove it for themselves. "and their claims, at least as far as I have ever seen, are essentially baseless speculation, much like yours." thanks for the respect. i guess everything needs scientific basis for it to be worth discussing. it is certainly impossible, i guess, for someone to have an idea first and then scientifically prove it later. it is my understanding that that is how most (if not all) scientific theories are formed.

that's exactly my point! we dont know what negative side effects could happen! true or false, genetically engineered crops that are resistant to weeds could (or have) spawn into superweeds? take any possible genetical alteration, and there is a way that it could harm the ecosystem and whatnot. foresight is necessary whenever one decides they're going to play god.

the only way to stop extremely greedy americans from eating way too much is to force them. and i dont think a mandated food-stamp law would take too well... the government ought to say 1/20th of our food production (or some realistic statistic, i dont know) goes to aid those who are constantly hungry. whether that be in africa, or even towards the homeless in america, it doesnt matter. a person saved is a person saved in my book. we dont necessarily need gm crops to stop world hunger. they would help, but you always have to keep in mind the possible side effects.

yeah, because if a virus was going to deactivate genes, it would have to go to every cell in the body, right? unless it was done at a very early stage in development, that would be nearly impossible.

you're right, obesity is a problem, not only that it deprives hungry people from food but also that it is harmful to those who are obese. but another major problem is wasting food, like peon guy said.

helix, what do you mean we are not over-abundant on food?! what is the statistic now, 1 out of ever 4 adult americans obese?! we throw out so much food, it's incredible! "peon de" is right, its not the amount of food we are producing that is the problem, it's where that food is going.

well, viruses do replicate. some kinds (lytic viruses) take over the dna of a cell and use it to make more and more viruses until the cell actually rips open and flings the new viruses into the environment. lysogenic viruses take control of the dna but remain "dormant" for a while, until the appropriate time.

hey, we dont need gm crops to aid africa. we have plenty of food here, everyone knows that. why we dont ship over a crapload of that food is beyond me. we shouldnt rush into a realm that we are very inexperienced in when we have plenty of resources as of now. of course gm crops have a ton of potential, and i am confident that they will be very productive in coming decades, but preparation must be done. out of curiosity, how is genetically engineering expected to increase crop yield? would it be possible to make a corn plant that was like 20 feet tall and produced like 50 ears of corn? that would be cool

i would sleep better if firms would attempt cross-breeding in controlled environments of gm crops with native susceptible plants. just to see the outcomes.

i dont think the pro's outweigh the cons yet, but they could. nobody really knows what the possible cons would be...

yeah, the grapes are a little farfetched, just a hypothetical example. the plants could spread very far through the methods which regular plants spread, seeds. say some genetically engineered tomato plants are pollinated by some bees, which then head over to a different field... the only way the setup could work is if the plants were COMPLETELY contained, i.e. in caves or in huge storehouses. but then it might be too uneconomical to produce them...

yes, but what about taking a gene from a salmon and inserting it into a grape genome to make it resistant to cold? or engineering crops to produce certain chemicals (aka a crapload of vitamin A or B, etc...) in abundance? certainly it would be beneficial, but only if said plants were contained. if they were accidentally released into natural habitats, the results could be devastating. perhaps animals would die of vitamin poisoning. alaska would become a grape wilderness. certainly these are all hypothetical, i am merely suggesting that research must be done to determine all possible side effects.

that is true, but the possible consequences to have engineered supercrops are as numerous as they are dangerous. extensive study needs to be done regarding the possible changes in the environment should these crops interbreed with native plants.

What about a very strong material that shrinks as the water freezes? make it thick enough and the energy released would be far greater...

ah that site was a wee bit too complicated for my puny mind. the diagrams looked pretty though...

out of curiosity, has anyone here read "america the book"? if not, go pick it up... it's hilarious... what is the law with the supreme court? justices can be forced to retire if they develop mind-altering diseases, right? i'm not trying to be insensitive or anything, but there must be some clause about having the abilitity to perform one's job...

isuit, go make your friend tell us.

well, i got my impression of pat robertson's insanity through the only news source i trust nowadays: the daily show with jon stewart. Now, it would just be normal crazy if he was just some politician and decided to voice his support of assassination of a national figure on public television. but the fact that it was on a CHRISTIAN show ups the level of crazy to "super wacko" another great idea of his was to pray for another court opening in the Supreme Court. oh god, please kill one of those liberal justices for us so we can put someone in who would help us destroy the terror of separation of church and state...

yeah, the freeze bomb idea with propane surrounding the water would be effective, if gunpowder or c4 didn't do the job a lot better... but surely there must be some effectiveu use for the strong economical power of freezing water. perhaps it could be used in hydraulics systems or even as an alternative source for energy? could freezing water realistically power turbines in say alaska? given you would need tons upon tons of water but hey, it's cheap...