Anybody out there?

Well played

Crummy game indeed.

and indicated you are close minded. Why would anyone waste their time trying to educate you?

you can go now

One in which the players don't automatically lose?

it was fun

It's like saying, if I eat a banana, will my DNA incorporate banana DNA into my body and I will give birth to banana babies?

knowledge can be your friend

Is there a useful distinction? Aren't you asking about possible effects of ingesting genetic material?

Perhaps I've misunderstood.

Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression from outside forces. Different from a mutation, epigenetic changes lie not in the DNA itself but rather in its surroundings — the enzymes and other chemicals that orchestrate how a DNA molecule unwinds its various sections to make proteins or even new cells.

Recent studies have shown how nutrition dramatically alters the health and appearance of otherwise identical mice. A group led by Randy Jirtle of Duke University demonstrated how mouse clones implanted as embryos in separate mothers will have radical differences in fur color, weight, and risk for chronic diseases depending on what that mother was fed during pregnancy.

That is, the nutrients or lack of thereof changed the DNA environment in such a way that the identical DNA in these mouse clones expressed itself in very different ways.

Of mice and humans

Building upon this Duke University work, a new study led by Torsten Plösch of University of Groningen, The Netherlands, delineated the numerous ways in which nutrition alters the epigenome of many animals, including adult humans. The paper has been submitted to the journal Biochimie with lead author Josep C. Jiménez-Chillarón of the Paediatric Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, in Spain.

The researchers said that the diet of human adults induces changes in all cells — even sperm and egg cells — and that these changes can be passed on to offspring.

You've buried the lead, IMO. This would have made a great OP.

While I suspect that the effects you're concerned with would be swamped by the chemicals used to produce GMO crops, I would agree that this needs study, and might be a good reason to halt approval. It also sounds like control would be nigh impossible in human subjects, and that the issue is likely to be ignored for a long time.

This appears to be blatant plagiarism.

Why are you posting in this thread?

And yet he calls other people "loser."

Interesting.

You know I am talking to you.

Step up to the plate. Knock this one out of the park so we can get down to business.

What more proof could you possibly need?

What is the OP asking in lay person terms?

lets start there

Why does it sound like you're just being snotty?

The response to it says a lot.

Pride goes before the fall.

I was perfectly willing to see a debate had in public. I'm kind of ambivalent, to be honest; but as you noted, the response says a lot.

I will debate this subject by your rules - interested?

If not - please go away.

OK.

Stupid games give stupid prizes.

i will play by your rules - interested?

be well

very telling that you were so quick to judge

YOU LOSE

Nothing about my response has anything to do with time. I have no clue where you got that from. And yes, I was judging. Still judging. Losing has never felt so good.

simple cut and paste from wiki

In biology, epigenetics is the study of cellular and physiological trait variations that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence; epigenetics describes the study of dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell. These alterations may or may not be heritable, although the use of the term epigenetic to describe processes that are not heritable is controversial.[1] Unlike simple genetics based on changes to the DNA sequence (the genotype), the changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype of epigenetics have other causes, thus use of the term epi- (Greek: ??ί- over, outside of, around) -genetics.[2][3]

The term also refers to the changes themselves: functionally relevant changes to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of mechanisms that produce such changes are DNA methylation and histone modification, each of which alters how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence. Gene expression can be controlled through the action of repressor proteins that attach to silencer regions of the DNA. These epigenetic changes may last through cell divisions for the duration of the cell's life, and may also last for multiple generations even though they do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[4] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves&quot differently.[5]

One example of an epigenetic change in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo, which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, as a single fertilized egg cell – the zygote – continues to divide, the resulting daughter cells change into all the different cell types in an organism, including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, endothelium of blood vessels, etc., by activating some genes while inhibiting the expression of others.[6]

Again from http://www.livescience.com/21902-diet-epigenetics-grandchildren.html


38

4
Submit
31
Reddit
Bad-medicine1
Grandma baking with grandkids.
[Pin It] More and more evidence suggests that what you eat may have a genetic impact on your kids and grandkids.
Credit: Mat Hayward, Shutterstock
View full size image

You are what you eat, the saying goes. And, according to two new genetic studies, you are what your mother, father, grandparents and great-grandparents ate, too.

Diet, be it poor or healthy, can so alter the nature of one's DNA that those changes can be passed on to the progeny. While this much has been speculated for years, researchers in two independent studies have found ways in which this likely is happening.

The findings, which involve epigenetics, may help explain the increased genetic risk that children face compared to their parents for diseases such as obesity and diabetes.

The punch line is that your poor dietary habits may be dooming your progeny, despite how healthy they will try to eat. [10 Worst Hereditary Conditions]



Epigenetics

Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression from outside forces. Different from a mutation, epigenetic changes lie not in the DNA itself but rather in its surroundings — the enzymes and other chemicals that orchestrate how a DNA molecule unwinds its various sections to make proteins or even new cells.

Recent studies have shown how nutrition dramatically alters the health and appearance of otherwise identical mice. A group led by Randy Jirtle of Duke University demonstrated how mouse clones implanted as embryos in separate mothers will have radical differences in fur color, weight, and risk for chronic diseases depending on what that mother was fed during pregnancy.

That is, the nutrients or lack of thereof changed the DNA environment in such a way that the identical DNA in these mouse clones expressed itself in very different ways.

Of mice and humans

Building upon this Duke University work, a new study led by Torsten Plösch of University of Groningen, The Netherlands, delineated the numerous ways in which nutrition alters the epigenome of many animals, including adult humans. The paper has been submitted to the journal Biochimie with lead author Josep C. Jiménez-Chillarón of the Paediatric Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, in Spain.

The researchers said that the diet of human adults induces changes in all cells — even sperm and egg cells — and that these changes can be passed on to offspring.


I set the rules because threads on this subject get away from the real - quickly
just want to had a real exploration of the issue

and promise anybody who disagrees with you that they will lose?

Do you see any conflict there?

Bryant

sorry you failed to see that as a jest...

Be Well

In lay person terms, there's a theory some scientists are pushing that food consumption affects how our genes work. It's a very popular attack on GMOs at the moment, because people can claim the genetic modifications in the GMO would be affecting us instead of being harmlessly digested.

There's a few large problems with this theory.

First, they haven't quite proven the fundamental claim - that diet alters how our genes work. Sure, diet affects feedback loops - you make more insulin if you eat more glucose. But their claims go well beyond that to food fundamentally altering gene expression. That eating some food would "turn off" or "turn on" that feedback loop.

This claim has been made in a few pay-to-publish journals. It hasn't been demonstrated by any simple experiments. Like finding plant genes in an animal cell after the animal eats the plant.

Second, they haven't quite explained how this is only relevant for GMOs, and not every other food on the planet. Such as crops and animals we created using traditional breeding and grafting techniques. Those would be just as dangerous as GMOs, because we very heavily modified everything we eat over the millennia.

That last bit gets to the third problem: If this is such a danger, how come it wasn't causing harm long ago? Wheat from 1900 looked nothing like the ancient grass we started with, yet people in 1900 were much healthier than their ancient counterparts.

(That last one is usually met with the claim that you can only go "so far" with selective breeding. That you can't just put in some other creature's genes. At which point they have to be reminded of retroviruses, and how they actually can put some other creature's genes in an organism. It's "swine flu" because it has bits of pig in the virus.)

Sorry, just trying to get with the program.

I'm sure you have it in you to be a little more controlling.

be well

no one respected him either.

debates have rules

Want to have a debate on this subject? I will play by your rules.

If not, why are you here?

send my a pm and I will help get you started.

???

you set up the rules

I mean, if someone came here and quoted the findings of a study that showed there are no detrimental epigenetic effects, in terms of gene expression, in GMOs, would you accept the study or respond with a virtual "nyuh uh, because Naturalnews.com says it ain't so?"

In other words - can you debate this topic intelligently?

Just helping them out.

The epigenetic question is just one of many issues that i would like to explore with the GMO supporters.

I just want a structured format.

Do you understand the science?

The research that I am involved with will result in a paper that will be published next year. The study is looking at epigenetic changes to the lionfish. The lionfish is an invasive species that has spread through the gulf and is moving up the Atlantic coast.. Samples have been collected from the Philippines, Costa Rica, along the Atlantic coast, and this summer samples will be taken from points in the gulf. The samples are taken up and down stream from discharge points. We will see...

This is anti-science nonsense.


You are claiming that GMO foods cause harm (or seem to be claiming that). The burden of proof is on your side. Because we can't prove a negative (science) it must be shown that GMO foods do cause harm. This has not been done.

Your game is not fair and the very fact that you can't play fairly shows that you are on the wrong side of the issue.

If you can point to some reputable study which shows that GMO foods can be harmful then I would be happy to discuss it. As it is, your view on this subject is exactly like the anti vaccine crowd. Someone gets it into their head that something is harmful and suddenly no amount of evidence showing that it is not harmful is enough.

Prove that GMOs are harmful and this debate ends. It is just that simple.

you lose

"This is anti-science nonsense."

Science is asking questions - have an answer?

Don't drop a turd and run.

How many times do I have to lose in one thread before being spanked?

You are making the positive claim - that GMOs cause harm. Now you have to prove it.

It is set up this way because it is impossible to prove a negative. You can prove something did not happen during your experiment, but you can not prove it never happens anywhere in the universe at any time.

That's why we're still not sure nothing with mass can travel the speed of light. We can't prove the negative.

I eagerly await being told I lost a game created by an anti-science fanatic who doesn't have the slightest understanding of the topic.

you lose

I made no such assertion. I just asked if you would like to point out any such data.

jump to conclusions often?

Again, you can't prove a negative. You can only prove positives.

I can not prove that underpants gnomes will not leap out from your sock drawer and tickle you. Do you prepare for them every morning when you go for your socks?

want to have a real debate?

And from the OP's history, I am well aware of the claim they are making. It is heavily implied in the question.

for the question to be answered, in light of the research that has been conducted about the epigenetic effects of nutrition?

why do you think there would be one specifically about GMOs?

Even if there was, what would you compare it to? There has not been one about non-GMO food. Or organic food. You need a baseline to compare the results to.

I wonder why you just assumed there were none.

http://www.livescience.com/21902-diet-epigenetics-grandchildren.html

For example, there's the little problem of not demonstrating it was epigenetics.

Nutrition had an effect on offspring. That doesn't mean epigenetics was the cause. Feed the mother less food and her children will be smaller. Not because of epigenetics, but because they had less calories available to grow.

Which is an example of why it's not a good idea to cite a paper until it's been at least peer reviewed. Even better to wait for replication of the results.

Last edited Wed Mar 4, 2015, 07:50 PM - Edit history (3)

to smaller children.

And their paper was published in 2012 by the peer-reviewed publication Biochemie, part of the Elsevier group, along with Lancet and Cell.

I've also linked to another, more recent published study you probably aren't aware of.

You need to keep up.

http://www.livescience.com/21902-diet-epigenetics-grandchildren.html

we are all more informed now

we are all better for your efforts

almost forgot

you lose

A long article from the NIH.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3500842/

Does this apply to your OP?

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Epigenetics_and_Implications_for_GM_Crops_Using_RNAi.php

Also, your second link is to a pay-to-publish journal.

hope you found some helpful information

rules, shall we?

???

Your rules, though, end the game before it begins.

The only one who loses in this thread is the one who began the thread.

This is not how DU works. Nobody will play with you.

we are all better for you contibutions

Oh wait, I already did and you couldn't manage to follow them.

Very telling that, no?

what does it mean to you?

Does the work by mathematicians on the foundations have any bearing on your thought process?

How would you compare William James' philosophy to the current term situational ethics?

Can you say anything about Kant's influence on your understanding of knowing and believing?

What do you think about Einstein saying "we can only make tentative deductions?

I suppose if I wanted to be a douchebag at this point I could say "you lose", but have no interest in that either.

Cheers!

What do you like?

Is there a real person out there?

let's play

We both get to ask questions and each side is obligated to provide non-evasive answers. Anyone who has to self-declare victory is actually self-declaring themselves a douchebag.

Fair enough?

I'll even start by answering your question

Answer: None that I know of, nor do I know of no logical reason to do so.

Now your turn:

QUESTION: What studies have been done to determine the epigenetic effects, in terms of gene expression, caused by the consumption of any non-GMO food?