The Central Dogma

[Zeuzzz]

So how does all this translate for GMO pseudoscience which ignores epigenetics completely?

That, is a very good question, that I don't have a clue how to answer

I *guess* the main implication being that epigenetics should over time give rise to problems in GNO that were not foreseen.

I guess the question depends on if GM corn have similar sort of epigenetic traits as animals/humans seem to.

 

[!Kaggen]

That, is a very good question, that I don't have a clue how to answer

I *guess* the main implication being that epigenetics should over time give rise to problems in GNO that were not foreseen.

I guess the question depends on if GM corn have similar sort of epigenetic traits as animals/humans seem to.

Traditional breeders have known for centuries that cultural interventions( fertilizing, planting time, soil cultivation techniques, watering techniques, even weeding) and ecological factors (soil types, soil health, insect life cycles, weed life cycles, microclimates, animal grazing pressure) effect breeding outcomes.
When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business since it meant one could sell monocultural techniques on top of them already ignoring ecological factors by selling petroleum based fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and excessive mechanical intervention which, to a point, mask ecological factors.

Now as the real science slowly plays catch-up we are going to learn that it is not only economics professors who are bought by their masters to spin pseudoscience.

 

[PixyMisa]

Traditional breeders have known for centuries that cultural interventions( fertilizing, planting time, soil cultivation techniques, watering techniques, even weeding) and ecological factors (soil types, soil health, insect life cycles, weed life cycles, microclimates, animal grazing pressure) effect breeding outcomes.

No.

When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business since it meant one could sell monocultural techniques on top of them already ignoring ecological factors by selling petroleum based fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and excessive mechanical intervention which, to a point, mask ecological factors.

No.

Now as the real science slowly plays catch-up we are going to learn that it is not only economics professors who are bought by their masters to spin pseudoscience.

No.

Happy?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Happy?

No.

 

[!Kaggen]

No.


Happy?

Yes, I am actually.
Are you?

 

[Zeuzzz]

^ I sense not, somehow ...

 

[Zeuzzz]

!Kaggen, try to word your posts less provocatively. Saying spinning pseudoscience may be true, but its not some sort of intentional deceit. Just maybe misplaced faith in a current paradigms veracity thus open mindedness and scepticism is replaced myopic eduction.

Science evolves.

Weirdly, just like us.

Epigenetically or otherwise.

If science thought it knew everything, it would stop.

I agree some people can give the impression of science being some sort of ultimate truth, which is mildy annoying (as its not, its the quest for it), but its just human nature for some scientists who use science as a belief system, contrary to the entire point of the progressive scientific method.

 

[not_so_new]

Wow... thread from the dead.

And I see that some people are still trying to pedal their same agendas? Interesting how things don't change much as time goes on isn't it.

 

[!Kaggen]

Well if I was a victim of this lie yes I would be unhappy.
However I am actively involved everyday with promoting real science based agriculture.
I may not be a wealthy agri-business executive who sells deceptions but I sleep well at night.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Wow... thread from the dead.

And I see that some people are still trying to pedal their same agendas? Interesting how things don't change much as time goes on isn't it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238525

Revived a thread recently, then cringed at the title of it (I got it totally wrong) and also some content in the OP. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123612

Title needs to be epigenetics.

Can admins change thread titles or edit posts on request?

Evidence to the contrary, sherlock.

 

[!Kaggen]

!Kaggen, try to word your posts less provocatively. Saying spinning pseudoscience may be true, but its not some sort of intentional deceit. Just maybe misplaced faith in a current paradigms veracity thus open mindedness and scepticism is replaced myopic eduction.

Science evolves.

Weirdly, just like us.

Epigenetically or otherwise.

If science thought it knew everything, it would stop.

I agree some people can give the impression of science being some sort of ultimate truth, which is mildy annoying (as its not, its the quest for it), but its just human nature for some scientists who use science as a belief system, contrary to the entire point of the progressive scientific method.

I get were you are coming from.
Thanks for the heads up.
However in this case it is not about lack of scientific knowledge, but about ignorance.
It's easy in agriculture since most westerners are removed from agricultural to such a degree that they have no knowledge with which to question .

 

[ThunderChunky]

So how does all this translate for GMO pseudoscience which ignores epigenetics completely?

First, it doesn't translate to GMOs (at the moment) because no one is making genes they they would like to be able to regulate in this fashion. Second, GMO science does not ignore epigenetics (although I doubt YOU understand much on the subject). If you think this is important for GMOs, explain how. Doubt you can.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Crick's Central Dogma says that there can be no reverse translation from protein to RNA or DNA. Apparently he quite regretted using the term dogma.

Meanwhile, let's say we discover that he was wrong. So what? Reverse translatase would just become another fascinating part of cell biology. Or perhaps there is an anti-ribosome hiding from us?

~~ Paul

 

[Zeuzzz]

New thread:
Epigenetics

/End thread

 

[CORed]

I'm sure you do. I've seen no evidence that your opinions on scientific matters are in any way constrained -- or even influenced -- by observational evidence. But if you want to play with the grownups, you'll need something better than "I would be amazed if this weren't true" to support any ideas you want taken seriously.

Argument from credulity.

 

[cosmicaug]

Traditional breeders have known for centuries that cultural interventions( fertilizing, planting time, soil cultivation techniques, watering techniques, even weeding) and ecological factors (soil types, soil health, insect life cycles, weed life cycles, microclimates, animal grazing pressure) effect breeding outcomes.

You mean like Michurin & Lysenko?

 

[!Kaggen]

You mean like Michurin & Lysenko?

No I was not thinking of these chaps.
They certainly had a point, but I would not go as far as they did I would only rehabilitate genetic engineers not geneticists.

 

[cosmicaug]

No I was not thinking of these chaps.
They certainly had a point, but I would not go as far as they did I would only rehabilitate genetic engineers not geneticists.

What is your point exactly? You seemed to be making a claim that how you grow plants, in and of itself, changes genetics or epigenetics in a usable way (which is exactly what Michurin & Lysenko were pursuing --though they knew nothing about epigenetic mechanisms).

If that is your claim, can you support it with evidence? If that is not your claim, what is your claim, exactly?

When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business since it meant one could sell monocultural techniques on top of them already ignoring ecological factors by selling petroleum based fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and excessive mechanical intervention which, to a point, mask ecological factors.

I am not even sure what you mean by this. What do you mean by "When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business...". What does the "central dogma" have to do with anything else you mention?

 

[!Kaggen]

What is your point exactly? You seemed to be making a claim that how you grow plants, in and of itself, changes genetics or epigenetics in a usable way (which is exactly what Michurin & Lysenko were pursuing --though they knew nothing about epigenetic mechanisms).

If that is your claim, can you support it with evidence? If that is not your claim, what is your claim, exactly?

My point is that politicizing a scientific theory as Michurin& Lysenko did is not a good idea.

My evidence is
http://nissa.ger-nis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/variedades_nativas_500.jpg

I am not even sure what you mean by this. What do you mean by "When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business...". What does the "central dogma" have to do with anything else you mention?

The assumption is that variation in phenotype has no history other than genetic.

 

[cosmicaug]

My point is that politicizing a scientific theory as Michurin& Lysenko did is not a good idea.

That addresses the "taking it too far" (though I'd keep Michurin out of it as I always thought the politicization was Lysenko's doing --but history is not my strong point so I might be mistaken) but it still doesn't tell me what your original point was.

My evidence is
http://nissa.ger-nis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/variedades_nativas_500.jpg

I see a bunch of potatoes. What is that evidence of?

The assumption is that variation in phenotype has no history other than genetic.

The variation in phenotype is mostly due to genetics. Teleologically speaking, that we see the genetics that we see nowadays is due to selection over many generations. What this has to do with the, so called, central dogma or some supposed adoption of it as gospel by agribusiness or with monocultures or with anything else having to do with epigenetics or of Lamarkism totally escapes me. Could you clarify?