PDA

View Full Version : Wanna Read Something Stu-u-pid?



SurferJoe46
14-09-2010, 06:45 AM
These Greenies are all a bunch of nay-sayers and blathering nimbots.

Now they are up against genetically modified (GM) salmon (a fish) because it might be harmful.


This is me, quoting myself here:: As humans, we don't consume animals or vegetables on the genetic level now - why would that change with a GM food of any kind?

If GM was bad, then so is Standard DNA and nobody looks like a potato or a turkey now - do they?

Too much tempest in a teapot and this is all voodoo 'science' to protest such stupidity in the first place.

Wise up and learn that you aren't gonna sprout gill or fins by eating GM fish!

Here's their dumb article:

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/science-scope/new-on-the-menu-gm-salmon/4060/#comment-form

...and their go-to reference material-supplier:: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/07/gm-salmon-industrial-food-system


.....and a snippet of their diatribe::: Last Friday, though, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a potentially dangerous step. The agency ruled that salmon whose genes have been altered so that they grow more rapidly than their wild counterparts are safe for human consumption. In so doing, the FDA opened the door for salmon to become just another unhealthful cog in the industrial-food machine. And it may have foisted upon the public yet another cancer risk.

According to a report in the New York Times, FDA scientists found that the altered fish, developed by AquaBounty Technologies, based in the Boston area, were unlikely to escape into the environment and cross-breed with native schools of Atlantic salmon. The agency also found that even though the genetically altered salmon carry elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a suspected carcinogen, those levels are so minute that they pose no health risk.

Now --- I don't particularly LIKE salmon, but I'd have no fears eating it with any DNA pattern.

Until it morphs into at least semi-human shape/form, I'll toss one on the Bar-B-Q and snarffle it down.

The Error Guy
14-09-2010, 08:32 AM
There are issues regarding the altering of the animals genetic materials, traits that are not currently expressed in "normal" salmon could be expressed in the "new" salmon such as a recessive gene that makes the fish poisonous to humans or other wild life. if the salmon poisoned, say bears then it would start affecting the whole eco system. also the "fast growing" type could also get accidentally released to the wild, because they mature and grow faster they would clog up waterways with their numbers pushing out the slower breeding variety. other species would struggle to find food.

Personally, not afraid of eating it but its potential to damage the environment is too great to be risked in a commercial environment. in a lab its safe to a point but if they are breeding thousands it can become a problem

SP8's
14-09-2010, 09:34 AM
Piranha 3D has just been on at the movies .... and you thought it was safe to get back in the water :devil

SurferJoe46
14-09-2010, 10:52 AM
There are issues regarding the altering of the animals genetic materials, traits that are not currently expressed in "normal" salmon could be expressed in the "new" salmon such as a recessive gene that makes the fish poisonous to humans or other wild life. if the salmon poisoned, say bears then it would start affecting the whole eco system. also the "fast growing" type could also get accidentally released to the wild, because they mature and grow faster they would clog up waterways with their numbers pushing out the slower breeding variety. other species would struggle to find food.

Personally, not afraid of eating it but its potential to damage the environment is too great to be risked in a commercial environment. in a lab its safe to a point but if they are breeding thousands it can become a problem

Ya know - I'm not totally buying into that.

Belly-filler is still belly-filler and it can't possibly matter if the DNA is from a fish or a coconut.

MY primary point is as follows:::

Nobody has tuned into one of something they eat since we totally destroy DNA in the digestive processes and the whole DNA/RNA chain is not viable at that point.

If there was a problem along those lines, we'd all be eating plain air to keep the DNA cross-species contamination to zero.

Nope - we don't need to worry about DNA and what we eat for those reasons.

Getting to my secondary point now:::

Bears - eat lots of salmon and that's OK - but let a dog get some raw salmon and they die.

The problem's not the DNA - it's the foodstuff itself.

The bear's design allows it to consume the fish - the dog's design does not: they die.

The recipient/consumer of the food has to be able to correctly digest the various proteins and food chains to be effective as a foodstuff.

This ability falls totally on the head of the animal eating the food - not the DNA of the food itself or it wouldn't be fit for consumption in the first place.

DNA makes the whole animal, true - but if the animal's not fit for consumption as it is, changing the DNA won't make it less or more so. Just different.

IE: a poison mushroom that's not poisonous isn't a poisonous mushroom - it would have had to be edible by design not by changing the DNA or it wouldn't be that particular mushroom any more.

Once you cross the DNA line in a big way, then the animal (or plant) isn't the same and it takes on a whole new criteria. The organism may not even survive if the recombinant RNA is too far off base.

Hybridism usually takes over and any reproductive possibility wanes and the animal dies a virgin.

Spontaneous mutations happen all the time - stray gamma rays, cross-breed insemination, failure to replicate the DNA correctly or insufficient RNA in the matrix, etc.

If it's too far removed from original design - it fails.

.

SoniKalien
14-09-2010, 11:07 AM
Personally I think it's genetic modification that's stupid. It's scientist getting caught up in a power trip, playing god...

Sure the idea is that it's solving problems, but it's the wrong solution. eg faster growing salmon means more food for the people. It's not the salmon that needs fixing, it's the people. The world is over-populated. So wouldn't it be a better idea to genetically modify humans to limit the offspring they produce?

But that's just my own opinion not based on any scientific data or theory... :p

SurferJoe46
14-09-2010, 11:28 AM
Personally I think it's genetic modification that's stupid. It's scientist getting caught up in a power trip, playing god...

Sure the idea is that it's solving problems, but it's the wrong solution. eg faster growing salmon means more food for the people. It's not the salmon that needs fixing, it's the people. The world is over-populated. So wouldn't it be a better idea to genetically modify humans to limit the offspring they produce?

But that's just my own opinion not based on any scientific data or theory... :p

I'd totally agree with you if I thought that would solve anything. I heard Hawking and his latest assault against logic too. He wants to bring things further down the slippery slope to decadence and minimalist survival with his diss of creation. But let's not go there - it gets too hot on this site for that debate.


But that's just my own opinion not based on any scientific data or theory...

Be ye very careful here - SCIENCE HAS BECOME A GOD.

It's a valid point though - not as silly as some are want to relegate to ignorance. 'Scientific" proofs are not always the right ones and even though great homage has been granted to science, it really hasn't solved many or even all of the problems that face mankind.

In Popular Mechanics of the 1950s. we were promised that science would solve all our problems - free electricity from atomic power plants generating so cheaply it was almost as free.

I was promised a flying commuter car or a rocket pack to go to and from work. Can you imagine the carnage in the skies, multiplied many times more that driving in two dimensions on the streets and highways?

Disease would all be done away with - with the advent of miracle drugs and potions to eliminate germs and birth defects.

Then comes Hollywood 'moms' who say that childhood inoculations are bad for your children and then now comes the current uptick of pertussis and polio, rubella, pheumonia which are making headway again in the US - where these diseases were all but 100%+ eliminated.

Stu-u-pid!

Greed, avarice and waste are big problems I feel too. Add in that 'stupidity' above and the factors are all against much individual longevity on planet Earth at all.

I fully believe that the world can and could feed many more than are already here if the food actually GOT to the people instead of artificially forced 'shortages' and 'technical' factors weren't included.

Warehousing is used to create artificial shortages to force prices up and line pockets all the time.

I saw food sitting on docks and out in the open with rats/vermin eating their fill on food that was intended to feed starving people in third-world countries.

Politicians, war-mongers, greedy industrialists and people who want it all for themselves are the problem - not overpopulation I feel - unless overpopulation of THEM can be counted.

The REAL factors that should be eliminated are the corrupt officials, potentates and dictators, thieves and crooks in the world.

SoniKalien
14-09-2010, 12:19 PM
Be ye very careful here - SCIENCE HAS BECOME A GOD.

So have I. I have the ability to create and destroy. I have created life. I haven't destroyed any life (apart from the odd bug that was pestering me) but I have destroyed art that I created (in a fit of self-defeatism) yet I don't consider myself any 'higher' or more worthy than any other human or animal.



The REAL factors that should be eliminated are the corrupt officials, potentates and dictators, thieves and crooks in the world.

Ah maybe so, but doesn't overpopulation create these things?

SurferJoe46
14-09-2010, 12:55 PM
Ah maybe so, but doesn't overpopulation create these things?

It's not the necessary evil outcome for large numbers of people - it's not so cause-n-effect as you might think.

I've heard the 'rats/overpopulation' tests where an high number of rats are forced to live in very cramped quarters - they start eating each other.

Kinda like people, but people do it by legal decree and machination.

jareemon
14-09-2010, 01:48 PM
Nobody looks like a potato now do they?

I do :(

:pf1mobmini:

qazwsxokmijn
14-09-2010, 01:56 PM
Nobody has tuned into one of something they eat since we totally destroy DNA in the digestive processes and the whole DNA/RNA chain is not viable at that point.
It's the proteins that these DNA and RNA code for that as TEG says maybe harmful, maybe not to us, but maybe to consumers of the GM organism if it ever escaped into the wild.

Though I believe GM foods is mostly safe for human consumption, it's what Sol already said that is the reason why I'm against it. I don't believe there is a god, but you're playing in a domain no humans should ever touch. There is a difference between selective breeding and GM btw, so hopefully no one will try to compare GM with farming.

mikebartnz
14-09-2010, 02:26 PM
I'm not sure about GE products yet as I have seen too much damage done when humans thought things would be ok. eg the introduction of rabbits to this country and gorse.
I wish people would get the difference between GM and GE. GE is where genes have been genetically engineered by science whereas I am a genetic modification of my parents, or you might cross a couple of breeds of tomato to get the results you want.

SurferJoe46
14-09-2010, 04:07 PM
I'm not sure about GE products yet as I have seen too much damage done when humans thought things would be ok. eg the introduction of rabbits to this country and gorse.
I wish people would get the difference between GM and GE. GE is where genes have been genetically engineered by science whereas I am a genetic modification of my parents, or you might cross a couple of breeds of tomato to get the results you want.

Good on ya, Mike. I forgot the distinction.

qazwsxokmijn
14-09-2010, 05:37 PM
I wish people would get the difference between GM and GE. GE is where genes have been genetically engineered by science whereas I am a genetic modification of my parents, or you might cross a couple of breeds of tomato to get the results you want.
They're the same thing. I don't know if they have any official stance, but modification and engineering are just two words describing the same thing in this context. What you're referring to is selective breeding.

You're not the GM product of your parents, yes your parents' genes were....interchanged, during crossover events in meiosis, but their genes remain intact (well, halved in gametes), they're only shuffled if you will, and you get half/half from each parent.

mikebartnz
14-09-2010, 07:39 PM
They're the same thing. I don't know if they have any official stance, but modification and engineering are just two words describing the same thing in this context. What you're referring to is selective breeding.

You're not the GM product of your parents, yes your parents' genes were....interchanged, during crossover events in meiosis, but their genes remain intact (well, halved in gametes), they're only shuffled if you will, and you get half/half from each parent.
You say they are the same thing I say they are not so we will leave it at that.

mOOseCaNNoN
15-09-2010, 12:37 AM
What's wrong with salmon the way it is?

"Just one rule of thumb when it comes to food and drugs "approved" by the US FDA: wait 5 years, then take."

hahaha the goods

SurferJoe46
15-09-2010, 06:03 AM
You say they are the same thing I say they are not so we will leave it at that.

Mike - I side with you here (you KNEW that would happen one day - right?)

mikebartnz
15-09-2010, 10:54 AM
Mike - I side with you here (you KNEW that would happen one day - right?)
It is always nice when it happens.