science debate megathread

[Headcrab Zombie]

Scientists currently use viruses to inject cells with new DNA.

This is only one of many techniques used

That said, the results could be the creation of new toxins, allergens, and other nasty stuff.

Here's a small snippet from a larger article:

There are many ways of predicting the allergenic potential of a new protein before it reaches the market. Many simple criteria are now known that characterize known allergens. New proteins from GMOs are checked to see if they possess any of these criteria. Since GMOs tend to differ from conventional foods by only one or a few proteins, these “allergy checks” can be done quite straightforwardly.

its far too dangerous to be mass marketing GMOs at this point in time.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-brown townyzed-subject-in-science/#.U3rLiCimWxW

In short, when you 'inject DNA' into a plant, you know what protein is going to be produced and there's even measures you can take to make sure that all the DNA was injected properly.

This too

[Ad Bot]

[Count]

I

wha

why would you make this thread

like really, there is absolutely nowhere this could go but down the drain.

why do people make comments like these anyway. Do you really care if people get into huge arguments? In my opinion debate is one of the best forms of ways man kind has to settle differences. I don't mean that people should make threads just to start stuff storms, but it seems every single thread that even mentions something controversial is always bashed right away. If anything, you bashers start the stuff storms!

[Doomonkey]

Everybody knows GMO foods taste bad.

The main cause of this is the bad DNA. Plants and animals have been naturally selected, and more recently, artificially selected, over the course of Earth's history in order to be the most tasty to humans. All that junk DNA (over 98% in humans) is there not by chance, but because it produces the most tasty flavor. When new genes are added to an organism, it tips the balance of flavor. It is well documented by scientists that DNA will spontaneously leave the cell and engage in complex interactions with the taste buds while in a human mouth. When this DNA is improperly structured, the taste buds can tell and will send a warning sensation to the brain - "Do not eat, this is genetically modified." And that's all there is to say about it.

[TristanLuigi]

Everybody knows GMO foods taste bad.

The main cause of this is the bad DNA. Plants and animals have been naturally selected, and more recently, artificially selected, over the course of Earth's history in order to be the most tasty to humans. All that junk DNA (over 98% in humans) is there not by chance, but because it produces the most tasty flavor. When new genes are added to an organism, it tips the balance of flavor. It is well documented by scientists that DNA will spontaneously leave the cell and engage in complex interactions with the taste buds while in a human mouth. When this DNA is improperly structured, the taste buds can tell and will send a warning sensation to the brain - "Do not eat, this is genetically modified." And that's all there is to say about it.

GMO tastes better, in my opinion.

[Doomonkey]

GMO tastes better, in my opinion.

Clearly your tongue has been poisoned by the drugs they give you in fast food beverages.

[SeventhSandwich]

Everybody knows GMO foods taste bad.

The main cause of this is the bad DNA. Plants and animals have been naturally selected, and more recently, artificially selected, over the course of Earth's history in order to be the most tasty to humans. All that junk DNA (over 98% in humans) is there not by chance, but because it produces the most tasty flavor. When new genes are added to an organism, it tips the balance of flavor. It is well documented by scientists that DNA will spontaneously leave the cell and engage in complex interactions with the taste buds while in a human mouth. When this DNA is improperly structured, the taste buds can tell and will send a warning sensation to the brain - "Do not eat, this is genetically modified." And that's all there is to say about it.

I can't argue with this. Doomonkey is completely right and I retract what I said. jk lol

[TristanLuigi]

Clearly your tongue has been poisoned by the drugs they give you in fast food beverages.

...
um
I don't think fast food beverages are drugged. They're not healthy, but they're not poisonous either.

[Doomonkey]

...
um
I don't think fast food beverages are drugged. They're not healthy, but they're not poisonous either.

Do you even know what high fructose corn syrup is? That stuff is full of the wrong isomer. It's like Thalidomide all over again.

[TristanLuigi]

Do you even know what high fructose corn syrup is? That stuff is full of the wrong isomer. It's like Thalidomide all over again.

I can't tell if you're being serious right now. It's like you want to sound like an actual scientist. Anyway, while it may not be as good for you as sugar, the American Medical Association says "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose." Sucrose, if you have a single brain cell, is table sugar. It's really not comparable to thalidomide at all.

[Headcrab Zombie]

I can't tell if you're being serious right now. It's like you want to sound like an actual scientist.

Dude of course he's serious. These are fascinating, revolutionary new discoveries

[Doomonkey]

Sucrose, if you have a single brain cell, is table sugar. It's really not comparable to thalidomide at all.

It's Fructose, not Sucrose. The comparison to Thalidomide is the fact that both contain an L and D isomer, which chemical with essentially the same structure, just mirrored. In the case of Thalidomide, one isomer produced the desired, good effect, while the other isomer caused horrible birth defects. In the case of Fructose, one isomer just behaves like any sugar, but the other produces subtle changes in body chemistry making you more receptive to the trash that corporations feed you.

Wake up sheeple.

[TristanLuigi]

It's Fructose, not Sucrose. The comparison to Thalidomide is the fact that both contain an L and D isomer, which chemical with essentially the same structure, just mirrored. In the case of Thalidomide, one isomer produced the desired, good effect, while the other isomer caused horrible birth defects. In the case of Fructose, one isomer just behaves like any sugar, but the other produces subtle changes in body chemistry making you more receptive to the trash that corporations feed you.

Wake up sheeple.

Also, haven taking AIM Chemistry in high school (and getting an A), most of this isomer stuff you keep going on about it is mostly bullstuff. While different isomers (arrangements of atoms in a molecule) can have differing effects, in the case of thalidomide, it is simply a case of one bond being mirrored which does pretty much nothing in terms of molecular biology. Now, if the atoms were in different ion pairs, then yeah, it would be different. Anyway, fructose and glucose are indeed isomers of each other but neither are bad for you, and HFCS is essentially corn syrup with some of the glucose (not bad for you, found in practically everything) converted into fructose (found in fruit). It doesn't make it any more dangerous.

EDIT: I forgot another detail: sucrose is composed of glucose linked to fructose. HFCS is just a mixture of glucose and fructose, unlinked. In your body, sucrose is broken apart anyway, so HFCS is just already broken down (and with slightly different, but entirely inconsequential, proportions).

[Doomonkey]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this image? Referring to all sugars collectively as Sucrose is bad.

Also, read about Thalidomide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide It is literally just one part of the molecule mirrored that causes the huge change.

[SeventhSandwich]

It's Fructose, not Sucrose. The comparison to Thalidomide is the fact that both contain an L and D isomer, which chemical with essentially the same structure, just mirrored. In the case of Thalidomide, one isomer produced the desired, good effect, while the other isomer caused horrible birth defects. In the case of Fructose, one isomer just behaves like any sugar, but the other produces subtle changes in body chemistry making you more receptive to the trash that corporations feed you.

Wake up sheeple.

I was reading a book on chirality and there's not some uniform way that isomers behave. Sometimes you'll have two that have opposite pharmacological effects (bad vs. good), sometimes you'll have two good effects that combined together work better, etc.

I know you're being sarcastic and satirical, I just wanted to share this fact I learned earlier.

[Doomonkey]

I was reading a book on chirality and there's not some uniform way that isomers behave. Sometimes you'll have two that have opposite pharmacological effects (bad vs. good), sometimes you'll have two good effects that combined together work better, etc.

I know you're being sarcastic and satirical, I just wanted to share this fact I learned earlier.

Yeah, it is really neat stuff. Especially how in biology, organisms tend to favor specific chiralities for different types of substances. Also how some substances will spontaneously change chirality in the human body.