Thanks for the reminder!

I absolutely hate scientific illiteracy. I've explained this three times today, so please forgive me if I'm a bit terse.

Tyson's use of the word "wild" means "wild type," basically having an unaltered genome (although that's a bit simplistic, but it's what Tyson meant). It has no relation to the the term "feral" at all. None.

There are no wild (type) cattle in the world. There are feral cattle, but no wild ones.

And I hate condescending posts!

...but why do you pontificate about things you clearly don't know much about?

and since your apology was entirely bogus...

off to the ignore list with one as condescending as you!

...I'm an ecologist by profession, LOL.

That'll show you!




The inability of some to not be offended at the slightest little thing continues to amuse me.

/chagrin

I really have explained what "wild type" means repeatedly today. It's basic, freshman biology, the stuff we teach to rank beginners and wannabes. It gets real discouraging sometimes, confronting basic scientific illiteracy on the left.

I see you've been keeping up the good fight in the religion forum! Good on ya'!

And it's not a fight, really. It's not even a challenge exposing intellectual dishonesty and non-critical thought.

Thanks. (I'm sure one of my stalker fan club members will be along shortly to say something they think is witty and clever.

They're range cattle, let loose to graze on public lands and then rounded up.

I always thought post-apocalyptic novels were missing out on not having the Western US terrorized by giant herds of range cattle gone feral, though.

Albeit a poor one, in my opinion. I've spent part of my career studying freshwater aquatic habitats in western montane forests though-- arguably among the most impacted by open range grazing. Cattle suck in the wrong places.

Butter?

I only have an air popper... SOOO dry.

I'm an omnivore (like the rest of humanity). I'd rather eat real butter than some bullshit substitute that tastes nothing like butter.

So I offered what I thought might be acceptable to you. Let's just forget it.

I'm really anti-vegan... I get a bit rude sometimes... That, and I thought it was snark aimed at me for posting this article. My apologies.

people do react in fear all the time to the products of science, be they Dems, Repukes or Independants or whatever. This doesn't mean it is the final word on GMO. Just that we need to keep our heads folks.

Yea, I'd eat it if I had to, but...

I understand the Mr. deGrasse Tyson believes he is sticking up for scientific advancements, which many here feel as well. But most people who object to GMOs not because they are spliced frankenfood, but because they encourage the very worst farming practices.

For example, insects are already adapting to GMO corn

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112773145

GMO crops are doused in pesticides, it's supposed to be one of the benefits, that you can spray the crap out of it and it won't die. They are also building a single seed to be used in all parts of the world, regardless of weather, humidity, the type of insects, etc. That means that all these factors must be accommodated by artificial means. It will lead to the decimation of diversity which could be disastrous if a disease or insect targets these single strains. And on and on.

GMOs are not the answer. They are shown not to be any more drought or disease-resistant as promised. They do not give higher yields as promised. GMOs are all about profit.

GMO isn't the problem.

Misuse of the technology is the problem.

And the #1 drive for misuse of technology is profit. Indeed, genetic modification is a Yukon gold rush for big farm and pharma.

The linchpin of the profit drive is the ability to patent genes and orgnisms.

THAT is the root cause of all the problems with GMO.

I cannot believe how many people believe they are defending pure science when in fact they are simply protecting the profits of some of the worst corporations in the world.

But doesn't seem to sink in.

FIFY

Tyson is just another shill for Monsanto... Or some such bullshit...

Much like many here on DU.

We agree lock stock on vaccines... Why do you ignore the science here?

This issues isn't as complex as we make it out to be. Your real issue is corporate control of the food supply. Keep it there. GMO is NOT the problem.

I don't want to contribute to selective breeding programs to breed weeds that are resistant to gyphosate and insect pests that are resistant to BT.

Some plants produce more of it, some less. Genetically modifying species to produce more is not a bad thing. As with anything, species adapt. Whether that be bacteria, plant, or animal. Adaptation is crucial. We adapt, insects adapt. It's a complicated process, but it's all natural selection. Or OTSS. Whichever you prefer.

...as safe and not materially different from non-GMO foods. How do you reconcile the rejection of broad scientific consensus with acceptance of internet fear mongering and pseudo-science within the anti-GMO movement? Do you really think that bloggers at sites like Natural News understand biology, genetics, and ecology better than biologists, geneticists, and ecologists? Really?

That's what this boils down to for me. I'm an academic scientist. I'm part of the scientific consensus that GMOs are not intrinsically any different from any other domesticated plants or animals. Why do people who generally respect science reject the views of the overwhelming majority of scientists on this issue? I've been asking this question on DU all day, and haven't yet received any answers. Do people think we're lying to them? Do they think we're incompetent?

I'm very troubled by the rejection of basic science that's at the heart of the anti-GMO movement. It began with accusations that "scientists were playing God." I utterly reject that framing.

There are voices within the scientific community who advocate caution, a liberal application of the precautionary principle with regard to transgenically altered foods. The preponderance of the data is consistent with the safety of GMOs, granted, but there is little data addressing potential long term impact.

My background includes 20+ years in gene therapy and regenerative medicine. Gene therapy was pushed too far too fast without appropriate oversight, and it ended up killing a few patients and causing cancer in others. There's been more recent success stories, but the rush to clinical translation resulted in some unnecessary losses.

It would be great if we could not make the same stupid mistakes. There is absolutely no reason to rush GMOs in the developed world, other than profit. And profit is an inadequate reason for taking unnecessary risks.

That's not marginal. It's the mainstream of scientific opinion. Yes, there are always a few folks doing agenda driven, bad science. They get great exposure on anti-GMO web sites along with the cranks and charlatans that make up the core of the anti-GMO movement.

No, I do not "exaggerate the degree of consensus." It is nearly universal.

So I'll ask you directly the questions I've been asking others today. Do you think we're lying to you, or do you simply think we're incompetent?

present a significantly more nuanced perspective than the knee-jerk twaddle presented by many of the more vociferous GMO advocates here.

I think that competent scientists with critical thinking skills are capable of recognizing the potential for unforeseen long term effects and the need for further investigation.

You are talking about research done on GMO foods in the lab.

I am talking about GMOs within the agricultural and eco system. "Unforseen consequences" will not fix it once we have ruined our land or lost our diversity.

We do know stuff about agriculture. And funnily enough, the practices proscribed in growing GMOs are in direct conflict with everything we know.

"because they encourage the very worst farming practices"

When you get things as wrong as this:

Good stuff from NdGT.



Sid

This. This. This.

Google warriors vs scientists...

There has been breeding for a very long time. This is different.

Messing around directly with DNA is new. It's been happening for just a few decades. It's done, often, to make a crop immune to pesticide. The pesticide may itself create a health risk.

Being brilliant does not mean always being right. Believing something just because Tyson -- who is not, to my knowledge, a biologist -- says it does not make a whole lot of sense.

It is the 'appeal to authority fallacy'.

genetic manipulation being used in foods.


that's the gmo that people have issue with....I love dogs and can you show an animal more genetically manipulated
through selective breeding?


dude, context is everything

So that we can make a decision, even if Mr Tyson thinks it's the wrong one?

There isn't anything scientifically wrong with onions, some people just don't like onions. The choice should be up to the consumer, so that Mr deGrasse Tyson can eat his GMOs, and people who don't want to eat them can avoid it.

so people can feel better about themselves...

Or not...

between hybridization and combining genes from unrelated species, as in Frankenfish.