Science and Exploration

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Little Fish

I don't think there's anything inherently bad with GMO, to be honest. I expect this will be a very unpopular opinion but, it's mine.

I think the implications for vegans is an interesting one though-

Bee hive colony collapse is directly effected by Monsanto's GMO's. Now if one can do with out fruit, nuts, or any other plant pollenated by bees, go for it. Personally I don't like scurvy.

[Little Fish]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Bee hive colony collapse is directly effected by Monsanto's GMO's. Now if one can do with out fruit, nuts, or any other plant pollenated by bees, go for it. Personally I don't like scurvy.

Are you talking about Colony Collapse Disorder?

If so, here's some data from the EPA website:
Why it's happening
There have been many theories about the cause of CCD, but the researchers who are leading the effort to find out why are now focused on these factors:

increased losses due to the invasive varroa mite (a pest of honeybees);
new or emerging diseases such as Israeli Acute Paralysis virus and the gut parasite Nosema;
pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control;
bee management stress;
foraging habitat modification
inadequate forage/poor nutrition and
potential immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by one or a combination of factors identified above.

Additional factors may include poor nutrition, drought, and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bee colonies long distances to provide pollination services.


I think when making broad and sweeping declarative statements, it's most helpful to offer a scientific citation. The best information being the most accurate and thus by definition, evidence based.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Little Fish

Are you talking about Colony Collapse Disorder?

If so, here's some data from the EPA website:
Why it's happening
There have been many theories about the cause of CCD, but the researchers who are leading the effort to find out why are now focused on these factors:

increased losses due to the invasive varroa mite (a pest of honeybees);
new or emerging diseases such as Israeli Acute Paralysis virus and the gut parasite Nosema;
pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control;
bee management stress;
foraging habitat modification
inadequate forage/poor nutrition and
potential immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by one or a combination of factors identified above.

Additional factors may include poor nutrition, drought, and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bee colonies long distances to provide pollination services.


I think when making broad and sweeping declarative statements, it's most helpful to offer a scientific citation. The best information being the most accurate and thus by definition, evidence based.

I have other date that says it is GMO related. So who you going to base your "truth" on depends on what studies you read and believe. Best not attack others for their understanding of data.

Eta you come in here and state you are going to get flack, well you got it.

[Little Fish]

Originally Posted by Corkey

I have other date that says it is GMO related. So who you going to base your "truth" on depends on what studies you read and believe. Best not attack others for their understanding of data.

Eta you come in here and state you are going to get flack, well you got it.

Corkey,

You misunderstand me if you think I'm attacking you (or anyone else for that matter) --as I stated above, it's my opinion regarding GMO in general. I offer the comment about scientific citation because that is the academic convention when discussing data and scientific studies. Since I am a trained scientist by profession, I can assure you I do not use words like "truth" to discuss science. Data is either accurate or precise, neither or both.

If you'd like to share your sources regarding the Monsanto GMO studies and bee colonies, I'd very much like to read them. Thank you.

[Corkey]

http://www.naturalnews.com/035610_ho...orn_syrup.html

http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/20...ycollapse.html

http://solutionsforyourlife.ufl.edu/..._disorder.html

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Bee hive colony collapse is directly effected by Monsanto's GMO's. Now if one can do with out fruit, nuts, or any other plant pollenated by bees, go for it. Personally I don't like scurvy.

Part of the problem with talking about genetic engineering is that there's the science and then there's the business. I, and I think the other few voices here who are actually in favor of genetic engineering, are talking about the *science*. If Monsanto went out of business this very afternoon, it would not change one whit the promise of genetic engineering nor would it change the science behind it. I am not going to defend Monsanto. I am going to defend genetic engineering because the science behind it is extraordinarily sound.

As I said the other day, genetic engineering is the same thing we've been doing since we got the clever idea of trying to domesticate some plants and animals. The primary differences, the only real significant differences, are that we can do very targeted manipulations instead of, quite frankly, kind of stumbling about in the dark *and* we can cross the species barrier. That's it. Other than that, genetic engineering is the same process as breeders use except the traditional way is slow and only slightly better than random natural selection. For example, a while ago a Russian scientist did a truly elegant experiment to test the hypothesis that the domestic dog was closely related to the grey wolf and that humans selected for friendliness towards humans.

To test this, he took foxes (which are still canines) and only allowed those animals that were most friendly to humans to breed. Within startlingly few generations (less than 20) the foxes had floppy ears, more puppy-like behavior, and instead of the more uniform coats of the fox you got the more color-varied coat we see with domesticated dogs. All of these follow-on effects weren't being selected for, those genes just came along for the ride. So in the ways that selection has been done for the last 15000 years or so, lots of genes have come along for the ride.

People think that because one is 'natural' and the other is 'science' that one is better or different than the other but they are really not. Yes, we're taking genes from fish and putting them in strawberries or tomatoes but we're not taking the fish genome, we're taking a specific gene and moving it across the species barrier and that's all. The reason--the ONLY reason--that nature didn't hit upon the solution of anti-freeze for either strawberries or tomatoes is that both species (the wild variant obviously) came up with a solution for dealing with cold, namely seeds. They didn't *need* anti-freeze in the wild because they did not evolve in locations that were cold long enough for resistance to cold to be selected for and seeds did the job. Again, that's the ONLY reason why those species didn't hit on the trick the fish did--they never had the correct problem for which anti-freeze is the solution. Nature is not guided and it has no foresight. It can't see down the road and it can't back up and take a better path when some species hits upon something clever. At no time did nature think "anti-freeze in strawberries would be good, wait on second thought no". There's nothing to do that thinking. Also nature is not exactly concerned with maximizing species. It is simply concerned with genes being passed down generation to generation. Nature doesn't act for the good of the species, it doesn't even act for the good of the individual, nature acts for the good of the genes.

If we want to talk about Monsanto and its business practices that's one subject and I'll likely agree with a lot that is said. But we're talking about genetic engineering specifically, not what Monsanto is doing with it and the idea that there is good, solid, scientific support for an anti-GMO stance simply isn't true.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...people_.2.html

Cheers
Aj

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Part of the problem with talking about genetic engineering is that there's the science and then there's the business. I, and I think the other few voices here who are actually in favor of genetic engineering, are talking about the *science*. If Monsanto went out of business this very afternoon, it would not change one whit the promise of genetic engineering nor would it change the science behind it. I am not going to defend Monsanto. I am going to defend genetic engineering because the science behind it is extraordinarily sound.

As I said the other day, genetic engineering is the same thing we've been doing since we got the clever idea of trying to domesticate some plants and animals. The primary differences, the only real significant differences, are that we can do very targeted manipulations instead of, quite frankly, kind of stumbling about in the dark *and* we can cross the species barrier. That's it. Other than that, genetic engineering is the same process as breeders use except the traditional way is slow and only slightly better than random natural selection. For example, a while ago a Russian scientist did a truly elegant experiment to test the hypothesis that the domestic dog was closely related to the grey wolf and that humans selected for friendliness towards humans.

To test this, he took foxes (which are still canines) and only allowed those animals that were most friendly to humans to breed. Within startlingly few generations (less than 20) the foxes had floppy ears, more puppy-like behavior, and instead of the more uniform coats of the fox you got the more color-varied coat we see with domesticated dogs. All of these follow-on effects weren't being selected for, those genes just came along for the ride. So in the ways that selection has been done for the last 15000 years or so, lots of genes have come along for the ride.

People think that because one is 'natural' and the other is 'science' that one is better or different than the other but they are really not. Yes, we're taking genes from fish and putting them in strawberries or tomatoes but we're not taking the fish genome, we're taking a specific gene and moving it across the species barrier and that's all. The reason--the ONLY reason--that nature didn't hit upon the solution of anti-freeze for either strawberries or tomatoes is that both species (the wild variant obviously) came up with a solution for dealing with cold, namely seeds. They didn't *need* anti-freeze in the wild because they did not evolve in locations that were cold long enough for resistance to cold to be selected for and seeds did the job. Again, that's the ONLY reason why those species didn't hit on the trick the fish did--they never had the correct problem for which anti-freeze is the solution. Nature is not guided and it has no foresight. It can't see down the road and it can't back up and take a better path when some species hits upon something clever. At no time did nature think "anti-freeze in strawberries would be good, wait on second thought no". There's nothing to do that thinking. Also nature is not exactly concerned with maximizing species. It is simply concerned with genes being passed down generation to generation. Nature doesn't act for the good of the species, it doesn't even act for the good of the individual, nature acts for the good of the genes.

If we want to talk about Monsanto and its business practices that's one subject and I'll likely agree with a lot that is said. But we're talking about genetic engineering specifically, not what Monsanto is doing with it and the idea that there is good, solid, scientific support for an anti-GMO stance simply isn't true.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...people_.2.html

Cheers
Aj

I'm not against genetic engineering at all, I am against Monsanto and their practice of using poisons to do the modifications to food and to nature. That is the problem I have with GMO's.

[Little Fish]

Thanks for those links Corkey, I look forward to reading them!

And thank you dreadgeek for your post too, it's important to always tease apart cause and effect, as well as in what context it exists too. I agree with your analogy, today's genetic engineering is merely a refinement of yesterday's advanced animal husbandry. (my apologies to you greadgeek, I'm quite oversimplifying your eloquence)

If anything, I think genetic engineering provides an avenue of precision as a technique unequaled previously in history--my hope is that it will unlock many of our most challenging problems in health / science and in the end, improve our quality of life in the most sacred and profound ways.

[Gráinne]

I was just reading a sample lesson plan in my science educator's magazine using a sandwich (or a picture of one!) to teach the principles of stratigraphy (determining the relative ages of rock layers, fossils and volcanic events using layering and superimposing). It included an opening activity, enquiry, practice, and closing. Figures, I would associate good teaching with food .

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Little Fish

Thanks for those links Corkey, I look forward to reading them!

And thank you dreadgeek for your post too, it's important to always tease apart cause and effect, as well as in what context it exists too. I agree with your analogy, today's genetic engineering is merely a refinement of yesterday's advanced animal husbandry. (my apologies to you greadgeek, I'm quite oversimplifying your eloquence)

If anything, I think genetic engineering provides an avenue of precision as a technique unequaled previously in history--my hope is that it will unlock many of our most challenging problems in health / science and in the end, improve our quality of life in the most sacred and profound ways.

This is last is why I try to explain the science. There's a lot at stake. I'm going to give just one example: Huntington's chorea. There is a gene on chromosome 4 that consists of a single 'word' CAG (you can, in some ways, think of a genome) that repeats over again. On average people have between 6 and 15 repeats. Any number of repeats up to 35 and you're fine. The trouble starts at 39 or higher. Here's Matt Ridley talking about how not only do we know what gene causes it we can predict, based upon the number of repeats at what age you can expect to start showing symptoms.

If you have thirty-nine, you have a 90 percent probability of dementia by the age of seventy-five and will on average get the first symptoms at sixty-six; if forty, on average, you will succumb at fifty-nine; if forty-one, at fifty-four; if forty-two, at 37; and so on until those who have fifty repetitions of the 'word' will lose their minds at roughly twenty-seven years of age. The scale is this: if your chromosomes were long enough to stretch around the equator; the difference between health and insanity would be less than one extra inch.

(Matt Ridley -- Genome: Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters)

Now, we don't know what the gene is actually there for but one day we will and when we do we will be able to manipulate the genome so that we can simply edit out all repeats above 35. We could test for it pretty much as soon as the woman realizes she is pregnant. When we can, we should.

That's the promise. It would be beyond sin if we turned our back on this technology.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

Literal Genesis Trial: Creationist Gimmicks Versus the Optimism of Education

The Guardian, for reasons I cannot begin to imagine, published an article summarizing the so-called Literal Genesis Trial being promoted by Joseph Mastropaolo. As reported, "A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...BNotifications

(this is just for Aj.....cuz it makes her as nuts as it makes me. My dad had a master's in natural sciences....he is probably rolling in his casket)

[gaea]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

This is last is why I try to explain the science. There's a lot at stake. I'm going to give just one example: Huntington's chorea. There is a gene on chromosome 4 that consists of a single 'word' CAG (you can, in some ways, think of a genome) that repeats over again. On average people have between 6 and 15 repeats. Any number of repeats up to 35 and you're fine. The trouble starts at 39 or higher. Here's Matt Ridley talking about how not only do we know what gene causes it we can predict, based upon the number of repeats at what age you can expect to start showing symptoms.

(Matt Ridley -- Genome: Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters)

Now, we don't know what the gene is actually there for but one day we will and when we do we will be able to manipulate the genome so that we can simply edit out all repeats above 35. We could test for it pretty much as soon as the woman realizes she is pregnant. When we can, we should.

That's the promise. It would be beyond sin if we turned our back on this technology.

Cheers
Aj

Aj,

I have Huntington's it is called HUntingtons Disease, my CAG repeat is 40, i am interested in speaking with you perhaps because it seems you are knowledgeable about huntington's disease. I am 6th generation.

Gaea