In article ,
Rick wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious cult
that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They will
spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science. Interesting
cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the responses
I have seen are referring to scientific studies not religious texts. You
might want to reply with some facts instead of a broad generalisation with
no obvious evidence. So far you are exhibiting the very thing you
criticise.

David


Sure.
scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not normally...

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

Your hubris runneth over. We poor gardeners are a varied lot, and you
may be surprised what you can learn here.

If you care to explain why GMOs are innocuous, please do so, but don't
presume to be above reproach as authority needs to be questioned. So far
you haven't made any scientific arguments in favor of GMOs, until you do
I'll presume that you have none.

Your "content free" post hasn't added anything to the conversation,
except to raise the specter of Lysenkoism. Please explain the influence
of splicosomes on "epigenetic regualtion of gene expression" (DNA
methylation, or histone modifications?). Or was this term used
stochastically to obfuscate the lack of content in your post?

More to the point, you haven't refuted the work of Dr. Arpad Pusztai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai

You haven't refuted the work of Jeffrey M. Smith.
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370652274&sr=1-1&keywords=S
eeds+of+deception

You haven't refuted the concerns of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agric...d-system/genet
ic-engineering/

As for not communicating with, or educating
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood36.htm
that is a similar approach taken by the Church in the Middle Ages,
whereas today's Catholics accept a heliocentric solar system, and
Evolution.

Which will it be, a reasoned conversation, or crickets?
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

Billy wrote:
....
Which will it be, a reasoned conversation, or crickets?

i'll bet on the crickets...


songbird

Rick wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious
cult that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They
will spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science.
Interesting cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the
responses I have seen are referring to scientific studies not
religious texts. You might want to reply with some facts instead of
a broad generalisation with no obvious evidence. So far you are
exhibiting the very thing you criticise.

David


Sure.

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

I don't see those examples of my religious behaviour yet. I don't see any
facts to contradict the article under discussion. You have no idea of the
level of my understanding of genetics so you make up an insult or two. You
really need to do better than introducing a diversion with some ad hominem
attacks, even simple gardeners can see through that.

Here is part of what I was referring to.

quote
Advanced Studies Confirm New Allergen and Dangers in GMOs

In 2007, independent scientists finally published a holistic protein
analysis of one GM crop, Monsanto's Mon 810 Bt corn, which had been fed to
consumers for the previous 10 years.

Sure enough, due to,
"the insertion of a single gene into a [corn] genome," 43 proteins were
significantly increased or decreased.

"Moreover, transgenic plants reacted differentially to the same
environmental conditions... supporting the hypothesis that they had a
strongly rearranged genome after particle bombardment" by a gene gun.
The authors acknowledged that gene gun insertion can cause,
"deletion and extensive scrambling of inserted and chromosomal DNA."
One of the changed proteins in the GM corn was gamma zein,
"a well-known allergenic protein."
That allergen was not found in the natural corn, however. The gene that
produces gamma zein is normally shut off in corn. But somehow it was
switched on in Monsanto's variety.

unquote

Please explain where this is wrong or where I misrepresented it. Since you
are claiming expertise do explain why you introduced epigenetic inheritance
and why my assumed ignorance of the concept would be relevant. If it is so
important educate us poor igerant masses.

D

In article , se says...
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious cult
that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They will
spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science. Interesting
cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the responses
I have seen are referring to scientific studies not religious texts. You
might want to reply with some facts instead of a broad generalisation with
no obvious evidence. So far you are exhibiting the very thing you
criticise.

David


Sure.
scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not normally...

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

Slipped through a filter...


Let me offer for your consideration the Showa Denko incident as an explicit
example of how bad things can happen when you're playing with plasm.

Admittedly, this one was in a vat and not a garden or farm but it was and
remains a fair enough illustration of the kinds of screw-ups and for that
matter cover-ups the profit motivated indulge in.

In this world of politics, profit takers, stupidity, cupidity and spin, it is
entirely in our best interest to challenge GE technology and the opinions of
true believers such as yourself.

And yes, back into the bin you go.

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious cult
that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They will
spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science. Interesting
cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the
responses
I have seen are referring to scientific studies not religious texts. You
might want to reply with some facts instead of a broad generalisation with
no obvious evidence. So far you are exhibiting the very thing you
criticise.

David


Sure.
scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not
normally...

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

When are you actualluy going to bother to provide any information that is
worth any form of debate? To date all you've done is make insulting
comments. Nothing you've yet written indicates that you would be able to
differentiate a gene from a rock.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Rick wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious
cult that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They
will spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science.
Interesting cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the
responses I have seen are referring to scientific studies not
religious texts. You might want to reply with some facts instead of
a broad generalisation with no obvious evidence. So far you are
exhibiting the very thing you criticise.

David


Sure.

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

I don't see those examples of my religious behaviour yet. I don't see
any facts to contradict the article under discussion. You have no idea of
the level of my understanding of genetics so you make up an insult or two.
You really need to do better than introducing a diversion with some ad
hominem attacks, even simple gardeners can see through that.

And I'm a more simple and out of date gardener than most. I'd like to know
what type of engineer now works in genetically manipulating food. My
familiarity of the old categories of electrical, mechanical, aeronautical,
civil etc are decades out of date it seems. And what is a 'sselectibe
breeder'?

"Billy" wrote in message

GMOs may turn out to be totally innocuous.

Yup.

Americans are basically the
test animals to determine GMOs safety as food products. (snip)
I don't care that you aren't worried, because I'm worried, and I don't
like the idea of being a test animal.

Well look on the bright side Billy, the rest of the world is grateful that
so many US citizens are more than happy to eat whatever is put on their
supermarket shelves without question or with only limited scrutiny. We who
don't 'enjoy' the freedoms you 'enjoy' may yet garner some benefit from your
guinea pig status.

Monsanto, et al. are trying to
shove GMOs down our throats. They should identify their products, and
let people choose.

Yep. That should be a basic consumer right and certainly is in some other
nations.

If after a period of time people come to accept GMOs,
fine, the general population will have been saved from unreasonable
testing, but that isn't what GMO producers are doing.

Nope. Ethics doesnt seem to be a work that is recognised in their business
plan

songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Which will it be, a reasoned conversation, or crickets?

i'll bet on the crickets...


songbird

It seems we have heard the last of this. Crickets 4, reason 0. Bird wins
the doll.

D

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Which will it be, a reasoned conversation, or crickets?

i'll bet on the crickets...

It seems we have heard the last of this. Crickets 4, reason 0. Bird wins
the doll.

whee!


"i'll call him George..."


additional info via a mutual friend:


-----

One out of four people in the U.S. reports having some type of food
allergy.21 Genetically engineered ingredients make matters worse in
two ways.

First, shuffling genes among species causes an allergen, for example
a nut allergen, to end up in food we've always thought is safe. Take
what happened in 1996 when university researchers decided to check
out a new genetically engineered soybean created by the Pioneer
Hi-Bred International. The soybeans were engineered to contain a
single gene from a Brazil nut. Since it's well known in the medical
community that nuts can cause allergic reactions in people, the
scientist decided to find out whether or not this single gene in the
soybeans could cause a response in folks who were allergic to Brazil
nuts. Incredibly, allergic reactions did occur from this one gene, as
reported that year in the New England Journal of Medicine.22 For
people who are fatally allergic to Brazil nuts, eating this
genetically engineered soy could be lethal. It's important to
remember that this allergy test was done independently and at the
discretion of these scientists; it was not required by any regulatory
agency of the U.S.

The second danger is that genetically engineering foods can provoke
an entirely new set of allergies. Here's how it works: The genetic
packages transferred into the cell encode a number of novel proteins
unfamiliar to the host plant. The resulting combination of a foreign
gene and the genetic material of the plant can set off an allergic
reaction. For example, in November 2005, Australian researchers found
that peas, genetically engineered with a bean gene, triggered
allergic reactions in research animals.23 This was a surprise because
the new gene in the peas was for a protein found in beans that does
not cause any allergic reactions at all. How could these identical
genes, one causing no allergies and the other causing allergies when
engineered into a pea, have such a different impact? The same gene
can produce slight variations of proteins in different plants-even in
closely related plants. In the pea, the protein encoded by the gene
was modified in a slightly different way than in the bean, and the
new form of this protein was allergcnic. So even when working with
identical genes, the very process of genetic engineering can turn a
non-allergenic gene into an allergenic one-a frightening prospect.
Yet, this new finding should not come as a surprise. More than a
decade ago, PDA scientists warned repeatedly that genetic engineering
could "produce a new protein allergen," and they've demanded
long-term testing for this hazard. Meanwhile, leaders at the FDA
continue to ignore science and refuse to require solid testing of
genetically engineered foods, exposing the public to these new and
hidden allergens.

-----


songbird

Rick wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious
cult that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They
will spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science.
Interesting cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the
responses I have seen are referring to scientific studies not
religious texts. You might want to reply with some facts instead of
a broad generalisation with no obvious evidence. So far you are
exhibiting the very thing you criticise.

David


Sure.
scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not
normally...

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

Rick wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious
cult that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They
will spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science.
Interesting cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the
responses I have seen are referring to scientific studies not
religious texts. You might want to reply with some facts instead of
a broad generalisation with no obvious evidence. So far you are
exhibiting the very thing you criticise.

David


Sure.
scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not
normally...

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

You of course, love to eat food that has been sprayed with roundup. Personally,
I am not.

There is plenty of evidence that GMO foods have been insuficiently tested for
safety. I want very strongly to be able to know what I am eating, and current US
law does not make that possible. So take you condescending dribble and shove it
back where the sun don't shine.

Rick wrote:

Wheat that generates an increased yield in a single trial under single
set of conditions is of interest, but it is not a breakthrough worthy
of the popular press this article received. As to whether selective
breeding of hybrids is considered as generating a GMO. the argument is
simply semantic.

No it isn't just semantic. Calling two quite different processes by the
same label does NOT make them equivalent. In the case of selective breeding
the scope of possible outcomes is far more predictable than scatter gun gene
insertion.

Why restrict oneself to a set of genetic properties
availble in only highly related organisms, when the full genetic
potential of the planet is available.

Because selective breeding has been shown to work for thousands of years.
The proponents of GM don't seem too keen to have the consequences studied
much at all. The precautionary principle applies.

Did you know, for example, that one of your DNA repair enzymes is most
closely related to a polymerase in an iridiovirus of an insect that
procured it from a plant before mammals arose? Is that GMO? God's
will? Random selection? Evolution?

The human genome contains fragments thought to be derived from other
organisms. Are you suggesting this means any insertion of genetic material
by any means must necessarily be just fine? If not I don't understand the
relevance of this - do explain.


Biology is too wonderful to be left to chance.

So why are you advocating that?

David

Rick wrote:

No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO
with the practices of a company named Monsanto. You sir are a
woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin.
You probably believe in JEEBUS. Good luck with that.


Nice reasoned response there.

D

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:47:16 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Rick wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:23:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:


The people you are attempting to communicate with are a religious
cult that is anti-GMO. Don't bother to try to educate them. They
will spew pseudo-science back at you to refute real science.
Interesting cult. Faith based science!

You don't have any examples of this behaviour do you? So far the
responses I have seen are referring to scientific studies not
religious texts. You might want to reply with some facts instead of
a broad generalisation with no obvious evidence. So far you are
exhibiting the very thing you criticise.

David


Sure.
scatter-gun effect of genetic manipulation may turn on genes not
normally...

It is just too frustrating to talk to peolple with only the vaguest
idea of what DNA is, much less genetic and epigenetic regualtion of
gene expression, when the bandy about psuedo statements like the one
above and think they understand what it might mean. There are, of
course, legitimate concerns about gentically manipulating food crops,
whether done by an engineer, or a sselectibe breeder. Just taste a
store bought tomoato... Still, without a great deal more knowledge,
some one like Billy (or you) can't possibly enter the debate. So that
makes you boooooooring.

You of course, love to eat food that has been sprayed with roundup.
Personally,
I am not.

There is plenty of evidence that GMO foods have been insuficiently tested
for
safety. I want very strongly to be able to know what I am eating, and
current US
law does not make that possible. So take you condescending dribble and
shove it
back where the sun don't shine.


No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO
with the practices of a company named Monsanto.

You have no evidence to make that statement.

In his first sentence, Bob threw in a strawman that relates to a Monsanto
product. Bob then started a new paragraph that mentioned GMO.

Even if English is not your first language, you should realise that unless
or until Bob conjoins the two thoughts in one sentence then you are leaping
to a conclusion for which you have no evidence. Bob may very well confused
about the two but until you have more evidence to confirm bob's thoughts ont
he subject you can't logically make the claims that you have done.

You sir are a
woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin.

You are abusive and pretentious. You don't demonstrate logic or simple
analytical skills.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Rick wrote:

No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO
with the practices of a company named Monsanto. You sir are a
woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin.
You probably believe in JEEBUS. Good luck with that.


Nice reasoned response there.

Indeed. Sad innit........