Jump to content

Genetic Abominations (photos, articles, etc.)


overturn overturn overturn

Recommended Posts

overturn overturn overturn
3 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

I'm thinking you just googled the first Bible verse that contained the word "dog" in it to argue against the person who asked you about your opinion on selective breeding, but it didn't work out because of the meaning of the verse, and you're trying to make up for it.

hahahahahahah

 

Think what you want.

 

There are both ways of verse translation, anyway. One we quoted, other Sally mentioned. So anyone can take as he wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HayaH said:

hahahahahahah

 

Think what you want.

 

There are both ways of verse translation, anyway.

Yet when I asked, what you said didn't make sense, and still doesn't make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
1 minute ago, The Dryad said:

Yet when I asked, what you said didn't make sense, and still doesn't make sense.

Then leave it, we did not see sense in mentioning dogs as well. If you say we answered without making sense, it was because question was senseless

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
33 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

The reason I wanted to know was to clarify if there are kinds of intentional variations that you are okay with, or if you only okay with totally natural ones. Dogs are a well known example of selective breeding as well as one of the oldest, which is why I used them.

 

You could have given a yes or no answer. Instead you answered with a bible verse about "dogs" and prostitutes, saying there was "complaint written in Bible about it" and that "if it's written, it's written with a reason". Can you see why we're having a problem interpreting what you meant by that? Why your answer could be interpreted as you being against selective breeding? I even asked you above to clarify if this was the case, and you chose to answer that post by calling me out for being violent and blackmailing you...

 

Our personal opinion about breeding dogs is not relevant for point of our topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HayaH said:

Then leave it, we did not see sense in mentioning dogs as well. If you say we answered without making sense, it was because question was senseless

🏳, 💜

 

Sure why not, I was just confused, I guess I'll forever be confused. ✌

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
18 minutes ago, A shard of glass said:

Bananas are relatively genetically simple, but they have a bit of a twist to their simplicity. As mentioned before, they are triploid, meaning that yes, they have 33 chromosomes, they don't have chromosome pairs, but chromosome triplets. But a peacock? they have 76 chromosomes. So regular breeding isn't an option at all for these 2. So there's genetic modification.

All what we want to know, is, does it mean that genetic experiments are possible, in cases animal x plant x human?

From the article we posted, it was confirmed by scientists. And you practically said it in our quote of your words. 

 

It means, that from perspective of genetic, all normal variations are actually impossible (what others say that it is possible).

But our post says, if it is possible or true, it's done by human, intentionally. That's our understanding. Correct us if we missed something.

 

We are not against your facts and knowledge, just wanted to explain principles. And there is always possibility, that knowledge shared with all, is just a part of real knowledge which certain group of people possess for the centuries.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
51 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

I'm not sure how to make what I asked in the first place any clearer. I asked: "I'm curious, do you see things like dogs as "unnatural"? Dogs have been selectively bred since prehistory. That's not "natural variation" but rather intentional, caused by human intervention, to get particular traits out of different breeds."

 

The reason I wanted to know was to clarify if there are kinds of intentional variations that you are okay with, or if you only okay with totally natural ones. Dogs are a well known example of selective breeding as well as one of the oldest, which is why I used them.

 

You could have given a yes or no answer. Instead you answered with a bible verse about "dogs" and prostitutes, saying there was "complaint written in Bible about it" and that "if it's written, it's written with a reason". Can you see why we're having a problem interpreting what you meant by that? Why your answer could be interpreted as you being against selective breeding? I even asked you above to clarify if this was the case, and you chose to answer that post by calling me out for being violent and blackmailing you...

 

How about let's not call for attacks on anyone in this thread...

 

If you want to talk about dogs, open your own thread. Our personal opinion about dogs is not relevant for this topic. 

 

And it wasn't call for attack, it was call to find the starting point for confusion, of certain person, not caused by us.Because person attacked us for writing pure facts. However they are translated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
38 minutes ago, fuzzipueo said:

A clearer discussion of this verse can be found here: https://rcg.org/questions/p083.a.html

We don't see the explanation as objective.

It's judgmental, and conclusions are based on some pre-beliefs (free interpretations) and to flatter to a masses.

It's our personal opinion.

Still, we don't see that we quoted the verse wrong. There was two possible translations and meanings.

 

And, of course, it all had nothing with our topic which we started, it was the trick of vanity, misleading, seduction and arrogance, intimidation, and to bring discord of someone who brought dogs where it wasn't mentioned to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gong to try to disprove your claim, but you can't argue this way if you want to be taken seriously in a broad scientific community. You need actual evidence. Furthermore, you need to explain how your evidence actually support your argument using accepted logic and reason. Just putting in a picture of a blue peacock and a plant that is blue and saying that they are related is not enough, especially when we stopped using a morphology based system over a century ago. By morphology based logic, I have hair and can produce milk, so I must be closely related to a coconut. This is completely untrue, however, as looking at a comparison between the human genome and a coconut genome can tell you. In addition, when your logic is challenged, you should not just respond by saying that the person does not understand or by getting defensive. You go find more evidence, explain why that backs you up, and repeat the process. This is why producing scientific theory is hard. If you cannot properly create a logical argument, your claim will not be accepted or discussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia
49 minutes ago, HayaH said:

If you want to talk about dogs, open your own thread. Our personal opinion about dogs is not relevant for this topic. 

I brought up dogs as an EXAMPLE of the concept of selective breeding. It's relevant because people have been using biotechnology (modifying living organisms or their products, to make or modify the organism or product) for over 10,000 years. The oldest and most well-known example of this is the process of selective breeding. The development of dogs, cows, sheep, goats, rice, wheat, and maize, are some of the oldest examples of selective breeding. Today, all the domesticated animals and foods that exist, have undergone some kind of selective breeding.

 

So to understand your objection to biotechnology when it comes to modifying organisms with different types of organisms, e.g. modifying plants with the genes of animals (which is a relatively new concept), I wanted to know your thoughts on an older, but similar kind of biotechnology: selective breeding. In other words, where do you draw the line? Are you okay with selective breeding, or not? One thing you posted in this thread was speaking negatively about science causing "intentional variations" in species, which is something that selective breeding does. So, I wanted to know if you indeed felt negatively about selective breeding, and that's why that post is what caused me to ask you the question in the first place.

 

Quote

And, of course, it all had nothing with our topic which we started, it was the trick of vanity, misleading, seduction and arrogance, intimidation, and to bring discord of someone who brought dogs where it wasn't mentioned to be.

As I've explained above, I think your opinion on selective breeding is very relevant to the topic. I'd appreciate if you tried to see that rather than accuse me of vanity, misleading, seduction and arrogance, and intimidation.

 

Quote

And it wasn't call for attack, it was call to find the starting point for confusion, of certain person, not caused by us.Because person attacked us for writing pure facts. However they are translated. 

You literally said "Attack the person who included dogs in this discussion".

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
4 minutes ago, Dr. Beat said:

I'm not gong to try to disprove your claim, but you can't argue this way if you want to be taken seriously in a broad scientific community. You need actual evidence. Furthermore, you need to explain how your evidence actually support your argument using accepted logic and reason. Just putting in a picture of a blue peacock and a plant that is blue and saying that they are related is not enough, especially when we stopped using a morphology based system over a century ago. By morphology based logic, I have hair and can produce milk, so I must be closely related to a coconut. This is completely untrue, however, as looking at a comparison between the human genome and a coconut genome can tell you. In addition, when your logic is challenged, you should not just respond by saying that the person does not understand or by getting defensive. You go find more evidence, explain why that backs you up, and repeat the process. This is why producing scientific theory is hard. If you cannot properly create a logical argument, your claim will not be accepted or discussed.

We completely agree with you.

As we wrote, our intention was to give few points of views:

to believe own eyes (seeing photos)

to read the article ( what science says about it)

and to see what is written in the Bible (for someone religious to understand possible connection).

 

It was given to people to see, think about it, and give the facts and say what they know. And, as we see, the person who is connected directly in genetic, claims that the similarity between peacock and ravenala is only possible as genetic modification, than as something natural (as others attacked us all at once, in same time)

 

There is always same group of people who are chasing us around, speaking from their own mind what they think, mocking without arguments, adding irrelevant things, and so on.

So we need time to make the air clear, for comments like yours, or someone else who can make discussion truly constructive. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
1 hour ago, HayaH said:

As we answered, our post is pointing only at the crossing genes between two different kinds of living (animal x plants, human x plants, human x animals) it's creating degenerations. And danger in future of new diseases.

And who is responsible for it?

@Knight of Cydonia

 

We don't see how breeding dogs enters in this category and how it reflects on possible human diseases. Only if you see breading dogs as genetic abomination, what we did not know until you pointed on it.

 

About our so called attack, there were words which we deleted, explaining what we meant. But we can't prove them, because it wasn't published. So, forgive us, it wasn't said as it looks like. We wanted to say:

"If you attack us for quoting the Bible verse, try to find cause what made us to quote it''(addressing at you, not to attack you, we were clumsy in crossfire of comments at the moment and our words were only wrong shaped thought which we now explain to you.

 

And seeing your comments as we described, is not an accusation. It's true, how you behave. It's constructive critic to you.

You can't force your own conclusions on us, and provoke us to give you some irrelevant answers for the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HayaH said:

Now, who can explain such ''coincidence'', between obvious similarities? This is obvious proof of crossing genes of plants and animals.

It is not proof to me.  The only time I would worry that there really are supernatural beings in charge of everything is if there weren't coincidences.  It would take a powerful magician to keep everything completely different from everything else with no overlap or similarities.

 

2 hours ago, A shard of glass said:

Ok, so genetic abominations? Creating animals by mixing genes? Ummm... Sure *Cracks knuckles angrily in my speciality was genetics*...

Hooray!  Science!  I enjoy the field of genetics in particular, but as a lay person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that you can't just tell people to look at the stuff without explaining what it actually proves. That's a circular argument and it doesn't work. I looked at the photos. Yes, the plant looks a bit like a peacock tail, but that does not mean they are related, just as I'm not related to a corn cob for having yellow hair. Yes, the article is on genetic modification, but that doesn't really tell me anything about your claim. In addition, one article is not enough for an argument like this. You need multiple sources. as for the Bible, I'm not a theologist and the Bible is hard to interpret for lots of reasons, but you should accept that, in cases such as where you seemed to use a verse simply because it contained the word 'dog', it may not always be literal. Also, what exactly do you mean by 'genetic abominations?' You are aware that we've been cross breeding and selectively breeding animals for thousands of years, right? Artificial selection is a form of genetic modification, even if it's not done in a lab. It's the entire reason we have domestic animals such as cows and dogs and cats. It's beneficial to us in many, many different ways. Examples of it are shown in the Bible, such as with the existence of mules, which are an infertile hybrid animal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, GMO's do not necessarily create new diseases. In many cases, they can help get rid of diseases. Gene editing is being studied so that we can hopefully get rid of muliple genetic disorders in the future, as well as create crops that are resistant to disease and drought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sally said:

The actual translation of the Hebrew means not "dog", but male prostitute.  

I'm repeating this, to try to take the discussion away from the misinterpretation Hayah has made.  The verse had nothing to do with dogs, breeding dogs, or whatever with dogs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
6 hours ago, HayaH said:
6 hours ago, A shard of glass said:

Bananas are relatively genetically simple, but they have a bit of a twist to their simplicity. As mentioned before, they are triploid, meaning that yes, they have 33 chromosomes, they don't have chromosome pairs, but chromosome triplets. But a peacock? they have 76 chromosomes. So regular breeding isn't an option at all for these 2. So there's genetic modification.

All what we want to know, is, does it mean that genetic experiments are possible, in cases animal x plant x human?

From the article we posted, it was confirmed by scientists. And you practically said it in our quote of your words. 

 

It means, that from perspective of genetic, all normal variations are actually impossible (what others say that it is possible).

But our post says, if it is possible or true, it's done by human, intentionally. That's our understanding. Correct us if we missed something.

 

We are not against your facts and knowledge, just wanted to explain principles. And there is always possibility, that knowledge shared with all, is just a part of real knowledge which certain group of people possess for the centuries.

@ pickles mcgee  we posted topic to hear what experts think, if we are speaking the truth. And our setting about work of principles is not wrong. 

4 hours ago, pickles mcgee said:

Hooray!  Science!  I enjoy the field of genetics in particular, but as a lay person.

Actually this expert in genetic (read the word above in quote carefully), explained exactly what we said, that similarity peacock, banana and ravenala is only possible if it is GM. And we say it in our post. 

It's easy now to prove or beat this ''theory'', if experts examine whole structure of the plant. And we are 100% sure they will find genes of peacock in it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
5 hours ago, Dr. Beat said:

The problem is that you can't just tell people to look at the stuff without explaining what it actually proves. That's a circular argument and it doesn't work. I looked at the photos. Yes, the plant looks a bit like a peacock tail, but that does not mean they are related, just as I'm not related to a corn cob for having yellow hair. Yes, the article is on genetic modification, but that doesn't really tell me anything about your claim. In addition, one article is not enough for an argument like this. You need multiple sources. as for the Bible, I'm not a theologist and the Bible is hard to interpret for lots of reasons, but you should accept that, in cases such as where you seemed to use a verse simply because it contained the word 'dog', it may not always be literal. Also, what exactly do you mean by 'genetic abominations?' You are aware that we've been cross breeding and selectively breeding animals for thousands of years, right? Artificial selection is a form of genetic modification, even if it's not done in a lab. It's the entire reason we have domestic animals such as cows and dogs and cats. It's beneficial to us in many, many different ways. Examples of it are shown in the Bible, such as with the existence of mules, which are an infertile hybrid animal.

 

5 hours ago, Dr. Beat said:

In addition, GMO's do not necessarily create new diseases. In many cases, they can help get rid of diseases. Gene editing is being studied so that we can hopefully get rid of muliple genetic disorders in the future, as well as create crops that are resistant to disease and drought.

Next time read ALL our comments in this thread, and you will find that we gave all necessary explanations, for possible future examinations. 

Now is easy for the experts to beat or prove our theory, simply examining structure of ravenala madagascarensis, find peacock genes in it, or not. 

 

As all the others human beings, we can't know everything (we are not scientists to examine genes personally, but we explained principles in our post which are based on the true statements), and we gave more than one reason to the world, to think about this subject and make required examinations about it.

Guess what. They will not do it, they all are corrupted. Only one who is out of it, who knows what to do, can check up this plant and find the truth, as personal investigation.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn
3 hours ago, Sally said:
 

The actual translation of the Hebrew means not "dog", but male prostitute.  

3 hours ago, Sally said:

I'm repeating this, to try to take the discussion away from the misinterpretation Hayah has made.  The verse had nothing to do with dogs, breeding dogs, or whatever with dogs.  

Just to add link to Sally's explanation: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3611.htm

dog

From an unused root means. To yelp, or else to attack; a dog; hence (by euphemism) a male prostitute -- dog.

 

Since the word is used to describe wages, it's possible to be literally taken (as we quoted), or interpreted as Sally said. 

It caused confusion, and we would rather avoid further discussion about this verse, connecting it with this topic. 

And @fuzzipueo already gave the quotes of many translations, and it shows both ways of thinking, so it's about personal understanding for everyone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn

Just info what is happening here. It's not up to us will you believe or not in this testimony:

 

“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
    those who are nothing but potsherds
    among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
    ‘What are you making?’
Does your work say,
    ‘The potter has no hands’?
10 Woe to the one who says to a father,
    ‘What have you begotten?’
or to a mother,
    ‘What have you brought to birth?’

11 “This is what the Eternal says—
    the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
    do you question me about my children,
    or give me orders about the work of my hands?
12 It is I who made the earth
    and created mankind on it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
    I marshaled their starry hosts.
13 I will raise up Cyrus[b] in my righteousness:
    I will make all his ways straight.
He will rebuild my city
    and set my exiles free,
but not for a price or reward,
    says the Almighty.” (Isaiah 45)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia

HayaH, I can almost guarantee that what @A shard of glass was saying was not "that similarity peacock, banana and ravenala is only possible if it is GM". They'd have to confirm that personally of course, but that's not what I gathered from their post at all.

 

By the way, I don't think anyone here is arguing that scientists haven't been mixing plant and animal genes. They have. It's not a conspiracy theory - it's known, and openly talked about in peer-reviewed journal articles. Like in the article you posted, human serum albumin recombined with a plant was demonstrated back in 1990. Since then, antibodies, blood products, hormones and vaccines have all been expressed in plants too. Some such examples are even in clinical trials and on their way to being official products (I think some even are already products).

 

But that doesn't mean that the similarity between ravenala and peacocks are an example of mixing plant and animal genes. That's mainly the part of your post that people in this thread are disagreeing with. I won't rehash what everyone has said about their disbelief, but you must understand that simply posting a few pictures of plants and animals that have similar qualities is not nearly the level of rigour or evidence like the article you mentioned. If you had just posted the article, this thread would look a lot different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn

@Knight of Cydonia

 

Our subjects are complex, and connected with one another. It is very hard to speak about proof in this moment. 

 

If you wish to consider only science, it is linear thinking, there are more other ways of thinking which should be considered for finding true answers and solutions.

 

It was the meaning of our topic, to show few different things at once.

We offered kind of ''mind hologram'', and it is not yet materialized, but actually there are no proofs against it.

10 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

But that doesn't mean that the similarity between ravenala and peacocks are an example of mixing plant and animal genes. That's mainly the part of your post that people in this thread are disagreeing with. I won't rehash what everyone has said about their disbelief, but you must understand that simply posting a few pictures of plants and animals that have similar qualities is not nearly the level of rigour or evidence like the article you mentioned. If you had just posted the article, this thread would look a lot different.

We don't see any damage to show those pictures, as something what is possible but not yet proven (and easy can be proven). It makes all just more objective, offering new ways and possibilities for researching.

 

If someone prove our theory, we would not be in trouble. In trouble already are those who want to hide their real influence on humanity. And since when it is and where it leads. As your reactions are unclear to us, we suspect that you can be one of those who really know the truth, but want to hide it. No one else complaint except few same people who constantly are attacking us for our thoughts and researching. We don't see that we attacked them personally, but their reactions are showing it. So, we suspect with reasons. It's pure logic and psychology.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I have absolutely no idea what you said in that last sentence, but I can tell you that, while most species on this planet share a percentage of base pairs in the nucleotide sequence of their genome and are therefore related in some way, they aren't closely related. We have already studied the relationships between different organism on the molecular level. If you want to see how closely related a peacock is to a plant, look up a phylogenetic tree. There are multiple websites that will generate one for you. In addition, I did read your posts and none of them prove anything about your argument. It seems that most of them simply rehash what you said without explaining anything or claim that people are misunderstanding without clearing things up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
A shard of glass
7 hours ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

HayaH, I can almost guarantee that what @A shard of glass was saying was not "that similarity peacock, banana and ravenala is only possible if it is GM". They'd have to confirm that personally of course, but that's not what I gathered from their post at all.

 

By the way, I don't think anyone here is arguing that scientists haven't been mixing plant and animal genes. They have. It's not a conspiracy theory - it's known, and openly talked about in peer-reviewed journal articles. Like in the article you posted, human serum albumin recombined with a plant was demonstrated back in 1990. Since then, antibodies, blood products, hormones and vaccines have all been expressed in plants too. Some such examples are even in clinical trials and on their way to being official products (I think some even are already products).

 

But that doesn't mean that the similarity between ravenala and peacocks are an example of mixing plant and animal genes. That's mainly the part of your post that people in this thread are disagreeing with. I won't rehash what everyone has said about their disbelief, but you must understand that simply posting a few pictures of plants and animals that have similar qualities is not nearly the level of rigour or evidence like the article you mentioned. If you had just posted the article, this thread would look a lot different.

You're correct with what I'm saying, it's theoretically possible, but similar GM experiments have been done with bioluminescence, which is surprisingly far simpler than altering genes to control pigmentation alone

Link to post
Share on other sites
overturn overturn overturn

@Dr. Beat

 

Your opinion is written in topic as ours. We opened discussion, not yet proving anything. As you say that our remarks are nothing, after observing same thing from different aspects and giving the facts , leave your opinion as a part of research, or open new topic and do own research. Because your opinion does not prove nothing, as well. It's just addition of other direction, opposite of our way of thinking. 

 

We don't understand what you want, more. Our right is to think, same as yours. We did not finish yet our job. But when we finish, you will wish that you did not say nothing. That's all what we can say to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes thinking merely produces a vision of a red herring 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that we share a large portion of our genetic code with that of bananas?

 

That's for one reason alone. Our particular origins on the planet. Everything living today are the descendants of the first organisms that developed on this world. Every species on this planet shares a percentage of their genetic structure because of that origin. So you're not actually wrong. Peacocks are indeed related to said plants, but not in the manner that you'd figure. They're not the result of anybody meddling with anything in particular.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my.

 

Whatever you're smoking is quality stuff.  👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...