GMO discussion with teacher

[punk-a-doodle]

Again, please support your statement that evolution is about 'something coming from nothing' with quotes from the text you mentioned ("Origin"), or any scientifically accepted, peer-reviewed study or text regarding evolution.

Feel free to ask if you need clarification on this.

You just used a cultural example to say that something is not cultural.

 

[chickened]

I agree it doesn't prove a thing.
Quote:
Not sure how any of that disproves or proves anything. Its just an overview of theories on how life may have began, some of which were discarded as scientific knowledge grew through the use of the scientific method.

 

[chickened]

http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html I found this interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture Which of the 164 definitions of Culture are you referring to?

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1136/jewish/Something-from-Nothing.htm This was interesting also.

Quote:
Feel free to ask if you need clarification on this.

You just used a cultural example to say that something is not cultural.

 

[call ducks]

Not reading all 223 pages....


Well, at current time i think i well go to post secondary, to become a plant scientist, and depending if i go on farther, i would love to work with GMO's. They are not scarry. I believe there is a perception problem. GMO's is not nuts. I read a story on GMO fish. They sped cross breeding up a lot. Buy selecting only certin genes from one fish and inserting into another. Normaly cross breeding would have to be used. Saving about 5+ years. That is also a bit of a cost savings.

Now don't get me wrong the old plants are often great for small gardeners. But they are just not praticle for commercial farms.



Also i just looked back a few posts and i have seen one post addressing the concern that fields are just be used for seed. With out seed, there is no food.... We need seed!

 

[mom'sfolly]

Look at the crop failures due to the green revolution. It used to be that there were hundreds of varieties of rice and planted in a country each season. The green revolution reduced that to just a few varieties. It also replaced locally adapted plant varieties with so-called "high yield" varieties that required more water, fertilizer and pesticides. The high yield has a very high environmental price. This lead to catastrophic crop failures. In the past, a few varieties of rice might be affected by whatever blight/insect/disease etc that came down the pike, the rest of the varieties continued to grow. When countries switched to mono-cultures, there were huge crop failures. Mono-culture is seldom a good idea for long-term, sustainable agriculture.

The Round-up Ready corn and soy are causing the same sorts of issues. More and more herbicides are being use, and more fertilizers as well. The "increased" yields are costing more and more.

Things like fish farming, even without the GMO manipulation, are causing problems for wild stocks of fish, and are another example of mono-culture.

The companies producing GMO products have lobbied and effectively prevented consumer choice. They have managed to make sure that labeling of their products will never happen in the US. They have done this because they know they would not be able to sell their products to anyone who had the easy choice.

 

[HollyBird24]

mom'sfolly :

The companies producing GMO products have lobbied and effectively prevented consumer choice. They have managed to make sure that labeling of their products will never happen in the US. They have done this because they know they would not be able to sell their products to anyone who had the easy choice.

Most of the corn grown in Canada and the US is GMO. Do you know how many of todays products contain corn? Pop, chewing gum, syrup, toothpaste, chocolate, peanut butter etc etc. I could go on all day. Labeling something as GMO is not as simple as it sounds.

mom'sfolly :

The Round-up Ready corn and soy are causing the same sorts of issues. More and more herbicides are being use, and more fertilizers as well. The "increased" yields are costing more and more.

Actually, with Round-Up Ready products, less chemicals are being used because of instead of having to spray multiple time for different things, the farmer can spray Round-Up once and be done with it.​

 

[HollyBird24]

Quote:
This land taken up for "seed" production is to produce seeds that will yield more for the farmer, thus creating more food. If we never grew something for the purpose of developing it, we would never move forwards. The worlds population is increasing, not decreasing, we cannot feed everyone with crop varieties from 100 years ago.

 

[HollyBird24]

Quote:
Their government did because the imf told them too. Gmo seeds are much more expensive for them and they are unable to buy the cheaper ones. This wasn't the only problem they sold seeds that would need to be irrigated without telling the farmer. Now it does say that it needs irrigation on the packets but we are talking about people who can't read in their own language let alone someone else.

Did you expect Monsanto to go around and tell the farmers it needed to be irrigated? What more could they have done?

When your crops are withering, do you not think they would sit back and realize, hmm, maybe they need some water?

 

[HollyBird24]

Quote:
Not all those farmers are as honest as you think they are, one example is of a farmer in Saskatewan, Canada. Percy Schmieser reported that the GMO canola had blown into his field from a passing truck, yet traces of the canola were found in the middle of his field. Yes, canola is light and blows easily, but not that far!

Nope, not all of them are honest. I don't assume they are. But you assume they are all dishonest an all crooks. I only question the integrity of Monsanto, who happens to have a proven history of being dishonest.


As for Mr Schmieser. I dont know him so I cant say. I do have to wonder. What makes you think where a plant is pollinated has any effect on where the seed is planted the next year? I don't claim to know anything about canola but I assume like other seed crops you would harvest the best first an plant them all over the field the next year. So even generation one after cross contamination you could find the new gene all over the field. If the new gene is really better an those plants did better those would be chosen for keeping so by generation 2 almost all of his field would hold the new gene.

Could he have swapped his seed for there's? Sure. Could it have happened the way he says? Sure.

From what I know about farmers, his story is believable. It may be a lie but I want proof he is lieing before I am throwing stones at him.

Of course, as with everything, there are some dishonest and some honest. In my personal opinion Percy isn't honest. But thats just me.

 

[mom'sfolly]

Yes, I know what all the GMO corn and soy are in...which is why I avoid processed food as much as possible.

This use of pervasive use of corn and soy products is why the GMO industry doesn't want it labeled....

If you read up, you find that the GMO plants are increasing the amount of Round-up needed because of new "super-weeds". Farmers are less likely to rotate crops, so soils are becoming depleted, and other pests are lingering. Monsanto's GMO corn is producing resistant root borers with the Bt corn.

There are also health concerns with GMO foods. At minimum, they should be labelled, so that people can make a choice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576532742267732046.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/02/1041774/-EPA:-Monsanto-GMO-Corn-Failing-Stock-Drops

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm