What is GMO?

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 08:29

Janic wrote:I don't even count the years or the hours of study anymore, but do you know the subject for having studied it for so long? if it's like vaccines, it's not going to go very 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 the best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 09/01/19, 08:43

still off topic!
Nice kick in touch.

For someone who stubbornly refuses to provide evidence accompanying their fake news, it is rather unwelcome!
A compilation of the works of your infused science, then?

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

Ah, he is gifted, he is strong the guy! Like his avatar so well chosen, (Professor Sunflower who combines the scientific aspect and the esoteric aspect with his famous pendulum) and where, beyond time and space, defying the logic of materialist science, penetrating through the spirit in works that he has never had in his hands and that despite all knows the substantial marrow: hat, he is the big guy!

Moindreffort
you are therefore a self-taught, who publishes for his circle of friends ...
Well done, he found it! Publishing (what Did does) is an exercise in remembering your achievements and concrete experiences that may or may not interest people who are in a position to understand and share them, it only serves that!
theology and beliefs are indeed not my concerns, because they are rooted in ignorance,
already formulated thus it is already an admission of ignorance accompanied by an opinion based on this same ignorance, there is something wrong there!
Ignorance is not a definitive situation, it suffices to study a subject to have knowledge of it, even a minimal one. So it's not for you, as for anyone, to get into it and avoid ready-made judgments, like this one
which they like to cultivate to better assert their power.
As ?
The subject does not interest you, it is your choice, but even in complete ignorance of the subject, as you admit, you still issue an opinion based on recognized ignorance. Don't you see some contradictions?
They just have to read to you "but do you know the subject for having studied it for so long", you pose yourself as the holder of a knowledge that we do not have, so you place us in the position of ignorant people 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 knowledge circuits of all kinds whether by those recognized as universities or by others less classic like being self-taught.
As for believing me on my good word, there is no question as Ahmed signs. On the contrary, you have to go beyond words to take action.
In your case, you have "chosen", (but have we left you the choice?) To follow a direction and you conclude that it is the only, the true, the only " beyond which there is no salvation "As claimed and still claims Catholicism, and you are apparently" satisfied ", but it does not shock you to see apply totalitarian dogma to a particular branch of "knowledge"!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 09:14

Janic wrote:
Moindreeffort wrote:you are therefore a self-taught, who publishes for his circle of friends ...
Well done, he found it! Publishing (what Did does) is an exercise in remembering your achievements and concrete experiences that may or may not interest people who are in a position to understand and share them, it only serves that!

Yes so if it remained confidential to your circle of initiates, it is that it did not interest many people beyond, you did not know how to convince of the interest of your thought, or you did not not been didactic enough to make it understandable, or we don't have the knowledge to raise ourselves to your level

after that it is not because a subject does not worry that I ignore 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 the best"
(of me)
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 09:24

Janic wrote:As for believing me on my good word, there is no question as Ahmed signs. On the contrary, you have to go beyond words to take action.

when we bring no proof, just non-renewable observations, we are in good talk, belief ...
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 09/01/19, 10:45

always off topic
Yes so if it remained confidential to your circle of initiates, it is that it did not interest many people beyond, you did not know how to convince of the interest of your thought, or you did not not been didactic enough to make it understandable, or we don't have the knowledge to raise ourselves to your level
Clearly you express yourself without knowing anything about the situation.
In all fields, what 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 does not actually interests only a few people, including in the health field (and especially this one) when everyone only talks and thinks in terms of illnesses and sick people (you know something!) but health itself does not make recipe and sensitizes only a few people, indeed, but that changes slowly! However, to be understandable, an open mind to difference is already necessary, which is not the case for everyone in a very conservative society, by culture.
you have not been able to convince of the interest of your thought, or you have not been sufficiently didactic so that it is understandable, or we do not have sufficient knowledge to raise us 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 people's ignorance. but as Did would say, informing and convincing are two different things which are not systematically linked. However, one thing is understandable only if it is accompanied by a concrete dimension, otherwise everyone could only be convinced by speeches. However to rise to a level, whatever it is, it's like on any scale you have to put, at a minimum, the foot on the first bar, then the second and so on, but that is not suitable to those who feel dizzy for lack of his usual landmarks. Which bar are you on in the areas I mentioned?
Clearly you express yourself without knowing anything about the situation.
You probably want to talk about yourself!
afterwards it is not because a subject does not worry that i ignore everything ...
And what are you supposed to know, at a minimum, where did you go to get it? Now if I believe what you have already expressed, it is really minimal, even nonexistent both in terms of health and in terms of theology!
it's just that it occupies its right 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 good talk, belief ...
is it weird that you talk about bringing evidence when that is 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 an informative value, or I speak of concrete cases in these works that you have not read but of which you know what they are supposed to contain.
But for the record, you believe in pasteurism when Pasteur did not make his reputation on ONE CASE supposed to be enraged when this unique example was not renewable and that 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
when a particular work is heretical for the religions in place, this kind of thesis, if any, would have no place.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 09/01/19, 11:25

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

Unfortunately, it is this kind of comparison that leads astray on current genetic engineering.
The selections, of which Darwin mentions for example, are not irreversible since as soon as this selection ceases nature takes back its rights. Manipulation within genes, directly by intrusion, has nothing comparable since it is irreversible and in complete ignorance of the consequences on the complexity of living things. However in non-transmissible intervention (?) By therapeutic operation (for example) on the living, we can assume that its consequences, unknown, will have little or no impact on future generations (what nobody knows really)
But in the case of cultivation in open fields, the risk is much higher and above all uncontrollable as shown by surveys on Monsanto, for example.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: what is GMO?




by Did67 » 09/01/19, 12:37

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

The selection made by our ancestors is, in the strict sense of the term, genetic manipulation. Handling comes from hand. When in a given population, you take such an ear to make a seed, you choose the genes that it contains. At the expense of others. You manipulate genes ...

Too simple to understand ??

Why confuse with reversibility or not ??? Just because it annoys you? Irrepressible need to be right?

Read again. I didn't say it's irreversible. Nothing like. I'm not stupid enough (even in your eyes - I hope) to dispute a truism: if we stop cultivating them ("cure" if you want), most of the varieties (even old ones) will disappear ... And then ? a) did I say the opposite? or ? ; b) how does this contradict the fact that creating these varieties was "genetic manipulation" by our ancestors (literally: with their own hands, they chose such genes over others)? Let us go further: on the contrary, the fact that this is reversible even confirms the nature of the manipulation: manipulated in the direction of human needs (therefore genetically different), these plants can no longer live alone. I remind you, this is quite true for the "ancient vegetables", so idolized today!
1 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: what is GMO?




by Moindreffor » 09/01/19, 13:33

Janic wrote:In all fields, what 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 does not actually interests only a few people, including in the health field (and especially this one) when everyone only talks and thinks in terms of illnesses and sick people (you know something!) but health itself does not make recipe and sensitizes only a few people, indeed, but that changes slowly!

even what is not mastered by the general public can be found in the library, this is surely where you study, since you did not do it with a university or a seminar, so your works even not intended for a general public should be able to appear there, right? So help us to open our minds, by giving us the 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 the best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: what is GMO?




by Janic » 09/01/19, 15:00

The selection made by our ancestors is, in the strict sense of the term, genetic manipulation. Handling comes from hand. When in a given population, you take such an ear to make a seed, you choose the genes that it contains. At the expense of others. You manipulate genes ...
Too simple to understand?

On the contrary, it is elementary and even if I speak little on the subject, I never said the opposite. I just point out that what you call genetic manipulation, others call it selection, which has nothing to do with direct intrusion into the cell ignoring the natural barriers of protection against any intrusion. We are not on the same scale of value!
We can compare this to vaccination (I know I break my feet with this subject, but it is the same process) Jenner, notes that the cowherds are immunized against smallpox after having affected the udder of cows with variola vaccine. It is therefore an OUTDOOR contact without intrusion and therefore passing through the skin's immune system. Jenner will break through, break down this barrier to go directly under the skin, assuming that where the skin's immune system reduces vaccine infection, this would increase the chance of making the next immune system, the blood, even more effective. .and it could have worked except that in the following epidemics the vaccinated were the first and most important victims and it had not been planned, nor imagined by the health authorities or point that the English State removed the vaccination obligation of this sickness.
GMOs are the same catchphrase except that the 2nd protective barrier is also crossed without precautions (which ones, moreover?)
Too simple to understand?
Why confuse with reversibility or not ???

Because any intervention DANCE the living depends on it! if we do a bypass, it is as irreversible as if we do a heart transplant!
Just because it annoys you? Irrepressible need to be right?

Or just common sense!
Reread. I did not say that it is irreversible.

It is true, it is I who say it, but not concerning 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 were unaware that such or such mechanism, had close links with other complex, sophisticated mechanisms which it is necessary sometimes try to repair, when possible only.
But our DIY enthusiasts do not take it into account since no ethics committee supervises these bulb heads that manufacturers do not use for their beautiful eyes, but to extract industrial products that generate large quantities, huge benefits, especially since the living can be patented and their turnover has exploded. 7 billion, soon 10 billion customers, it is not nothing and as much as possible, not to lose them stupidly with organic, 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 minds and actions towards a better respect for the soil, for its life, so it is not a question of bullshit, but from a different point of view
to challenge a truism: if we stop cultivating them ("cure" if you want), most varieties (even old ones) will disappear ...

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

They knew nothing about genes, not difficult! But by selecting, with their hands, certain seeds, they did so to the detriment of others more robust, more adapted to the soil, to the climate, etc… and that concerns especially our time.
In this we can compare the current corn in our regions, greedy in water, with that of the regions originating from this product where the fields are not precisely watered, but producing less large ears, and there no need for chemical treatments. You have already raised the issue, I think!
Let us go further: on the contrary, the fact that this is reversible even confirms the nature of the manipulation: manipulated in the direction of human needs (therefore genetically different), these plants can no longer live alone. I remind you, this is quite true for the "ancient vegetables", so idolized today!

Again, I'm not talking about selection here, but FORCE INTRUSION into the genome, without knowing the medium or long term consequences. As for the 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 everything that lives and the lessons we can learn from it are the same; and when the human pretends to have more knowledge and experience than that of all the billions of living beings that have lived without him, for millennia (others say millions but whatever) I find it conceited and dangerous to put the fate of life in the hands of these genius do-it-yourselfers, but history is behind us to remind us that badly employed genius has always generated disasters (maybe even global warming)
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
perseus
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 283
Registration: 06/12/16, 11:11
x 73

Re: what is GMO?




by perseus » 09/01/19, 17:46

Hello,

Because any intervention IN the living depends on it! if we do a bypass, it is as irreversible as if we do a heart transplant!

The selections, of which Darwin mentions for example, are not irreversible since as soon as this selection ceases nature takes back its rights. Manipulation within genes, directly by intrusion, has nothing comparable since it is irreversible and in complete ignorance of the consequences on the complexity of living things.


You talked about reversibility of selections. A bypass is irreversible, but so is a selection of carrots or corn. A Golden Bantam corn plant put in the wild will not spontaneously become a teosinte, nor the same grain of Golden Bantam sown in the wild will not 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 for you if you blamed me for repeating myself : Mrgreen: .
I will say it more brutally:
So debating whether or not to ban GMOs (which are the result of a technique) will lead to nothing.
The anti-GMOs as they have often appeared in France are the useful idiots of the big genus firms Syngenta / Monsanto.
In my opinion, genetic information should be subject to a functioning close to that which exists for free licenses (to put it simply: remain open, free access, free modification, free use, free reproduction ...). Of course, the modification of this information must go through the filter of rigorous and independent experimentation. This totally breaks the profitability potential 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 343 guests