Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?

How is this a puzzler ? the designer chose the method of reproduction for all groups of organisms.

Funny that a unguided and random process would produce such mechanisms of reproduction.

what designer? the one you make up, and have no evidence for.
asexual reproduction is far older the sexual reproduction, so once again you are talking out your ass.

 

[daws101]

He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.

So, algae has a "soul".

No and that is not what the scriptures teach.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Every living organism over all is a soul.

there is no corroborating evidence that any of the above quoted scriptures actually happened.

 

[daws101]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?

Can't answer it either huh? It figures.

there is no need to answer it ..beside any answer given that does not match your superstitions ,no matter how factual will be judge wrong by your willful ignorance
btw any derivative of god did it is not an answer it's an excuse..

 

[daws101]

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

The law of degeneration? Now you're just making shit up.

I mean more than before. LOL!

No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.

Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.

11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:

A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.

For clarification: that is ‘tendency’ and ‘in the long run’. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this ‘law’ is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene ‘hitch a ride’ with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant ‘hitches a ride’ and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]

Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists

This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.

check this out:

DEGENERATION - the end of the evolution theory" is a book translated from Dutch into English.

Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published on the 24th of November in 1859
and the complete first print of 1.250 books was sold out on that day.

In the Netherlands "Degeneration" was published on the 24th of November 1997
and the complete first print of 5.000 books was sold out that day.
In total more then 15.000 books in Dutch are now sold.

TODAY the English translation is available on the internet, so everyone can see why this Dutch version caused such a stirr...

Please acknowledge that this translation was made with very limited funds and the help of volunteers.
So please report ANY translation errors as soon as you see them or make other comments.

Furthermore, the author is looking for ways to get this book published. If you can be of any help, please respond...

Now discover why evolutionary theory will be turned upside down...

this line tell the story: Furthermore, the author is looking for ways to get this book published. If you can be of any help, please respond...

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

he idea of degeneration goes back to the 18th century, and had significant influence on science, art and politics from the 1850s to the 1950s. These concepts meant that humanity's development was no longer fixed and certain, but could change and evolve or degenerate into an unknown future, possibly a bleak future that clashes with the analogy between evolution and civilization as a progressive positive direction.
As a consequence, theorists assumed the human species might be overtaken by a more adaptable species or circumstances might change and suit a more adapted species. Degeneration theory presented a pessimistic outlook for the future of western civilization as it believed the progress of the 19th century had begun to work against itself.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Art
3 See also
4 References
5 Bibliography
6 External links
History[edit source | editbeta]

One of the earliest scientists to advocate degeneration was Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, they were believers in the "Degeneration theory" of racial origins. The theory claims that races can degenerate into "primitive" forms. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were white and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting. Buffon believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[1]
By the mid 18th century, naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus recognised a large number of species, each with its own place in nature and with adaptation to a particular geographical location. Both points made the story of Noah's Ark seem untenable, with its prospect of organisms migrating from one point over vast stretches of hostile territory. From 1749 onwards Buffon published a series of volumes of his Natural History in which he proposed that creatures had arisen by divinely ordained laws, separately in the old world and in the Americas. Where humans and families of animals were found in both continents, he suggested that they had migrated from the old world at a time when the world was warmer and routes were open, but had changed to suit the new conditions by degeneration from the ideal type. For an example of this "degeneration of animals", he described the cat family, in which the lion was distinct from the cougar, and the leopard from the jaguar, but differed even more from each other. From this he concluded "that these animals had one common origin and that, having formerly passed from one continent to another, their present differences have proceeded only from the long influence of their new situation." He wavered as to whether truly new species were produced by this process, and it is unclear as to whether this concept can be thought of as an early theory of evolution.[2]
George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll claimed that modern savages were degenerate descendants from originally civilized peoples. He opposed evolution and followed cultural degeneration.[3]
By 1890 there was a growing fear of degeneration sweeping across Europe creating disorders that led to poverty, crime, alcoholism, moral perversion and political violence. Degeneration raised the possibility that Europe may be creating a class of degenerate people who may attack the social norms, this led to support for a strong state which polices degenerates out of existence with the assistance of scientific identification.
In the 1850s French doctor Bénédict Morel argued more vigorously that certain groups of people were degenerating, going backwards in terms of evolution so each generation became weaker and weaker. This was based on pre-Darwinian ideas of evolution, especially those of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who argued that acquired characteristics like drug abuse and sexual perversions, could be inherited. Genetic predispositions have been observed for alcoholism and criminality.
The first scientific criminologist Cesare Lombroso working in the 1880s believed he found evidence of degeneration by studying the corpses of criminals. After completing an autopsy on murderer Villela he found the indentation where the spine meets the neck to be a signal of degeneration and subsequent criminality. Lombroso was convinced he had found the key to degeneration that had concerned liberal circles.[4]
In the twentieth century, eradicating "degeneration" became a justification for various eugenic programs, mostly in Europe and the United States. Eugenicists adopted the concept, using it to justify the sterilization of the supposedly unfit. The Nazis took up these eugenic efforts as well, including extermination, for those who would corrupt future generations. They also used the concept in art,
For further information, see Daniel Pick's book Faces of Degeneration, or the work of Sander Gilman.
In Alexey Severtzov's typology of the evolution directions this term is used in an ethically neutral way; it denotes such an evolutionary transformation that is accompanied by a decrease in complexity, as opposed to aromorphosis (accompanied by increase in complexity, cp. anagenesis[5]), and idioadaptation (this term designates such an evolutionary transformation that is accompanied by neither a decrease nor increase in complexity, cp. cladogenesis) (see, e.g., Korotayev 2004).
Degeneration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the law of degeneration is a debunked pseudo science like phrenology
of course slapdick would use a debunked theory to bolster an imaginary creator.

Debunked

What is your hang up concerning slapping dick ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?

How is this a puzzler ? the designer chose the method of reproduction for all groups of organisms.

Funny that a unguided and random process would produce such mechanisms of reproduction.

what designer? the one you make up, and have no evidence for.
asexual reproduction is far older the sexual reproduction, so once again you are talking out your ass.

Do you have a clue of what you're talking about ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

most plants are not edible ?? most edible plants we created ??...link ?

I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:

Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.

I could go on for pages. Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?

He'll be back after his poison ivy salad lunch.

You mock something and don't even realize how you affect your own arguments for what you believe. If life has existed as long as you say,don't you think the food we ate did a good job because after all we supposedly became more complex .we needed that source of energy that came from the food we ate remember.

Maybe man should quit playing God because we are finding that genetically altered food is not a good thing.

Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

he idea of degeneration goes back to the 18th century, and had significant influence on science, art and politics from the 1850s to the 1950s. These concepts meant that humanity's development was no longer fixed and certain, but could change and evolve or degenerate into an unknown future, possibly a bleak future that clashes with the analogy between evolution and civilization as a progressive positive direction.
As a consequence, theorists assumed the human species might be overtaken by a more adaptable species or circumstances might change and suit a more adapted species. Degeneration theory presented a pessimistic outlook for the future of western civilization as it believed the progress of the 19th century had begun to work against itself.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Art
3 See also
4 References
5 Bibliography
6 External links
History[edit source | editbeta]

One of the earliest scientists to advocate degeneration was Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, they were believers in the "Degeneration theory" of racial origins. The theory claims that races can degenerate into "primitive" forms. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were white and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting. Buffon believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[1]
By the mid 18th century, naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus recognised a large number of species, each with its own place in nature and with adaptation to a particular geographical location. Both points made the story of Noah's Ark seem untenable, with its prospect of organisms migrating from one point over vast stretches of hostile territory. From 1749 onwards Buffon published a series of volumes of his Natural History in which he proposed that creatures had arisen by divinely ordained laws, separately in the old world and in the Americas. Where humans and families of animals were found in both continents, he suggested that they had migrated from the old world at a time when the world was warmer and routes were open, but had changed to suit the new conditions by degeneration from the ideal type. For an example of this "degeneration of animals", he described the cat family, in which the lion was distinct from the cougar, and the leopard from the jaguar, but differed even more from each other. From this he concluded "that these animals had one common origin and that, having formerly passed from one continent to another, their present differences have proceeded only from the long influence of their new situation." He wavered as to whether truly new species were produced by this process, and it is unclear as to whether this concept can be thought of as an early theory of evolution.[2]
George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll claimed that modern savages were degenerate descendants from originally civilized peoples. He opposed evolution and followed cultural degeneration.[3]
By 1890 there was a growing fear of degeneration sweeping across Europe creating disorders that led to poverty, crime, alcoholism, moral perversion and political violence. Degeneration raised the possibility that Europe may be creating a class of degenerate people who may attack the social norms, this led to support for a strong state which polices degenerates out of existence with the assistance of scientific identification.
In the 1850s French doctor Bénédict Morel argued more vigorously that certain groups of people were degenerating, going backwards in terms of evolution so each generation became weaker and weaker. This was based on pre-Darwinian ideas of evolution, especially those of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who argued that acquired characteristics like drug abuse and sexual perversions, could be inherited. Genetic predispositions have been observed for alcoholism and criminality.
The first scientific criminologist Cesare Lombroso working in the 1880s believed he found evidence of degeneration by studying the corpses of criminals. After completing an autopsy on murderer Villela he found the indentation where the spine meets the neck to be a signal of degeneration and subsequent criminality. Lombroso was convinced he had found the key to degeneration that had concerned liberal circles.[4]
In the twentieth century, eradicating "degeneration" became a justification for various eugenic programs, mostly in Europe and the United States. Eugenicists adopted the concept, using it to justify the sterilization of the supposedly unfit. The Nazis took up these eugenic efforts as well, including extermination, for those who would corrupt future generations. They also used the concept in art,
For further information, see Daniel Pick's book Faces of Degeneration, or the work of Sander Gilman.
In Alexey Severtzov's typology of the evolution directions this term is used in an ethically neutral way; it denotes such an evolutionary transformation that is accompanied by a decrease in complexity, as opposed to aromorphosis (accompanied by increase in complexity, cp. anagenesis[5]), and idioadaptation (this term designates such an evolutionary transformation that is accompanied by neither a decrease nor increase in complexity, cp. cladogenesis) (see, e.g., Korotayev 2004).
Degeneration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the law of degeneration is a debunked pseudo science like phrenology
of course slapdick would use a debunked theory to bolster an imaginary creator.

Degeneration is one of the terms used to describe this problem and another is degradation. This a problem for evolution.

Heredity (Edinb). 2005 Oct;95(4):255-73.
Genetic resource impacts of habitat loss and degradation; reconciling empirical evidence and predicted theory for neotropical trees.
Lowe AJ, Boshier D, Ward M, Bacles CF, Navarro C.
Source

School of Integrative Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia. [email protected]
Abstract

The theoretical impacts of anthropogenic habitat degradation on genetic resources have been well articulated. Here we use a simulation approach to assess the magnitude of expected genetic change, and review 31 studies of 23 neotropical tree species to assess whether empirical case studies conform to theory. Major differences in the sensitivity of measures to detect the genetic health of degraded populations were obvious. Most studies employing genetic diversity (nine out of 13) found no significant consequences, yet most that assessed progeny inbreeding (six out of eight), reproductive output (seven out of 10) and fitness (all six) highlighted significant impacts. These observations are in line with theory, where inbreeding is observed immediately following impact, but genetic diversity is lost slowly over subsequent generations,

Genetic resource impacts of habitat loss an... [Heredity (Edinb). 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

How did organisms in small groups over large spans of time evolve and become more complex with all the inbreeding going on to grow a population ? with all the growing evidence it is getting harder and harder to accept the supposed age of this planet and the theory of evolution. Just one more nail in the coffin of mans pseudoscience.

 

[orogenicman]

I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:

Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.

I could go on for pages. Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?

He'll be back after his poison ivy salad lunch.

You mock something and don't even realize how you affect your own arguments for what you believe. If life has existed as long as you say,don't you think the food we ate did a good job because after all we supposedly became more complex .we needed that source of energy that came from the food we ate remember.

Maybe man should quit playing God because we are finding that genetically altered food is not a good thing.

Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

Dude, EVERYTHING we eat is genetically altered. And look - you are still here! Oh my.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He'll be back after his poison ivy salad lunch.

You mock something and don't even realize how you affect your own arguments for what you believe. If life has existed as long as you say,don't you think the food we ate did a good job because after all we supposedly became more complex .we needed that source of energy that came from the food we ate remember.

Maybe man should quit playing God because we are finding that genetically altered food is not a good thing.

Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

Dude, EVERYTHING we eat is genetically altered. And look - you are still here! Oh my.

Not everything, you're mistaken.

I notice you avoided the major point.

 

[orogenicman]

You mock something and don't even realize how you affect your own arguments for what you believe. If life has existed as long as you say,don't you think the food we ate did a good job because after all we supposedly became more complex .we needed that source of energy that came from the food we ate remember.

Maybe man should quit playing God because we are finding that genetically altered food is not a good thing.

Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

Dude, EVERYTHING we eat is genetically altered. And look - you are still here! Oh my.

Not everything, you're mistaken.

I notice you avoided the major point.

Yes, pretty much everything.

If you had a major point, I would have addressed it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dude, EVERYTHING we eat is genetically altered. And look - you are still here! Oh my.

Not everything, you're mistaken.

I notice you avoided the major point.

Yes, pretty much everything.

If you had a major point, I would have addressed it.

No you're wrong about all foods being genetically modified. Ever heard of organic food ?

The major point was if the food was not sufficient how did everything manage to survive and increase in complexity according to theory ?

 

[orogenicman]

Not everything, you're mistaken.

I notice you avoided the major point.

Yes, pretty much everything.

If you had a major point, I would have addressed it.

No you're wrong about all foods being genetically modified. Ever heard of organic food ?

The major point was if the food was not sufficient how did everything manage to survive and increase in complexity according to theory ?

Hehehe. Dude, ALL domestically cultivated food is modified = does not contain the original genetic make up of the original plant or animal. Artificial selection does that. This applies whether or not the food is organically grown, and whether or not the modification occurs in a field, a barn, or a petri dish.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, pretty much everything.

If you had a major point, I would have addressed it.

No you're wrong about all foods being genetically modified. Ever heard of organic food ?

The major point was if the food was not sufficient how did everything manage to survive and increase in complexity according to theory ?

Hehehe. Dude, ALL domestically cultivated food is modified = does not contain the original genetic make up of the original plant or animal. Artificial selection does that. This applies whether or not the food is organically grown, and whether or not the modification occurs in a field, a barn, or a petri dish.

Are you trying to spin your way out of your ignorant argument ? just admit you were wrong it's ok to be wrong sometimes.

or·gan·ic food (ōr-gan'ik fūd)
Food grown or raised without the use of additives, coloring, synthetic chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, hormones), radiation, or genetic manipulation and meeting criteria of the U.S.D.A. Standard National Organic Program.

organic food - definition of organic food in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Is naturalism like nudism?

 

[orogenicman]

No you're wrong about all foods being genetically modified. Ever heard of organic food ?

The major point was if the food was not sufficient how did everything manage to survive and increase in complexity according to theory ?

Hehehe. Dude, ALL domestically cultivated food is modified = does not contain the original genetic make up of the original plant or animal. Artificial selection does that. This applies whether or not the food is organically grown, and whether or not the modification occurs in a field, a barn, or a petri dish.

Are you trying to spin your way out of your ignorant argument ? just admit you were wrong it's ok to be wrong sometimes.

or·gan·ic food (ōr-gan'ik fūd)
Food grown or raised without the use of additives, coloring, synthetic chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, hormones), radiation, or genetic manipulation and meeting criteria of the U.S.D.A. Standard National Organic Program.

organic food - definition of organic food in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated. ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated. All peas are genetically manipulated. All green beans have been manipulated. ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated. Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.

 

[eots]

Hehehe. Dude, ALL domestically cultivated food is modified = does not contain the original genetic make up of the original plant or animal. Artificial selection does that. This applies whether or not the food is organically grown, and whether or not the modification occurs in a field, a barn, or a petri dish.

Are you trying to spin your way out of your ignorant argument ? just admit you were wrong it's ok to be wrong sometimes.

or·gan·ic food (ōr-gan'ik fūd)
Food grown or raised without the use of additives, coloring, synthetic chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, hormones), radiation, or genetic manipulation and meeting criteria of the U.S.D.A. Standard National Organic Program.

organic food - definition of organic food in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated. ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated. All peas are genetically manipulated. All green beans have been manipulated. ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated. Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.

organic food is hardly a sham and no one is calling it.. genetically non-manipulated...but there is a huge difference between selective breeding and
and genetically modifying with genes for other species ...

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A]Seeds Of Death - Full Movie - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

Are you trying to spin your way out of your ignorant argument ? just admit you were wrong it's ok to be wrong sometimes.

or·gan·ic food (ōr-gan'ik fūd)
Food grown or raised without the use of additives, coloring, synthetic chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, hormones), radiation, or genetic manipulation and meeting criteria of the U.S.D.A. Standard National Organic Program.

organic food - definition of organic food in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated. ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated. All peas are genetically manipulated. All green beans have been manipulated. ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated. Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.

organic food is hardly a sham and no one is calling it.. genetically non-manipulated...but there is a huge difference between selective breeding and
and genetically modifying with genes for other species ...

Oh, I agree completely that laboratory manipulation of the genes of food is different than field manipulation of the genes of our food. That difference being primarily one of time. Natural selection takes thousands to millions of years. Artificial selection takes a few generations. Genetic manipulation in the laboratory can take as little as a year, maybe two. Regardless, what is going on in all cases is genetic modification.

 

[eots]

The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated. ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated. All peas are genetically manipulated. All green beans have been manipulated. ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated. Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.

organic food is hardly a sham and no one is calling it.. genetically non-manipulated...but there is a huge difference between selective breeding and
and genetically modifying with genes for other species ...

Oh, I agree completely that laboratory manipulation of the genes of food is different than field manipulation of the genes of our food. That difference being primarily one of time. Natural selection takes thousands to millions of years. Artificial selection takes a few generations. Genetic manipulation in the laboratory can take as little as a year, maybe two. Regardless, what is going on in all cases is genetic modification.

the difference is one method will kill you or leave to sterile and the other will not