Agriculture: problems and pollution, new technologies and solutionsWhat is GMO?

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1808
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 312

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 08:29

Janic wrote:I do not even count the years or the hours of study, but do you know the subject for having studied it for so long? If 'is like vaccines, it's not going to go far

with as many years you have at least a thesis, even a post doc, the theses are published you could give us the reference of yours
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear best"
(of me)

Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6810
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: Burgundy
x 114

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Janic » 09/01/19, 08:43

still off topic!
Nice shot in touch.

For someone who stubbornly refuses to provide evidence accompanying his fake news, it's rather bad!
A compilation of the works of your science infused, then?

Mine, yours, that of your usual sects: where is the difference?
and how many years of theology do you have? you studied in which seminar, where it is still very confidential, too much maybe ...
He targeted you well. You should take an avatar with the cassock.

Ah, he is talented, he is strong the guy! Like his avatar so well chosen, (the Sunflower who combines the scientific aspect and the esoteric aspect with his famous pendulum) and where, beyond time and space, defying the logic of materialistic science, penetrating through mind in works that he never had in his hands and who knows the substance of the substantive marrow: hat, he is a balèze the guy!

Moindreffort
you are therefore an autodidact, who publishes for his circle of friends ...
Well done, he found! Publish (what Did) is an exercise in memory of his achievements and concrete experiences that will or will not interest people in situation to understand and share it, it serves only that!
theology and beliefs are indeed not my concerns, because they take root in ignorance,
already formulated thus it is already a confession of ignorance accompanied by an opinion based on this same ignorance, there is something wrong here!
But ignorance is not a definitive situation, it is enough to study a subject to have a knowledge, even minimal. So it's not for you, as for anybody, to put yourself in it and avoid judgments all made, with the cookie cutter, like this one
what they like to cultivate to better assert their power.
As ?
The subject does not interest you, it is your choice, but even in a complete ignorance of the subject, as you admit, you still issue an opinion based on a recognized ignorance. Do not you see some contradictions?
They just read you "but do you know the subject to have studied for so long", you put yourself in the possession of a knowledge that we do not have, so you place us in the position of ignorant who must believe you on your good word
It is the characteristic of all those who have studied a subject to know more than those who have not done so, it is the role of the circuits of knowledge of all kinds that it is by those recognized like the universities or by other less classic ones like being self-taught.
As to believe me on my good word, there is no question like the sign Ahmed. On the contrary, it is necessary to go beyond the words to take action.
In your case, you have "chosen", (but have you been given the choice?) To follow a direction and you conclude that it is the only, the true, the unique out of which there is no salvation As Catholicism claimed and still claims, and you are apparently "satisfied", but it does not shock you to see it applied a totalitarian dogma to a particular branch of "knowledge"!
0 x
"We do science with facts, as is a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Exnihiloest
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1808
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 312

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 09:14

Janic wrote:
Moindreeffort wrote:you are therefore an autodidact, who publishes for his circle of friends ...
Well done, he found! Publish (what Did) is an exercise in memory of his achievements and concrete experiences that will or will not interest people in situation to understand and share it, it serves only that!

Yes so if it was kept confidential to your circle of insiders, it's because it did not interest many people at the delas, you could not convince the interest of your thought, or you did not not enough didactic that it is understandable, or we do not know enough to raise us to your level

after that it is not because a subject does not worry that I do not know everything ... it's just that it occupies its right place in my mind
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear best"
(of me)
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1808
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 312

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 09:24

Janic wrote:As to believe me on my good word, there is no question like the sign Ahmed. On the contrary, it is necessary to go beyond the words to take action.

when we bring no proof, just non-renewable observations, we are in the good word, the belief ...
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6810
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: Burgundy
x 114

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Janic » 09/01/19, 10:45

always off topic
Yes, so if it remained confidential to your circle of insiders, it's because it did not interest many people beyond, you could not convince the interest of your thought, or you did not not enough didactic that it is understandable, or we do not know enough to raise us to your level
In short, you express yourself without knowing anything about the situation.
In all fields, which is not mastered by the general public, is the fact of insiders: for example medicine, history, mechanics or astrophysics, etc ... the popularization of these multiple fields It is indeed interesting that few people, including in the field of health (and especially that one) when everyone speaks and thinks only in terms of illnesses and the sick, (you know something about it!) but health itself is not a recipe and only educates a few people, actually, but it changes slowly! But to be understandable, we must already have an open mind to the difference, which is not the fact of everyone in a very conservative society, by culture.
you have not been able to convince yourself of the interest of your thought, or you have not been enough didactic to understand it, or we do not know it enough to rise to your level
Oh, the fun! If speaking on a subject was enough to convince the world around us, it would be the revolution of minds, quickly repressed by those who live on the ignorance of people. but as Did would say, informing and convincing are two different things that are not systematically related. But something is understandable only if it is accompanied by a concrete dimension, otherwise everyone could be convinced only by speeches. But to rise to a level, whatever it is, it's like on any scale we must put, at least, the foot on the first rung, then the second and so on, but it does not fit to those who are dizzy for lack of their usual landmarks. On which bar are you in the areas I mentioned?
In short, you express yourself without knowing anything about the situation.
You want to talk about yourself, no doubt!
after that it is not because a subject does not worry that I do not know everything ...
And what are you supposed to know, at least, where did you go? But if I believe what you have already said, it is really minimal, if not inexistent both in terms of health in terms of theology!
it's just that it occupies its rightful place in my mind
that is to say with a priori of all kinds.
when we bring no proof, just non-renewable observations, we are in the good word, the belief ...
it's strange that you talk about bringing evidence when it's exactly what you and your alter ego refuse to do? There is a story of straw and beam. However, you should have read that simple observations have only informative value, but I speak of concrete cases in these books that you have not read but you know what they are supposed to contain.
But for the record, you believe in Pasteurism while Pasteur has made his reputation on ONE CASE supposed to be enraged when this unique example was not renewable and current science would reject it as scientifically unacceptable.

with as many years you have at least a thesis, even a post doc, the theses are published you could give us the reference of yours
as for a particular work is heretical for the religions in place, this kind of thesis, eventual, would have no place there.
0 x
"We do science with facts, as is a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Exnihiloest

Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6810
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: Burgundy
x 114

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Janic » 09/01/19, 11:25

It's just to say that this story of "genetic manipulation" is not easy! [I did not say it was serious! I just said that when our ancestors "created" wheat from wild wheat, they "manipulated" the heritage - oh, well, involuntarily!

Unfortunately, it is this kind of comparison that misleads the current genetic manipulations.
The selections, mentioned by Darwin for example, are not irreversible since as soon as this selection ceases the nature takes back its rights. Manipulation within genes, directly by intrusion, has nothing comparable since irreversible and in complete ignorance of the consequences on the complexity of life. But in non-communicable intervention (?) By therapeutic operation (for example) on living things, we can assume that its consequences, unknown, will have little or no impact on future generations (which nobody knows really)
But in the case of open field crops, the risk is much higher and above all non-controllable, as shown by the Monsanto surveys, for example.
0 x
"We do science with facts, as is a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Exnihiloest
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14106
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 4765

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Did67 » 09/01/19, 12:37

I repeat a simple thing. Only complicated minds could not understand:

The selection made by our ancestors is, strictly speaking, a genetic manipulation. Handle comes from hand. When in a given population, you take some ears to make a seed, you choose the genes it contains. At the expense of others. You manipulate genes ...

Too simple to understand ??

Why confuse with a reversibility or not ??? Just because it annoys you? Need irrepressible to be right?

Reread. I did not say it's irreversible. Nothing like. I'm not quite stupid (even in your eyes - I hope) to challenge a truism: if we stop cultivating them ("heal" if you want), most varieties (same old) will disappear ... And then ? a) did I say the opposite? or ? ; b) how does this contradict the fact that creating these varieties has been a "genetic manipulation" by our ancestors (in the literal sense: with their hands, they chose such genes rather than others)? Let's go further: on the contrary, the fact that this is reversible even confirms the nature of manipulation: manipulated in the sense of human needs (therefore genetically different), these plants can no longer live alone. I remind you, this is quite true for "old vegetables", so idolized today!
1 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1808
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 312

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 13:33

Janic wrote:In all fields, which is not controlled by the general public, is the fact of insiders: for example medicine, history, mechanics or astrophysics, etc ... the popularization of these multiple fields It is indeed interesting that few people, including in the field of health (and especially that one) when everyone speaks and thinks only in terms of illnesses and the sick, (you know something about it!) but the health itself does not make recipe and sensitizes few people, actually, but it changes slowly!

even what is not mastered by the general public can be in the library, it is certainly there that you study, since you did not do it near a university or a seminary, so your works even not intended for a general public should be included, right? so help us open our minds, giving us references. The large library has a copy of any published work, so yours are there. or ?
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6810
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: Burgundy
x 114

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby Janic » 09/01/19, 15:00

The selection made by our ancestors is, strictly speaking, a genetic manipulation. Handle comes from hand. When in a given population, you take some ears to make a seed, you choose the genes it contains. At the expense of others. You manipulate genes ...
Too simple to understand?

On the contrary, it is elementary and even if I intervene little on the subject, I never said the opposite. I'm just pointing out that what you call genetic manipulation, others call it selection, which has nothing to do with a direct intrusion into the cell by ignoring natural barriers of protection against intrusion. We are not on the same scale of value!
It can be compared to vaccination (I know I break my feet with this subject, but it's the same process) Jenner, finds that cowpowers are immune to smallpox after having affected the udder of cows with variola vaccine. It is therefore an EXTERNAL contact without intrusion and therefore passing through the immune system of the skin. Jenner will go through, annihilate this barrier to go directly under the skin assuming that where the immune system of the skin reduces the infection of the vaccine, it would increase the chances of making the next immune system even more effective, that of the blood. and it would have worked except that in the following epidemics the vaccinated were the first and most important victims and this had not been planned or imagined by the health authorities or point that the English State removed the vaccination obligation of this disease.
GMOs is the same story except that the 2 ° barrier protection is also crossed without precautions (which, by the way?)
Too simple to understand?
Why confuse with a reversibility or not ???

Because any intervention DANCE the living depends on it! if you do a bypass, it's as irreversible as if you have a heart transplant!
Just because it annoys you? Need irrepressible to be right?

Or simple common sense!
Reread. I did not say it's irreversible.

It's true, it's me who says it, but not about the selection, but the intrusion. We have 2 centuries of experiments of all kinds on the living and with each new discovery, we realize that we did not know that this or that mechanism, had close links with other complex mechanisms, sophisticated that it takes sometimes try to repair, when it's possible only.
But our do-it-yourselfers do not take this into account since no ethics committee frames these bulb heads that manufacturers do not use for their beautiful eyes, but to produce wholesale industrial products, huge profits, especially since the living can be patented and their turnover has exploded. 7 billion, soon 10 billion customer to the key, it's not nothing and as much as possible, do not lose them stupidly with bio, alternative medicines.
Nothing like. I'm not stupid enough (even in your eyes - I hope)

Especially in my eyes, I appreciate your efforts to direct the spirits and the acts towards a better respect of the ground, of the life of this one, so it is not a question of bullshit, but of different point of view
to challenge a truism: if we stop cultivating ("heal" if you want), most varieties (same old) will disappear ...

They will not disappear, any more than trees, flowers, wildlife " where the human hand has not set foot » : Cheesy: . According to Darwinism natural selection will sort and the most robust (according to criteria other than ours) will resist as they have done for millennia.
b) how does this contradict the fact that creating these varieties has been a "genetic manipulation" by our ancestors (in the literal sense: with their hands, they chose such genes rather than others)?

They did not know anything about genes, not difficult! But by selecting, with their hands, certain seeds, they did it at the expense of others more robust, more adapted to the soil, the climate, etc ... and this concerns especially our time.
We can compare the current corn in our regions, greedy water, with that of the regions of this product where the fields are not just watered, but producing smaller ears, and there is no need for chemical treatments. You must have already mentioned the question, I believe!
Let's go further: on the contrary, the fact that this is reversible even confirms the nature of manipulation: manipulated in the sense of human needs (therefore genetically different), these plants can no longer live alone. I remind you, this is quite true for "old vegetables", so idolized today!

Again, I'm not talking about selection here, but INTRUSION IN FORCE in the genome, without knowing the consequences in the medium or long term. As for plants selected for the needs of man (sic) it is rather selected for industrial needs, they rather conform the needs of their customers to them. it's called marketing!
Biology is the same for all that lives and the lessons we can draw from it are the same; and when the human being claims to have more knowledge and experience than that of all the billions of living beings that have passed from him, for millennia (others say millions but no matter) I find it vain and dangerous to put the spell of life in the hands of these genius handymen, but the story is behind us to remind us that the misused genius has always generated disasters (maybe even global warming)
0 x
"We do science with facts, as is a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Exnihiloest
perseus
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 138
Registration: 06/12/16, 11:11
x 27

Re: what is GMO?

Unread Messageby perseus » 09/01/19, 17:46

Hello,

Because any intervention in the living depends on it! if you do a bypass, it's as irreversible as if you have a heart transplant!

The selections, mentioned by Darwin for example, are not irreversible since as soon as this selection ceases the nature takes back its rights. Manipulation within genes, directly by intrusion, is not comparable since it is irreversible and in complete ignorance of the consequences on the complexity of life.


You talked about reversibility of the selections. Bridging is irreversible, but a selection of carrots or corn too. A Golden Bantam corn plant placed in the wild will not spontaneously become a teosinte, nor will the same seed of Golden Bantam seeded in the wild become a teosinte again.

especially since the living can be patented and their turnover has exploded.


I already said a word about it, but it would be bad of you if you reproached me for repeating myself : Mrgreen: .
I'll say it more brutally:
So, debating whether GMOs are banned (which are the result of a technique) will lead to nothing.
Anti-GMOs as they have often manifested themselves in France are the useful idiots of the big companies like Syngenta / Monsanto.
In my opinion, the genetic information should be subjected to a functioning close to what exists for the free licenses (to make simple: remain open, free access, free modification, free use, free reproduction ...). Of course, the modification of this information must pass through the filter of a rigorous and independent experimentation. This totally breaks the potential profitability of a GMO for a company.
0 x




  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 3 guests