Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
147. No, nature did it for 4.3 billion years.
Tue Jun 30, 2015, 04:57 PM
Jun 2015

Humans showed up and started manipulating plants 10,000 years ago.

Nature has its own proctectors (Fail Safes) in place.

Nope.

The oxygen now in our atmosphere nearly wiped out all life a few billion years ago. It's a toxic waste product from photosynthesis, and was deadly to almost every lifeform on Earth when cyanobactiera started dumping it into the atmosphere.

There was no "failsafe" or other protections. Lots and lots and lots of things died. A few things figured out how to withstand oxygen. And much later figured out how to use oxygen in respiration.

Since it takes thousands of years for evolution or "genetic selection", each natural generation will be a small variation of the original that has to be sustainable and reproduce on its own. Most of the time, there is no detectable variation.

Until humans showed up.

What is natural about grafting one apple tree onto another apple tree? It's how every single apple in the supermarket (and "all-natural, local organic farmer's market) is grown. Where's the tiny step in cutting off the top of one tree and sticking it on the bottom of another?

Another "Fail Safe" nature has in place is that two species can't cross breed unless they are the same species, and relatively close in size, constitution, and growing limits.

The creatures known as Mules say "Hi".

Also, there's lots of bacteria that breed across species boundaries, thanks to things like the F' plasmid.

GMO lobbies are trying desperately to connect what they do with nature's Natural Selection....and that is the BIG LIE.

There are many big lies involved. Some are being told by "GMO lobbies". Others are being told by "natural food" companies.

GMO is something NEW, not at all like Natural Selection.

How is bombarding pink grapefruit with gamma rays until it grows red grape fruit not "NEW"?

How is dumping a chemical mutagen on watermelon, causing it to produce 4 copies of its DNA instead of 2 not "NEW"?

GMO has NOT been tested by our FDA or USDA, but was approved by our politicians under a Grandfather clause...because it looked like the original

And here's where the "natural food" people are lying to you. People producing GMO crops have to demonstrate that the crop is not nutritionally different from the "natural" crop. Thus there is actual testing and FDA and USDA approvals.

But gamma rays on grapefruit? No testing. No approvals. Sell it as all-natural. Chemical mutagens on watermelon? Again, no testing, no approvals, sell it as all-natural.

Heck, I could use traditional hybridization techniques to combine nightshade and tomato plants. And I can sell it immediately. Sure, nightshade may mean the fruit is poisonous, but I can sell it. As all natural. And organic.

If lack of testing is your fear, you need to be worried about much more than just GMOs.

Do NOT spray bt during the daytime (when bees are active), but after dark,
and do NOT use the Bt powder which can be picked up by a bee and carried back to the hive.

Even better, have the plant make a much smaller concentration of Bt that can not get on the bee. Because it's inside the plant's tissues, not dumped all over the plant's flowers, nectar or pollen.

Oh, the toxin also lasts for much longer than one day. So doing it at night isn't terribly helpful.
When I want to hear about science... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #1
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #4
Saying them doesn't make them true skepticscott Jun 2015 #20
And posting the word "horseshit" doesn't mean that science in the service only of profits, and villager Jun 2015 #27
Science never serves only profits skepticscott Jun 2015 #48
Kind of a naive fella for all your "skepticism," aren't ya? villager Jun 2015 #50
Accusations are easy and I dismiss them skepticscott Jun 2015 #52
Accusations must be easy, since you freely make so many of them villager Jun 2015 #71
You're the one who injected personal insult and ad hom skepticscott Jun 2015 #81
Says the one who first used the word "horseshit?" villager Jun 2015 #90
There's a difference between insulting skepticscott Jun 2015 #93
So, *your* patronizing insults are okay, but it's just other people's insults that are the problem? villager Jun 2015 #96
Any time you'd like to resort to facts and logic skepticscott Jun 2015 #97
I started by mentioning that your initial sneering -- which is how you enter any dicussion here -- villager Jun 2015 #100
The claim is not true by default skepticscott Jun 2015 #105
It's a philosophical obsevation, borne out by much 20th century history. villager Jun 2015 #107
Fail. skepticscott Jun 2015 #120
Well, "science without ethics" would have been better phrasing villager Jun 2015 #124
Well, be sure to tell Einstein when you see him skepticscott Jun 2015 #135
Like a dog worrying a bone, you can't let it go. villager Jun 2015 #137
Honest science follows where ever the proven evidence points. nt ladjf Jun 2015 #103
Science never serves only profits!!!! bvar22 Jun 2015 #152
Well, that and universities, government research facilities skepticscott Jun 2015 #156
Einstein said it - but most of what he said ... SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #36
I believe you went a-Googling bvf Jun 2015 #43
It seems to me that your belief system has some problems SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #56
In your Post 57 it was Ideas and Opinions skepticscott Jun 2015 #63
Do you have anything to add? SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #64
Einstein said it...therefore it must be true..is that your argument? skepticscott Jun 2015 #44
Dude? SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #57
Nice try at deflection, dude skepticscott Jun 2015 #58
Deflection??? SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #60
My style of critical thinking requires actual evidence skepticscott Jun 2015 #66
I have seen people who have no intellectual foundation... SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #67
Yawn skepticscott Jun 2015 #68
You have shown that you can not name even one... SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #70
Well, that wasn't Einstein's style of critical thinking. He once pointed to a drawer in a table Joe Chi Minh Jun 2015 #119
What you're describing is not critical thinking skepticscott Jun 2015 #121
Sorry. Critical thinking has to result in positive thinking or it will remain sterile. Joe Chi Minh Jun 2015 #126
Nice try...but incoherent skepticscott Jun 2015 #134
My pleasure. Joe Chi Minh Jul 2015 #171
Hmm... bvf Jun 2015 #74
So... SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #75
I beg to differ. bvf Jun 2015 #77
So very very sad... SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #78
No, I don't think it was Einstein, bvf Jun 2015 #82
you are so silly SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #85
You are, of course, familiar bvf Jun 2015 #92
earnest argument? SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #104
You just can't help yourself, can you? bvf Jun 2015 #109
Work? SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #110
Here, let me show you how it's done, bvf Jun 2015 #113
Trouble? SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2015 #114
Wise words? I'd go with "fatuous aphorism". progressoid Jul 2015 #172
Like I care! SoLeftIAmRight Jul 2015 #180
He also called religions "childish superstitions" progressoid Jul 2015 #182
and your point is? SoLeftIAmRight Jul 2015 #183
... bvf Jul 2015 #181
The Pope worked as a scientist before going into the seminary. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2015 #7
Good for the Pope! He studied chemistry I think. appalachiablue Jun 2015 #8
YAY! vlakitti Jun 2015 #21
I had a computer science professor bvf Jun 2015 #25
I happen to agree with Francis this time, but this last move proves cprise Jun 2015 #30
Desperate, yes. bvf Jun 2015 #34
You can believe that this Pope is wise enough to have consulted with Cal33 Jun 2015 #47
All Frank had to do was pick up a newspaper and bvf Jun 2015 #51
That would have been a lazy man's approach. Pope Francis, I believe, is one who Cal33 Jun 2015 #112
He is thorough enough bvf Jun 2015 #117
Believe it or not, the Pope's powers are quite limited. There are many things he Cal33 Jun 2015 #140
Thanks for the lecture. bvf Jun 2015 #159
Actually, I line up with actual scientists. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #53
You really don't think that the Pope does not consult with his science experts Cal33 Jun 2015 #46
Seems the use of the laughing smilie upaloopa Jun 2015 #76
So Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Pascal, Lemaitre, Planck, Einstein et al Joe Chi Minh Jun 2015 #123
Uhhhmmm.... Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #141
Of course, you were being sarcastic. Hence my response. You atheists Joe Chi Minh Jul 2015 #163
uh, wtf? "Evolution has been comprehensively destroyed piece-meal" progressoid Jul 2015 #164
Are 'liberal' and 'progressive' terms that are meant to be the exclusive preserve of atheists? Joe Chi Minh Jul 2015 #173
Again, WTF? progressoid Jul 2015 #179
You sure you're in the right place? Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2015 #167
'“Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that Joe Chi Minh Jul 2015 #174
Since we're all going a-Googling (it's the latest rage!)... bvf Jul 2015 #178
Gödel demonstrated bvf Jul 2015 #176
No, you should have mentioned that skepticscott Jul 2015 #177
Oh, he is in trouble now! djean111 Jun 2015 #2
My first research position... Alkene Jun 2015 #14
That is interesting... cprise Jun 2015 #31
here is the link - I would love to know your take on it - djean111 Jun 2015 #42
Very appropriate criticism libodem Jun 2015 #3
Thank you, Pope Francis Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #5
Ooops... they were even faster than you arikara Jun 2015 #28
GMO =/= Monsanto. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #54
Gmos need roundup. Roundup is the point of the Pope's point. Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #79
GMOs do NOT need RoundUp. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #83
They are destroying the natural diversity, they're like kudzu-takeover. Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #86
Golden Rice Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #88
Bullpucky! Dont call me Shirley Jun 2015 #91
OK. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #111
Insulin is genetically modified progressoid Jul 2015 #165
I think this one is deliberately obtuse. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2015 #168
Ditto... Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #170
He is setting up the church for a glaring contradiction Re: cprise Jun 2015 #33
It would behoove churches to begin to preach birth control for the salvation of our species Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #169
He doesn't. bvf Jul 2015 #175
Poison the insects and you poison or starve all of the smaller animals that eat them. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2015 #6
+1! Enthusiast Jun 2015 #12
Which doesn't require genetic modifications. jeff47 Jun 2015 #69
Organic use of Bt doesn't give it chances to reproduce cprise Jun 2015 #129
That boat sailed 10,000 years ago. jeff47 Jun 2015 #143
...and THAT is the problem with GMOs. bvar22 Jun 2015 #144
No, nature did it for 4.3 billion years. jeff47 Jun 2015 #147
Oh....and can Mules reproduce? bvar22 Jun 2015 #148
I chose mules because people know what they are. People who didn't take much biology don't know jeff47 Jun 2015 #151
DO you have any experience with Honey Bees?... bvar22 Jun 2015 #154
Indeed cprise Jun 2015 #150
That 'breeding is just like GE' line got old in the 2000s. cprise Jun 2015 #145
Yes, it does "cut severely across the grain of nature" jeff47 Jun 2015 #149
A word about reality cprise Jun 2015 #158
Birth control would help Treant Jun 2015 #9
The main purpose of the GMO's is greater profit for Monsanto. pnwmom Jun 2015 #19
Not responsive to the statement at hand Treant Jun 2015 #35
American Catholics are MORE likely to use artificial birth control than Americans in general. pnwmom Jun 2015 #37
And yet people still argue skepticscott Jun 2015 #49
The difference is that in the case of the global environment, pnwmom Jun 2015 #59
You mean the same scientists skepticscott Jun 2015 #61
I'm saying that I hope the Church and the scientific establishment working TOGETHER pnwmom Jun 2015 #62
Then let the church change its stance skepticscott Jun 2015 #65
They can and will be taken seriously on the issue of the global environment because pnwmom Jun 2015 #73
Um, no...as long as the RCC continues to oppose skepticscott Jun 2015 #80
I have always advocated that the CC change its position on artificial contraception. n/t pnwmom Jun 2015 #84
Good for you. Then you should understand the hypocrisy skepticscott Jun 2015 #87
The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul progressoid Jul 2015 #166
Not a fan of monoculture, pesticides, etc. It's been said often by natives it's all interconnected. freshwest Jun 2015 #10
Kicked and recommended to the Max! Enthusiast Jun 2015 #11
I agree with the Pope BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #13
Poverty is the root problem. Birth rates are lower in wealthier countries, pnwmom Jun 2015 #38
Oh good lord BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #39
Please tell us you're not arguing skepticscott Jun 2015 #94
That's the opposite of what I'm saying. n/t pnwmom Jun 2015 #95
You argued that poverty is the root problem skepticscott Jun 2015 #99
FOX "News" will now claim this guy is a commie. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #15
Thank you, Pope Francis. jwirr Jun 2015 #16
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jun 2015 #17
Thank You For Sharing cantbeserious Jun 2015 #18
He is correct about how pesticides and Round Up destroy the web fasttense Jun 2015 #22
Good for you arikara Jun 2015 #29
Bravo to you! cprise Jun 2015 #101
Thank you fast tense. That's all the scientific proof I would need to.... sorechasm Jun 2015 #160
Well thank you for putting me in my place fasttense Jul 2015 #162
This pope continues to amaze. Chemisse Jun 2015 #23
Pope Franky is the Vatican's "Hail Mary Pass" Submariner Jun 2015 #26
Has nothing to do with child rapes shrike Jun 2015 #115
K & R Thespian2 Jun 2015 #24
Oh shit, the GOP won't like this at all. blackspade Jun 2015 #32
I love Pope Francis, and I am anything but Catholic. kestrel91316 Jun 2015 #40
So good to see the stand he has taken. He's so right to do it. n/t Judi Lynn Jun 2015 #41
The Pope knows more than Bill Nye and MdT on the safety of GMOs, imho. mahalo bananas. Cha Jun 2015 #45
Apart from the honorary degrees, isn't Nye a Mechanical Engineer?? cprise Jun 2015 #108
He's a couple of truths away from someone putting something in his bedtime tea yurbud Jun 2015 #55
He's only about 10,000 years too late. jeff47 Jun 2015 #72
Criticism of big chemical tech companies is NOT allowed get the red out Jun 2015 #89
get ready for a LOT of Dan Brown-level stuff from certain "scientific" circles MisterP Jun 2015 #98
This Pope says lots of constructive things about how to ladjf Jun 2015 #102
K&R I am not totally opposed to GMO, nor any potentially beneficial science. raouldukelives Jun 2015 #106
I would settle for a 20 year, Peer Reviewed, Double Blind experiment on GMOs, bvar22 Jun 2015 #118
Exactly. We are not against science. Far from. raouldukelives Jun 2015 #142
Lets reprogram life according to the priorities of the 0.1% cprise Jun 2015 #146
Right There ! bvar22 Jun 2015 #155
Fabulous Pope Francis Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2015 #116
Answering the call to action saidsimplesimon Jun 2015 #122
This post is a lie Fred Friendlier Jun 2015 #125
Interesting shrike Jun 2015 #127
It's not a lie, it's just a different translation. bananas Jun 2015 #132
Good post, but please don't confuse actual skeptics with denialists. HuckleB Jun 2015 #128
It's not a lie, it's just a different translation. bananas Jun 2015 #133
What does that have to do with my post? HuckleB Jun 2015 #138
You thought an easily debunked sleazy attack was a "good post". bananas Jul 2015 #161
It's not a lie, it's just a different translation. bananas Jun 2015 #131
It's similar to the Google translation from the original Latin. bananas Jun 2015 #136
Do you understand how funny this post is? HuckleB Jun 2015 #139
I don't think it is funny. bvar22 Jun 2015 #153
Good for him. polly7 Jun 2015 #130
I agree get the red out Jun 2015 #157
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Pope Francis Slams GMOs a...»Reply #147