'superwheat' that boosts crops by 30%

  Quoted Text Here  
Walks like a troll, talks like a troll. Hmmmmmmm?

  Quoted Text Here  
Rick Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:59:37 -0700 (PDT) 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! ------ Bill Rick, face it, you offer no facts, and seem to assert that just because they are religious, they are wrong. In fact, the article made no religious appeal, but simply drew attention to a non-GMO wheat that yielded 30% more that standard wheat.
Real science is based on facts, yet you offer none. You seem more interested in disproving that a non-GMO, can out produce a GMO. Scientists aren't partisan. When their views are colored by ego, or money they cease to be scientists. ====== RIck Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:05:44 -0400 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. ----- Bill You didn't show our alleged ignorance of DNA. Perhaps you would care to allay our fears by explaining how genetic and epigenetic regualtion [sic] of gene expression preclude the production of exotic proteins that may lead to allergic reactions. Sexual breeding plants isn't genetic manipulation. Polyploids happen naturally. Mutagenesis is a reason for concern, and fortunately, is mostly restricted to rice. === Rick Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 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.
If you eat anything that is processed in any way (including food in most restaurants), you are consuming GMO. Why do you need a lable to tell you that? I certainly don't much care about labels, but find them pretty useless. What does the label "organic" tell you? Do you "believe" such food is safer or more nutritious than GMO? Why? You have no basis to compare, and not enough intellectual curiosity to investigate with an open mind. Boooooooring. ------- Bill Where to begin? Can you site a definition for "typical aged Usenet numbskulls"? What study are you referring to? Monsanto has a high profile because of its amount of lobbying, and it legal practices against farmers. <http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 What is your basis for characterizing David as ignorant, and deliberately uneducated. You must realize that such statements are the statements of trolls, or at best someone exceedingly adolescent. You know that you can't possible justify them without claiming to be omniscient and omnipresent. I'm pretty sure that is out of your league. What is GBUS?
As far as processed foods, the man is a gardener. His only weakness for processed food that is Bonne Maman Raspberry Jam which has no preservatives, no additives, no corn syrup, is sulfite-free and non-GMO. Personally, I rarely eat in restaurants, and I avoid processed foods. My bread is a locally baked baguette made from organic flour. The markets I go to either have organic sections for meat and produce, or the product is labeled with that information, and where it came from. Whether you find labels useful or not, is immaterial to me. As far as being able to compare I direct you to <http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/organic-farming/18027-organ ic-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html> and <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-9 3-unborn-babies.html#> and <http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Nutritional_Content_of_Organic_Food
You say its boring, but do you grow food? Do you know what fresh food tastes like? When your plants have a problem, what do you do, change the environment, or go for a chemical fix?
In any event, boring isn't an argument. It's an invitation to a flame war (not very good for arguments). =======
  Quoted Text Here  
Bill Again, more combative words, and nothing to buttress your argument that GMO's are good for you.
You pose a hypothetical question about when GMO bread is the only bread to eat. Organic food is the fastest growing section of the market. GMOs don't yield more. GMOs are more resistant to some insects, but you will have to eat the toxins. GMOs have more resistance to glyphosate, which is toxic, and causing their targets plants to become resistant. I belie they are called Frankenweeds.
The is a more professional article on the Wheat Gene Sr35 at <http://phys.org/news/2013-06-resistance-gene-ug99-wheat-stem.html#nRlv There is no need to use GMO technology as the gene come from wheat, but it will still need to go throughout he trial phase as would ant other new cultivar. The Wheat Gene Sr35 could be breed into the new high yielding wheat from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany to give higher yield and greater resistance to rusts. This can be done with normal sexual breeding, and seeds selected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This would be more marketable to countries that won't import GMO produce.
You might take your own advice. "Faith based fear is ignorant. Ignorance is a fatal flaw. This is a fight we cannot allow ignorance to win. Believe in your gods if you must, but at least try to understnd [sic] the science behind GMO in the absence of irrational fear.
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. <(Amazon.com product link shortened) dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid70652274&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_agriculture/our-failing-food-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.
If you truly believed in GMOs, you would have no fear of double blind feeding trials for GMOs. This is the gold standard for determining the safety of food products. Yet, to date there have been no double blind feeding trials for GMOs. We, the American public are the guinea pigs.
If you can reason, fine, but another personal attack will just find you in my KF.
GMOs, or at least some of them "may" be just fine, but at the present we are consuming them on blind faith. Isn't that what you were against?

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You may feel 'comfortable' with it, but based on what you have now written here a number of times, there is no evidence that you understand English well enough to respond cogently to what has been written.
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't need to provide a cite given that I gave reasons for what I wrote. I will repeat it again though in greater detail since clearly you didn't understand what I wrote or why I wrote what I did the first time round.
In English, an idea expressed in one paragraph does not necessarily relate to any information contained in the following paragraph. It may do so, or it may not.
Bob's strawman comment in his first paragraph mentioned Roundup. Bob's second paragraph was about the testing of GMO and you shoving things in places where the sun doesn't shine. (I see that this suggestion by Bob about you shoving things seems to be emerging as a consensus amongst regular posters here).
Your response to Bob was that like "many typical aged Usenet numbskulls" he was equating "GMO with the practices of a company named Monsanto."
You have no evidence on which to make either of those claims. You don't know Bob's age. You concluded, that Bob had mixed up Roundup (a Monsanto product) with GMO. Bob may be a geriatric or he may be a really young dude with dreadlocks who hugs trees. Bob may have confused Roudnup with GMO but the only person who knows what Bob was thinking or how old Bob is at this stage is Bob.
You have no evidence for Bob's age or for your claim that Bob is confusing Monsanto with GMO.
You have a suspicion about Bob's age and you have a suspicion about Bob's confusing two different things. You expressed your suspicions as a certainty. Doing that is neither logical nor demonstrative of basic anaylitical skills.
  Quoted Text Here  
It means you dont' know. You assume. You made statements based on your assumptions. I refuse to quote that ridiculous mantra about "to assume" and asses, but maybe someone will do so.
  Quoted Text Here  
You are the ONLY person who has brought religion into the thread. Your first post mentioned 'faith based science'. Regardless of what you suspect are other poster's religious beliefs, you are not excused from presenting dispassionate or reasoned arguments to support your claims and nor does anyone else's reigion give you any license to be rude or abusive.
  Quoted Text Here  
What specific comments did I make that you believe were illogical?
Still,
  Quoted Text Here  
Attempted insult and lack of content noted.
  Quoted Text Here  
Irrelevant and a strawman.
  Quoted Text Here  
Where is your proof that anyone here is fearful, is ignorant or has any faith in anything?
  Quoted Text Here  
Why don't you respond with information and reasoning rather than abuse, catch phrases and illogical assumptions?
Believe in your gods if you
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't believe in any god. I am an atheist.
You might have been able to figure that out if you had either asked about my beliefs or had waited for evidence before leaping to erroneous conclusions.