Actually, you completely dismissed them as a threat, saying wheat wasn't a predator, and you challenged anyone to tell you what the big deal was. I told you salmon is a predator, and there are GM salmon, and that farm salmon have a tendency to escape. I even asked you explicitly to acknowledge those first two points.
I did acknowledge that salmon are predators. I didn't formally acknowledge that salmon tend to escape because I thought it was obvious I was never arguing that they would forever be kept out of the wild.
It's a potential, hypothetical threat versus a real proven one (and the one that relates to most of your arguments about the extinction of species). What do you mean no one is fooled? GM salmon are about as much of a threat as a new species of cantalope. I acknowledge they are both potentially dire threats to the whole earth.
quote:
You ask these questions, and when you don't like the answer, you pretend it's all irrelevant to your real point, which we mysteriously never seem able to nail down.
Do I need to write it ten time in bold due to your relapse of lime disease breaking your concentration?
[b]"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.
"GM" species are only a hypothetical threat to ecosystems, and are similar to the introduction of new species into ecosystems through natural mutation and human contamination, and therefore such an introduction has a context by which one could judge their potential threats. Compared to habitat destruction, pollution, and other direct disruptions by mankind, these potential threats to ecosystems posed by GM species are small, and in fact it is arguable that they are even a threat at all. It is equally arguable that these direct actions of mankind have a chance of being regulated (pollution and habitat destruction) while controlling the interaction of species in the wild would be a gross waste of resources, with no way to achieve the given results, if those results could even be clearly defined.[/b]
You put "proves" in quotes. Very deceptive. I never said the report "proves" anything. It does give me the impression that your attitude about the environment is out on the fringes.
You had a chance to clarify just now what exactly the point of you mentioning the article was, and you didn't.
You've offered us no reason to think so.
Populations of wildlife dwindling was a trend long before the concept of GM species. Are you arguing that isn't true? That seems like such an obvious point you wouldn't need to nitpick over it, unless, as I suspect, you selectively question truths when they damage your argument.
PS or NPS?
[b]PS = class of polynomial space languages
Includes L(M) for some polynomial-space-bounded, deterministic TM M
NPS = class of non-deterministic polynomial space languages
Includes L(M) for some non-deterministic polynomial-space-bounded TM M.
Clearly, PS is contained in NPS
Stop with the distractions. Are you suggesting, like over-exploitation, pollution did not kill animals until GM species invaded ecosystems?[/b]
I didn't argue that, and I was aware of no such context. Once again, you're refuting points that were never made. I imagine that you swat at the faeries buzzing around your head also.
You just asked if I had a reference for my 99% figure, that was part of my response. If you are calling yorself a faerie I would have to agree.
Ah, see mAAk weasel. You said 99% of the problem (which, as I recall, was mass extinction in marine ecosystems, and the possible resultant collapse thereof) was due to overfishing. Then, a few sentences later, you said "the extinctions caused by man are largely caused by habitat destruction." Those are two different things. Make up your mind. And if you're not too busy, give us a reason to think you're right.
Again, the "99%" was in context of me placing a weight of concern on over-fishing, versus GM species. Which I exaplined already, and it's odd I had to since it was so obvious. And I can go back and get my earlier quote where I said habitat destruction was a much greater threat than GM species, but I don't want to embarass you further.
No, I was condescendingly responding to your inability to keep track of what you're saying.
Maybe you should make sure you are keeping track first.
Irrelevant to whether GM species pose a threat,
Then why did you bring up the current extinction spike in the context of this argument?
They hypothetically are a threat, like a rogue cantalope, never before seen on the earth, for which it's not sure if the ecosystems are well-prepped. Danger! Suspense!
[b]It's not. And you agreed early on that a homogenous species of wheat would be more susceptible to being wiped out by disease. Why don't you keep track of what you are saying. Is wheat a dangerous invasive species, or is it a threat to the world's food supply because it is susceptible to disease?
The point is many things could happen, it's not proven that bad things will happen just because they could, and deciding so without the facts just shows that you are biased.
Again I ask your stance on stem cell research, and eagerly await your non-response.[/b]
Uh, no. You're confusing two separate things again.
1. A less genetically diverse population or ecosystem is more prone to extinction and collapse. this is a Bad Thing.
2. Introduced species do tend to wipe out competitors and other native species (leading, of course, to a less diverse environment).
[b]Which would lead to a less genetically diverse population. Case closed, everything else you are saying is just confusing the point.
You could make your point in two sentences if you had one anyway.[/b]
quote:
If they're predatory, they tend to wipe out prey species, as these did not have time to co-evolve the appropriate defenses-- the introduced species has jumped the "arms race"
blah blah blah, star wars missile defense shield is not unlike the antelope, blah blah
blah blah when in the course of human events we realize that an ecosystem could never adjust itself and the slightest affect by man would destroy everything
quote:
And so on. GM salmon, being extremely large and robust, would seem to pose a grave threat to native species and thus (as we have seen) the ecosystems they inhabit. That is a Bad Thing.
[b]So being larger makes the salmon a tougher predator. Hey, here's a point I keep bringing up. Did you know when predators are too efficient at killing their prey, they start to starve off, until they reach equilibirum with their prey? It's fascinating that you keep ignoring this. Oh, right, because it negates eveything you just yammered on about.
But all that yammering blew right by the first logcial roadblock, which would say an invasive GM species would be more at risk and less likely to survive future changes to the ecosystem.[/b]
I don't know that humans have destroyed a lot more species through habitat destruction and expoloitation than GM species have done? I think I do know this.
This is how dishonest you are. You and I both know this was not the question I was addressing. I said "Lastly, invasive species may be less of a threat than overexploitation and habitat destruction. Maybe. I don't know, and neither do you, I'll bet." Same paragraph. Consecutive sentences, in direct response to a statement by you: "The extinctions caused by man are largely caused by habitat destruction and not invasive species." You are arguing in bad faith, and for the Nth time, I kick myself for not ignoring you as Spankling does. You are a waste of time.
Point to me where GM species have caused extinctions, boorite. Again, just because we engineer something to be more delicious doesn't mean we're conferring on them an unfair chance of survival.
A marginal view, out on the fringes, as I said.
[b]That's funny I don't remember saying those words in those brackets. Oh right you made them up. I was saying GM species are a minor threat, not invasive species.
You have yet to prove all GM species are invasive species, and getting snippy about it still doesn't make your point.[/b]
Uh, no. I was reading the Washington Post on the toilet, and this story jumped out at me. I get the paper, and I even read it sometimes. What are you reading lately? (Want to give me a heart attack? Tell me you're reading up on evolutionary biology.)
You still haven't explained the relevance of this article.
They might just die out. Or they might not damage the ecosystem.
Then again, they might do as so many invasive species have done, and wreck the ecosystem. Saying they "might not" is just sticking your head in the sand.
[b]
No, it's acknowledging that just because you are afraid of GM species doesn't mean that theyt are bad.
These things aren't going away, boorite.[/b]
I agree with the sarcastic intent of this statement. It is indeed ridiculous to think that mAAk would base arguments about science on actual science.
You never tell me what points you want me to back up. You just say "can you back any of this up??" Do I need to site a source to point out that your logic train jumped the rails?
No such fear was expressed by me. My actual fears about GM species and other threats to ecosystems are based on science. Things like the report of the President's commission on oceans.
[b]Yes, the report was based on science. The concept of invasive species is studied by science.
Ah ha! Now I see your connection.
You're right boorite, they both involve science!
Good job! :) :) :)[/b]
quote:
Now it's boilerplate time for you. Here will be my response (if any) to your posts in the future:
"For those of you not familiar with mAAk, he is your typical fringey troll nutcase. Arguing with him is useless, as he never concedes a point, preferring instead to twist or simply ignore any rebuttals. See these threads running to dozens and dozens of pages? Most of that is going behind mAAk with a shovel as he bullshits his way along. Try reading any of these and you'll soon conclude he hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about, and he cares even less."
[b]I'm sorry that when someone points out you try to hide your superstitions with claims of science you just call names. Sort of reminds me of the persecution of scienctists by the Roman Catholic Church. One day, maybe you will be less afraid of change, boorite.
Mikey:[/b]
I think I clearly stand on the side of not being afraid of GM species. I could clarify that more but if you haven't grasped that, something is wrong with you.
[b]I also thank you for validating boorite's frustration.
It's ok, boorite, your feelings are valid my brother! :) :) :)[/b]
---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008
