Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    Yet these Nobel laureates say you're wrong.
    Without modifying corn from predecessors like teosinte there would not be such a ready supply of cheap sweetener in high fructose corn syrup, and Americans and Mexicans would not have nearly as high of an obesity problem due to everything having at least a little sweetener in it. GMO evolution made America fatter.

    Luddites 1 laureates 0.

    (yes tongue and cheek)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Question. Do you go to your dentist for brain surgery? because you are taking the advice of a chemist on genetics.
    Did you look at what works they were awarded the Nobel prize for, by chance?
    Last edited by Kasierith; 2018-12-10 at 02:39 PM.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Did you look at what works they were award the Nobel prize for, by chance?
    Yes unless it pertains to the long term effects of genetic engineering on the eco system and its consumption, his opinion as chemist is just as valid as yours.

  3. #23
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    Yes unless it pertains to the long term effects of genetic engineering on the eco system and its consumption, his opinion as chemist is just as valid as yours.
    Genetically mutating enzymes to see what effect they had on expression. Such as making a chemical resistant to an environmental obstacle that would otherwise have disabled it, like safely taking it from the animal originally producing it to the human who would benefit from it. This actually lines up with the concept of GMO's perfectly; genetically modify the organism so that it has a different overall expression.

    You appear to be dramatically hung up on the chemist thing. Food, and the human body, is applied chemistry.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Genetically mutating enzymes to see what effect they had on expression. Such as making a chemical resistant to an environmental obstacle that would otherwise have disabled it, like safely taking it from the animal originally producing it to the human who would benefit from it. This actually lines up with the concept of GMO's perfectly; genetically modify the organism so that it has a different overall expression.

    You appear to be dramatically hung up on the chemist thing. Food, and the human body, is applied chemistry.
    My point was this is not his area of expertise nor is it what he is getting the Nobel prize for. He used his platform for this good for him that does not give his opinion any validity.

  5. #25
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    My point was this is not his area of expertise nor is it what he is getting the Nobel prize for. He used his platform for this good for him that does not give his opinion any validity.
    It is, actually. The work done to create GMO's is done by biochemists, not biologists. And the fundamental principle for what is going in is the same as their work; applied modification of enzymes to produce different expression of biological organisms for an express purpose.

    If you don't agree that this validates their expertise on the matter, that's up to you. That said, you dismissing that the body is ultimately a complicated system of chemical processes makes you little more than a modern luddite, so don't expect people to care about your own opinion.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    It is, actually. The work done to create GMO's is done by biochemists, not biologists. And the fundamental principle for what is going in is the same as their work; applied modification of enzymes to produce different expression of biological organisms for an express purpose.

    If you don't agree that this validates their expertise on the matter, that's up to you. That said, you dismissing that the body is ultimately a complicated system of chemical processes makes you little more than a modern luddite, so don't expect people to care about your own opinion.
    Ok let me simplify it for you, as a chemist he may assist in the process but he does not the scope of knowledge necessary to provide a thoughtful analysis or ramifications in regards to this issue. Even broader the history of chemist when it comes to long term effects of agricultural products is not the best considering they were touting the safety of pesticides until decades later we found out a lot of them were responsible for birth defects, miscarriages and cancer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •