• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:25
CEST 20:25
KST 03:25
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO4 & Finals Preview5[ASL21] Ro4 Preview: On Course12Code S Season 1 - RO8 Preview7[ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Progenitors8Code S Season 1 - RO12 Group A: Rogue, Percival, Solar, Zoun13
Community News
Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO8 Results2Weekly Cups (May 4-10): Clem, MaxPax, herO win1Maestros of The Game 2 announcement and schedule !16Weekly Cups (April 27-May 4): Clem takes triple0RSL Revival: Season 5 - Qualifiers and Main Event12
StarCraft 2
General
Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO4 & Finals Preview Team Liquid Map Contest #22 - The Finalists Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO8 Results Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO12 Results MaNa leaves Team Liquid
Tourneys
GSL Code S Season 1 (2026) $5,000 WardiTV Spring Championship 2026 Maestros of The Game 2 announcement and schedule ! Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament KSL Week 89
Strategy
Custom Maps
[D]RTS in all its shapes and glory <3 [A] Nemrods 1/4 players
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 526 Rubber and Glue Mutation # 525 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 524 Death and Taxes
Brood War
General
25 Years Since Brood War Patch 1.08 Lights Ro.8 Review (asl s21) ASL21 General Discussion vespene.gg — BW replays in browser BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[ASL21] Semifinals B [BSL22] RO8 Bracket Stage + Another TieBreaker [ASL21] Ro8 Day 4 Escore Tournament StarCraft Season 2
Strategy
Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Hydra ZvZ: An Introduction Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne ZeroSpace Megathread War of Dots, 2026 minimalst RTS Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
The Story of Wings Gaming
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas TL Mafia Community Thread Five o'clock TL Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread YouTube Thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread McBoner: A hockey love story Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
streaming software Strange computer issues (software) [G] How to Block Livestream Ads
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Why RTS gamers make better f…
gosubay
How EEG Data Can Predict Gam…
TrAiDoS
ramps on octagon
StaticNine
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1719 users

Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 569

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 567 568 569 570 571 783 Next
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 11 2017 19:07 GMT
#11361
On January 12 2017 04:04 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 12 2017 03:48 opisska wrote:
On January 12 2017 03:40 xM(Z wrote:
On January 12 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 12 2017 01:19 Uldridge wrote:
On January 12 2017 00:42 xM(Z wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
what are you talking about?; people in here believe in supermen that can go into the system, live in the system, obey the system rules, grow/mature(have power) within the system, then come out the other side unchanged(still full of those good intentions) and ready to improve/change/better said system.
i don't know if i should laugh of cry at that ignorance.


nothing comes out of talking about it imo so!, what do GMO buddies think about this: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37855
An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process
Abstract

+ Show Spoiler +
Glyphosate tolerant genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 was assessed as ‘substantially equivalent’ to its isogenic counterpart by a nutrient composition analysis in order to be granted market approval. We have applied contemporary in depth molecular profiling methods of NK603 maize kernels (sprayed or unsprayed with Roundup) and the isogenic corn to reassess its substantial equivalence status. Proteome profiles of the maize kernels revealed alterations in the levels of enzymes of glycolysis and TCA cycle pathways, which were reflective of an imbalance in energy metabolism. Changes in proteins and metabolites of glutathione metabolism were indicative of increased oxidative stress. The most pronounced metabolome differences between NK603 and its isogenic counterpart consisted of an increase in polyamines including N-acetyl-cadaverine (2.9-fold), N-acetylputrescine (1.8-fold), putrescine (2.7-fold) and cadaverine (28-fold), which depending on context can be either protective or a cause of toxicity. Our molecular profiling results show that NK603 and its isogenic control are not substantially equivalent.
...
This study is the first and most detailed multi-omics characterization of a widely commercialized GMO crop and its isogenic counterpart. In conclusion, our integrative statistical and bioinformatics analysis allowed us to suggest a mechanistic link between the proteome and metabolome alterations observed and the insertion of a particular transgene. The transformation process and the resulting expression of a transgenic protein cause a general disturbance in the GM plant and it is clear that NK603 maize is markedly different from its non-GM isogenic line at the proteome and metabolome levels. In addition, our data correlates with previous studies, which observed higher amounts of ROS that act as free-radicals promoting oxidative stress in those transgenic plant materials. We also confirm a metabolic imbalance in energy and carbohydrate metabolism. Although a clear mechanistic link between alterations in the GM feed and the possible health effects following long-term consumption of this product remains to be established, the evidence we present clearly shows that NK603 and non-GM isogenic maize are not substantially equivalent and the nutritional quality of GM feed might be hampered by metabolic imbalances related to plant energy and stress metabolism.


It's talking about a proteomic imbalance, and they aren't talking about other nutritional values. I don't have any issues with certain proteins being different, as long as you can maintain a certain nutritional value, not having too many ROS species and ofcourse, the polyamines can't be too abundant if you want to counteract carcinogenic effects.

However, that all being said, I'm actually all for an independent regulatory organ which controls all these GMO's that are claimed by companies to be completely safe. This paper could set something like this in motion. I'm also kind of sad that this paper came out, because the general public is going to be even more scared of the big bad GMO's, which are going to be our saving grace in times where global temperatures are peaking and to counteract certain pathogens.
However, if we don't care about our global population, we shouldn't really care about supercrops and just reduce it back to what lives in a natural equilibrium with what nature offers. GMO's should go through a similar process like drugs, where they need to go through a regulatory process before being offered on the market.


GMO research is not allowed to touch anything for 10 years, and then its 5 years of FDA regulations after that. And that's for each type of GMO. So when a company sells 100 different types of GMO products, that is 100 separate decade long studies before being put in front of the FDA.
FDA does nothing: https://usrtk.org/the-fda-does-not-test-whether-gmos-are-safe/
In recent testimony before Congress, the FDA stated that it is “confident that the GE foods in the U.S. marketplace today are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”[1]

However, FDA does not itself test whether genetically engineered foods are safe. The FDA has repeatedly made this clear. As Jason Dietz, a policy analyst at FDA explains about genetically engineered food: “It’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to insure that the product is safe.”[2] Or, as FDA spokesperson Theresa Eisenman said, “it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the [GMO] food products it offers for sale are safe…”[3]

Nor does the FDA require independent pre-market safety testing for genetically engineered food. As a matter of practice, the agrichemical companies submit their own studies to the FDA as part of a voluntary “consultation.” Moreover, the FDA does not require the companies to submit full and complete information about these studies. Rather, as the FDA has testified, “After the studies are completed, a summary of the data and information on the safety and nutritional assessment are provided to the FDA for review.”[4]

That the FDA does not see the complete data and studies is a problem, according to a Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews article by William Freese and David Schubert:

the FDA never sees the methodological details, but rather only limited data and the conclusions the company has drawn from its own research….the FDA does not require the submission of data. And, in fact, companies have failed to comply with FDA requests for data beyond that which they submitted initially. Without test protocols or other important data, the FDA is unable to identify unintentional mistakes, errors in data interpretation, or intentional deception…[5]

At the end of the consultation, the FDA issues a letter ending the consultation. Here is a typical response from FDA, in its letter to Monsanto about its MON 810 Bt corn:

Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA…. as you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome [emphasis ours] and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.[6]
it's about 13 years and $130mill per GMO seed from what i've read; you then send your test conclusion to FDA and they just let you market it saying it's your fault if people die.

@Uldridge - come on man
I don't have any issues with certain proteins being different
one wrong protein signaling and you get Parkinson, diabetes or some chronic autoimmune disease; not to mention allergies or other degenerative disorders that only need a mismatch in protein shape and the body can't digest it or place it properly.


No, you come on - this what you wrote here is absurd nonsense. The "wrong protein" problem relates to proteins you body produces, based on your own genes. You do not eat protein to use it directly, but to break it into aminoacids and build you owm proteins from that. You could freely eat people with protein malformations with no risk of contracting those. The digestibility of a protein is virtually unchanged by details if its configuration.


Uldridge already mentioned that, but malformed proteins *can* be dangerous. He mentioned Kuru because you specifically talk about cannibalism, but Creutzfeld-Jakob disease is of course a very similar prion disease caused by eating malformed proteins. That's not to say that whatever proteins are formed by this GMO are dangerous, and in fact it is highly unlikely. But it does bare verification.


If the fear is protien malformation--you'd need to have a process to check both GMO and non-GMO protiens.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain18292 Posts
January 11 2017 19:09 GMT
#11362
On January 12 2017 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 12 2017 04:04 Acrofales wrote:
On January 12 2017 03:48 opisska wrote:
On January 12 2017 03:40 xM(Z wrote:
On January 12 2017 02:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 12 2017 01:19 Uldridge wrote:
On January 12 2017 00:42 xM(Z wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
what are you talking about?; people in here believe in supermen that can go into the system, live in the system, obey the system rules, grow/mature(have power) within the system, then come out the other side unchanged(still full of those good intentions) and ready to improve/change/better said system.
i don't know if i should laugh of cry at that ignorance.


nothing comes out of talking about it imo so!, what do GMO buddies think about this: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37855
An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process
Abstract

+ Show Spoiler +
Glyphosate tolerant genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 was assessed as ‘substantially equivalent’ to its isogenic counterpart by a nutrient composition analysis in order to be granted market approval. We have applied contemporary in depth molecular profiling methods of NK603 maize kernels (sprayed or unsprayed with Roundup) and the isogenic corn to reassess its substantial equivalence status. Proteome profiles of the maize kernels revealed alterations in the levels of enzymes of glycolysis and TCA cycle pathways, which were reflective of an imbalance in energy metabolism. Changes in proteins and metabolites of glutathione metabolism were indicative of increased oxidative stress. The most pronounced metabolome differences between NK603 and its isogenic counterpart consisted of an increase in polyamines including N-acetyl-cadaverine (2.9-fold), N-acetylputrescine (1.8-fold), putrescine (2.7-fold) and cadaverine (28-fold), which depending on context can be either protective or a cause of toxicity. Our molecular profiling results show that NK603 and its isogenic control are not substantially equivalent.
...
This study is the first and most detailed multi-omics characterization of a widely commercialized GMO crop and its isogenic counterpart. In conclusion, our integrative statistical and bioinformatics analysis allowed us to suggest a mechanistic link between the proteome and metabolome alterations observed and the insertion of a particular transgene. The transformation process and the resulting expression of a transgenic protein cause a general disturbance in the GM plant and it is clear that NK603 maize is markedly different from its non-GM isogenic line at the proteome and metabolome levels. In addition, our data correlates with previous studies, which observed higher amounts of ROS that act as free-radicals promoting oxidative stress in those transgenic plant materials. We also confirm a metabolic imbalance in energy and carbohydrate metabolism. Although a clear mechanistic link between alterations in the GM feed and the possible health effects following long-term consumption of this product remains to be established, the evidence we present clearly shows that NK603 and non-GM isogenic maize are not substantially equivalent and the nutritional quality of GM feed might be hampered by metabolic imbalances related to plant energy and stress metabolism.


It's talking about a proteomic imbalance, and they aren't talking about other nutritional values. I don't have any issues with certain proteins being different, as long as you can maintain a certain nutritional value, not having too many ROS species and ofcourse, the polyamines can't be too abundant if you want to counteract carcinogenic effects.

However, that all being said, I'm actually all for an independent regulatory organ which controls all these GMO's that are claimed by companies to be completely safe. This paper could set something like this in motion. I'm also kind of sad that this paper came out, because the general public is going to be even more scared of the big bad GMO's, which are going to be our saving grace in times where global temperatures are peaking and to counteract certain pathogens.
However, if we don't care about our global population, we shouldn't really care about supercrops and just reduce it back to what lives in a natural equilibrium with what nature offers. GMO's should go through a similar process like drugs, where they need to go through a regulatory process before being offered on the market.


GMO research is not allowed to touch anything for 10 years, and then its 5 years of FDA regulations after that. And that's for each type of GMO. So when a company sells 100 different types of GMO products, that is 100 separate decade long studies before being put in front of the FDA.
FDA does nothing: https://usrtk.org/the-fda-does-not-test-whether-gmos-are-safe/
In recent testimony before Congress, the FDA stated that it is “confident that the GE foods in the U.S. marketplace today are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”[1]

However, FDA does not itself test whether genetically engineered foods are safe. The FDA has repeatedly made this clear. As Jason Dietz, a policy analyst at FDA explains about genetically engineered food: “It’s the manufacturer’s responsibility to insure that the product is safe.”[2] Or, as FDA spokesperson Theresa Eisenman said, “it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that the [GMO] food products it offers for sale are safe…”[3]

Nor does the FDA require independent pre-market safety testing for genetically engineered food. As a matter of practice, the agrichemical companies submit their own studies to the FDA as part of a voluntary “consultation.” Moreover, the FDA does not require the companies to submit full and complete information about these studies. Rather, as the FDA has testified, “After the studies are completed, a summary of the data and information on the safety and nutritional assessment are provided to the FDA for review.”[4]

That the FDA does not see the complete data and studies is a problem, according to a Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews article by William Freese and David Schubert:

the FDA never sees the methodological details, but rather only limited data and the conclusions the company has drawn from its own research….the FDA does not require the submission of data. And, in fact, companies have failed to comply with FDA requests for data beyond that which they submitted initially. Without test protocols or other important data, the FDA is unable to identify unintentional mistakes, errors in data interpretation, or intentional deception…[5]

At the end of the consultation, the FDA issues a letter ending the consultation. Here is a typical response from FDA, in its letter to Monsanto about its MON 810 Bt corn:

Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA…. as you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome [emphasis ours] and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.[6]
it's about 13 years and $130mill per GMO seed from what i've read; you then send your test conclusion to FDA and they just let you market it saying it's your fault if people die.

@Uldridge - come on man
I don't have any issues with certain proteins being different
one wrong protein signaling and you get Parkinson, diabetes or some chronic autoimmune disease; not to mention allergies or other degenerative disorders that only need a mismatch in protein shape and the body can't digest it or place it properly.


No, you come on - this what you wrote here is absurd nonsense. The "wrong protein" problem relates to proteins you body produces, based on your own genes. You do not eat protein to use it directly, but to break it into aminoacids and build you owm proteins from that. You could freely eat people with protein malformations with no risk of contracting those. The digestibility of a protein is virtually unchanged by details if its configuration.


Uldridge already mentioned that, but malformed proteins *can* be dangerous. He mentioned Kuru because you specifically talk about cannibalism, but Creutzfeld-Jakob disease is of course a very similar prion disease caused by eating malformed proteins. That's not to say that whatever proteins are formed by this GMO are dangerous, and in fact it is highly unlikely. But it does bare verification.


If the fear is protien malformation--you'd need to have a process to check both GMO and non-GMO protiens.

Yeah, I went back and actually read xmz's cited abstract instead of just glossing over his post. See my edit.
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5299 Posts
January 11 2017 19:21 GMT
#11363
you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion.
- protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson;
- protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others

pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 11 2017 19:28 GMT
#11364
On January 12 2017 04:21 xM(Z wrote:
you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion.
- protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson;
- protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others

pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed.


The more I learn about you the more it makes sense why you're as dumb as you sound.

User was warned for this post
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Uldridge
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
Belgium5160 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-11 20:02:34
January 11 2017 19:49 GMT
#11365
On January 12 2017 04:21 xM(Z wrote:
you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion.
- protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson;
- protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others

pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed.

I didn't mix up jack shit. You just can't read. You're starting a discussion about Parkinson's, which is indeed a signaling disease, which has absolutely jack shit to do with your initial topic at hand. Sure, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and a shitton of other diseases happen because of a malfunction in certain protein signaling pathways. But you bring up the Parkinson's argument in a discussion that has nothing to do with Parkinson's. So why do you bring up Parkinson's?
You know you eat plants and that you don't merge your DNA with them to absorb their powers or some shit right?

Sure protein misfolds can happen, at altered protein sequences can me immunogenic, but that's maybe the most worried you have to be if you make a proteome (and metabolome isn't changed) where altered units make the organism more resistant to certain environmental conditions. Bringing up Parkinson's in a discussion about eating plants..

Edit: and what the fuck does you DNA non digestion comment even allude to? You think there aren't any other enzymes or mechanisms that can destroy DNA? You're afraid there might grow a plant inside of you or something?
Look up nucleases and proteinases please.
Wait, let me do that for you: Nuclease to educate you
Protease to educate you
Stop making me mad please.
Taxes are for Terrans
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
January 11 2017 20:54 GMT
#11366
--- Nuked ---
Hryul
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Austria2609 Posts
January 11 2017 21:11 GMT
#11367
On January 12 2017 05:54 JimmiC wrote:
How come conspiracy theorists have figured out something no body else can figure out when they are (below) average intelligence wouldn't the people much smarter then them figured this out as well?

how do you know they are below average intelligence?
Countdown to victory: 1 200!
Uldridge
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
Belgium5160 Posts
January 11 2017 21:11 GMT
#11368
Conspiracy theorists are all about self awareness IMO. They think they got it all figured out, yet are ignoring any form of argumentation. I think they need to be submitted to some psycho-analysis.
Taxes are for Terrans
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 11 2017 21:22 GMT
#11369
On January 12 2017 05:54 JimmiC wrote:
How come conspiracy theorists have figured out something no body else can figure out when they are (below) average intelligence wouldn't the people much smarter then them figured this out as well?


That's a ruse man, everyone knows that the government sets up satellite pings through GPS satellites to employ micro-vibrations in our skull, those vibrations deteriorates cognitive function through neuron refraction preventing optimization of our right brain/left brain cross integration patterns. So you might think there are all these smart people out there--the truth is you're all about 50% dumber than we aught to be. That's why I wear this tin-foil hat, to break up the GPS signal, do you want one?
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
January 11 2017 21:40 GMT
#11370
--- Nuked ---
Karis Vas Ryaar
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
United States4396 Posts
January 11 2017 23:12 GMT
#11371
how do religious groups feel/think about people who are the same religion but have vastly different viewpoints in terms of morality and the like? I mean do christians think everyone who is a christian is going to heaven or just the ones of their particular sect/personal beliefs? cause in every religion there seems to be 2 groups who believe in very very different thing.s
"I'm not agreeing with a lot of Virus's decisions but they are working" Tasteless. Ipl4 Losers Bracket Virus 2-1 Maru
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 12 2017 00:46 GMT
#11372
On January 12 2017 08:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
how do religious groups feel/think about people who are the same religion but have vastly different viewpoints in terms of morality and the like? I mean do christians think everyone who is a christian is going to heaven or just the ones of their particular sect/personal beliefs? cause in every religion there seems to be 2 groups who believe in very very different thing.s


I will speak on this from the Christian standpoint.

Christianity is both very process driven and very evidence driven. Each sect have their own ideas on what are "morals" what are "rituals" what are "required" etc.... and the specificity of your outcome comes from your adherence to those traits.

For example:

Christian baptists believes that even someone like Hitler, if he felt sorry for his sins before he died, and asked God for forgiveness, then he goes to Heaven.

This would not be the same with Catholics for example, who even have different "levels" of sin that each have different levels of contrition to have it forgiven.

This would be different from Jehova's Witnesses who believe its already predefined who will and won't go to heaven.

This is different from Mormon's who have post death rites that they can also do to affect who goes to hell/heaven.

Assuming of course you're not a literalist who doesn't believe in "going to heaven" because the Bible says that the kingdom of God will come to Earth, revive the worthy dead, and earth becomes the new heaven.

FYI: This is all just in reference to a Hitler type, we haven't even gone into morality.

For the most part, Christianity (not Christians) doesn't give a fuck about morality and instead care more about absolution, purity, and self understanding. Similar to Horace and his feather, what Christianity cares about is that at the end of your life, do you feel happy, content, and/or forgiven? Each sect has different definitions for all 3 of those terms, but that's kind of the short-hand of what they are getting at.

Do you regret the bad things you did? Did you believe the good things you did? And did you live as fully as you could while doing so?

Let's take a more literalist understanding of the Bible.

God made Adam and Eve, allowed them to gain knowledge, and then told them to be stewards of the earth. Humanity fucks up every now and then, does things right every now and then, and the fucks up again. Then the rapture happens, people are given a last chance to feel sorry for their sins and feel happy for their boons. Afterwards, earth itself becomes heaven.

Now think about that for a moment; in the context of morality. Humanity is given X amount of time to make sure earth is ready to become heaven, and then before heaven shows up it gives the surviving humans a chance to come around to the truth. It then revives all the dead humans and everyone is given eternal life and are made to live the rest of their life the way that they imagined it. Those who feel forgiven of their burdens and passionate to live gets to live happy, those who don't feel forgiven, who aren't happy gets to be unhappy.

The morality of christianity is that the world we are in is going to be heaven and the life we will live eternally will be the life we get to practice in our short time living in this world. And everyone who has ever died gets to be revived and given another chance to make peace with themselves, leaving only those who actively do not want to be in heaven be allowed to not live in heaven.

As such, christians don't really care what other christians practice; and really they shouldn't care what other non-christians practice. Everyone gets an initial crack, gets revived, and gets another crack at allowing themselves to be happy.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Yoav
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1874 Posts
January 12 2017 04:44 GMT
#11373
I agree generally with Magpie's statements, with small quibbles here and there (JW is an odd pick as the representatives of the Predestination camp). I'd also stress that it's more about being forgiven than feeling so... what matters is more the desire for forgiveness than anything else, though of course many Christian camps would argue that the assurance is important as well. But it's a good post for understanding the fundamental Christian idea of heaven as a "chance at happiness" more than the caricatured idea of it as the cookie you get for being good.

Background context:
+ Show Spoiler +
Christianity is fundamentally about faith. If you truly believe in God, you are saved (the chances to do so are many, and described well by TM's post). Now there are Christians of the evangelical bent who think this is as simple as what box you fill in on your census form. But there are more biblical passages than I care to name that make pretty clear the meaning is this: Believing in God is not about conscious assent to a series of propositions; it is about what core assumptions drive your action. Do you act as though you live in a universe created by a God who loves kindness and hates oppression? Do you act as though the people you meet are going to live forever? + Show Spoiler +
(Action, in Christian understanding, being chiefly defined by intent. Forgiveness is wrapped into intent.)


Jesus praises the faith of a pagan Centurion, saying he has found no such faith in all Israel. In his context, "all Israel" is more or less a way of saying "all monotheists." Paul praises the religiosity of the pagan people of Athens, even as he is distressed by their idolatry. They have faith--as expressed both in philosophical inquiry and their pagan religiosity--though they lack understanding.


A blueprint for Christian engagement with people of other views is found in 1 Corinthians. The whole book is Paul stepping in to a dispute between a group that is insistent on certain rituals and forms of religious practice, and a more hippie-dippy group that says all that matters with your relationship with God. Paul says yeah, it's the relationship with God thing, but don't be an ass about it. If somebody gets something out of that ritual, good for them. There are a lot of ways for God to approach us. We need to be tolerant, even of those who don't extend us the same courtesy.

The context is about Christians, but I think it applies perfectly well to lots of other religious groups, including the nonreligious. Dude, if your yoga class helps you love your neighbor and yourself, or if curating bonsai trees is your thing, or if you get something out of drum circles, good for you. Whatever helps you cut down on the anger and fear in your heart helps bring you closer to God, and that's an awesome thing.

Though of course it rubs me the wrong way when people try to convince me that the way they do Christianity is the only way, and I very much do have sectarian views on plenty of issues. I'd love for everybody to affirm LGBTQ folks, and I'll argue for that. I just don't think you automatically go to hell if you disagree with me.
Cascade
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
Australia5405 Posts
January 12 2017 06:23 GMT
#11374
On January 12 2017 04:21 xM(Z wrote:
you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion.
- protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson;
- protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others

pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed.

I'm trying to understand here... Are you afraid that:

1) GMO plants will happen to have DNA that cause Parkinsons in humans, but the wild type plant doesn't.
2) We eat the GMOs, and the DNA somehow doesn't get digested, because hipsters don't digest DNA.
3) The GMO DNA makes it way up into the brain.
4) the GMO DNA somehow gets into all or most of the cells in the brain.
5) The GMO DNA somehow manages to slice its way into our genome in the nucleus.
6) In a way so that the GMO DNA is actually expressed into protein.
7) This extra copy of GMO DNA has a dominant effect over the naturally occurring gene.
8) But all this only happens only to that new piece of GMO DNA that codes for the Parkinson defect. The brain doesn't otherwise turn into a plant.

I guess not, but I'm struggling to get my head around what you mean.

That said, I really do wish biomedical science was much more open. Few things get me as riled up as IP shenanigans blocking sciencific progress. :/
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5299 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-01-12 08:00:59
January 12 2017 07:52 GMT
#11375
On January 12 2017 04:49 Uldridge wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 12 2017 04:21 xM(Z wrote:
you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion.
- protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson;
- protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others

pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed.

I didn't mix up jack shit. You just can't read. You're starting a discussion about Parkinson's, which is indeed a signaling disease, which has absolutely jack shit to do with your initial topic at hand. Sure, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and a shitton of other diseases happen because of a malfunction in certain protein signaling pathways. But you bring up the Parkinson's argument in a discussion that has nothing to do with Parkinson's. So why do you bring up Parkinson's?
You know you eat plants and that you don't merge your DNA with them to absorb their powers or some shit right?

Sure protein misfolds can happen, at altered protein sequences can me immunogenic, but that's maybe the most worried you have to be if you make a proteome (and metabolome isn't changed) where altered units make the organism more resistant to certain environmental conditions. Bringing up Parkinson's in a discussion about eating plants..

Edit: and what the fuck does you DNA non digestion comment even allude to? You think there aren't any other enzymes or mechanisms that can destroy DNA? You're afraid there might grow a plant inside of you or something?
Look up nucleases and proteinases please.
Wait, let me do that for you: Nuclease to educate you
Protease to educate you
Stop making me mad please.
GMO and protein triggering(the quoted article was talking about protein discrepancies) was me comparing two things you're still working on, things you only recently began to understand, two analogue things that should share a conclusion: wait for it, we're still studying it.
you inferred causation; i was pointing out the needed procedural similarities and the (lack of)research know how.

the protein digestion part was me emphasizing on the fact that you don't know everything yet (irritable bowel syndrome is this contested thing, not a disease yet but a bunch of symptoms lumped up together because no one cares enough to figure it out(was no money in it)) and the research you do on things is at best a pick and choose game based on financial/(self) recognition merits.

(and fyi, there is DNA from the cells of food you've digested in your blood vessels; has different stages of degradation but still it is technically there).
if you again thought of different things, like weed dna into your own dna, i don't know what to tell you: some could only hope?.

still, HGT/LGT does exist even if it's "controversial".
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36108/title/Bacterial-DNA-in-Human-Genomes/
+ Show Spoiler +
A team of scientists from the University of Maryland School of Medicine has found the strongest evidence yet that bacteria occasionally transfer their genes into human genomes, finding bacterial DNA sequences in about a third of healthy human genomes and in a far greater percentage of cancer cells. The results, published today (20 June) in PLOS Computational Biology, suggest that gene transfer from bacteria to humans is not only possible, but also somehow linked to over-proliferation: either cancer cells are prone to these intrusions or the incoming bacterial genes help to kick-start the transformation from healthy cells into cancerous ones.

“It really does seem that human genome sequence data from somatic cells show signs of LGT events from bacteria, and so do cancer cells,” said Jonathan Eisen from University of California, Davis, who coordinated the peer review of the new study but was not involved in the work. “Wild stuff does happen.”

The trillions of bacteria in our bodies regularly exchange DNA with each other, but the idea that their genes could end up in human DNA has been very controversial. In 2001, the team that sequenced the first human genome claimed to have found 113 cases of such lateral gene transfers (LGT), but their conclusion was later refuted.

This high-profile error “had a chilling effect on the field,” according to Julie Dunning Hotopp who led the new study. Although her team has since found several cases of LGT between bacteria and invertebrates, “it’s still difficult to convince people that it may be happening in the human genome,” she said.

Rather than looking for bacterial genes that had become permanent parts of the human genome, Dunning Hotopp’s team searched for traces of microbial DNA in somatic cells—the cells of the body that do not form gametes.

Lab members David Riley and Karsten Sieber scanned publicly available data from the 1000 Genomes Project and found more than 7,000 instances of LGT from bacteria, affecting around a third of the people they studied. When they analyzed sequences from the Cancer Genome Atlas, they discovered 691,000 more instances of LGT 99.9 percent of these came from tumor samples rather than normal tissues.

Acute myeloid leukaemia cells were particularly rife with bacterial sequences. A third of the microbial genes came from a genus called Acinetobacter, and had been inserted into the mitochondrial genome.

Stomach cancer cells also contained lots of bacterial DNA, especially from Pseudomonas. Most of this DNA had been inserted into five genes, four of which were already known to be proto-oncogenes that can give rise to cancer, emphasizing a possible link between LGT and cancerous growth. “Finding these integrations in multiple individuals, as well as in the proto-oncogenes, really spoke to how significant this might be,” said Dunning Hotopp.

“We know already that a significant proportion of cancers are due to insertion of genetic material from viruses,” said Etienne Danchin from the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, who reviewed the paper. “But this is the first time, as far as I know, that HGT from bacteria could be suspected as a cause of cancer.”

However, Dunning Hotopp is very clear that her results tell us nothing about whether the inserted bacterial DNA contributed to causing the cancers, or were just along for the ride. To get at the question of causation, researchers could deliberately add bacterial DNA into the same sites within human cell lines to see if they turn cancerous, she said. But even if the bacterial LGT can initiate over-proliferation, it would be hard to prevent such transfers with antibiotics. “You don’t know when these transfers occur, and you can’t give people antibiotics their entire life,” said Dunning Hotopp. “A vaccine would be nice, but that is assuming these are causative.”

“LGT is incredibly important in evolution but many claims of specific cases of LGT have been seriously flawed,” said Eisen. “I came into this as a serious skeptic. It just seemed so improbable.”

But the team won him over. They ran an extensive set of checks to make sure that these bacterial sequences were not laboratory artifacts and had not come from contaminating microbes.

For example, they showed that LGT was more common in cancer cells than healthy tissue, and two out of ten cancer types were particularly hard hit. If the bacterial integrations were artifacts of the methodology, it should be equally common in any tissue sample. The team also focused on sequences with high coverage—that is, those which had been read many times over. When the team found evidence of LGT, it was consistent across all of these reads. “In the end, the authors addressed every single question that I and the reviewers raised,” said Eisen.

Hank Seifert from Northwestern University, who was not involved in the study, remains cautious. “This paper is very interesting and potentially important,” he said. “However, until the direct analysis of specific tumor cells can be performed to validate that these are real events, this work [is] still speculative.”

But Dunning Hotopp’s team cannot do these validation studies herself. For privacy reasons, they cannot access the original tumor samples that their data came from. “People with access to the samples need to validate that the integrations are correct,” she said.

Danchin agrees that the results need to be validated but said, “I am personally convinced what they have found by screening the different databases is true. I think LGT happens much more frequently than we imagine but, most of the time, is just not detectable.”

D.R. Riley et al., “Bacteria-human somatic cell lateral gene transfer is enriched in cancer samples,” PLOS Computational Biology, 2013.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42420/title/Horizontal-Gene-Transfer-a-Hallmark-of-Animal-Genomes-/
+ Show Spoiler +
Many animal genomes include bacterial and fungal genes acquired by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) during evolution, according to a study published today (March 12) in Genome Biology. Scanning the genomes of fruit flies, nematodes, primates, and humans, among other animals, researchers found evidence to suggest that some of these horizontally acquired genes may even be functional.

When the human genome was first published, the suggestion that it contained bacterial genes was controversial. Subsequent studies questioned the possibility of HGT, offering alternate explanations for the presence of genes that resembled bacterial sequences, such as gene loss, or convergent or divergent evolution.

“There were methodological issues with both sides of the argument, and the main problem was that we just didn’t have the data back then that we do now,” said Alastair Crisp of the University of Cambridge, an author on the new study.

More recently, several researchers have reported the lateral transfer of bacterial genes into metazoans under specific circumstances. Examples include the interaction of insect hosts with the obligate intracellular parasite Wolbachia, or the transfer of subsets of bacterial genes into specific kinds of cells, such as cancer cells.

But this latest study is the first to extend across a breadth of species and types of genes. “The study makes a compelling case presenting more evidence of lateral gene transfer from bacteria into eukaryotes,” said microbiologist Julie Hotopp of the University of Maryland who was not involved with the work. “Redoing this type of analysis has been needed for quite some time. People continue to cite the papers from 2000 and 2001 as examples that there is no lateral gene transfer, particularly in humans.”

To re-evaluate the extent of bacterial gene transfer into animals, Crisp and his colleagues analyzed 40 animal genomes, including 10 primates, 12 Drosophila species, and four Caenorhabditis genomes. The researchers computed a score to quantitate how closely a gene aligned to a non-metazoan sequence compared to a metazoan, or animal, sequence. Based on this score, they considered genes that strongly resembled non-animal sequences to be horizontally transferred. Depending on the scores, between 55 percent and 88 percent of the sequences analyzed strongly resembled prokaryotic sequences, suggesting they had been introduced into animal genomes by lateral transfer.

“We had an idea that HGT was much broader than people had previously suspected,” said Crisp. “What surprised us particularly was that there seemed to be a broadly similar amount in both vertebrates and invertebrates.”

The results supported analyses from previous studies that suggested human genes—such as FTO, the fat mass and obesity-associated gene—may have been horizontally acquired. Phylogenetic comparisons also found that some genes, such as hyaluronan synthases (HAS) in the human genome, which were originally thought to be horizontally transferred from bacteria but later rejected, may in fact be of fungal origin.

A large proportion of the “foreign” genes analyzed were found on the same genomic scaffolds as native animal genes. The strong linkage suggested to Crisp and his colleagues that contamination of sequenced samples was unlikely to be the source of these non-native genes.

However, the validity of these results hinge upon the quality of the assembled genomes that were analyzed. “Some genomes, such as C. elegans, D. melanogaster, and the human genome, are very well put-together. But in others, the assemblies may not be as good, and poor assemblies will result in something that looks like gene transfer,” said Hotopp. “It just means that in some organisms they may have overestimated it.”

Crisp’s team found that several of the foreign genes in metazoan genomes encoded enzymes and likely had active biochemical functions. In three nematode and all the primate genomes analyzed, the researchers found that 95 percent of foreign genes contained introns, suggesting that these genes have been “domesticated” over time.

“Since HGT events are not incredibly common, it seems likely that the mechanisms [operating] are very similar to the ones that would insert introns into any genes,” said Crisp. “Looking at recent HGT events can tell us how introns were inserted into other eukaryotic genes, or how transcriptional regulation of new genes evolves.”

The process of lateral gene transfer appears to be both ancient and active today. In human and other primate genomes, foreign genes appear to have entered the genome only in their last common ancestors. But in some Drosophila species and nematodes, the process appears to have occurred much more recently.

The results suggest that “if we use the same yardstick to measure a variety of model organisms, it’s possible to say that mammalian genomes have also been subjected to low levels of HGT, although it happened only on very rare occasions at the early stages of evolution,” said molecular geneticist Irina Arkhipova of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts who was not involved with the study. “Some species are more susceptible than others. But it definitely can happen and has happened during evolution, and has played a role in shaping functional diversity of the gene repertoire in metazoans.”

Microbiologist Jonathan Eisen of the University of California, Davis, who also did not participate in the work noted that the study’s results don’t conclusively exclude gene loss as an alternate explanation of their data.

“This is pretty typical of claims of HGT,” Eisen told The Scientist in an e-mail. “Many researchers show evidence that is consistent with the occurence of HGT (which they did here) but few actually explicitly test alternative hypotheses such as gene loss, bad alignments, convergence, divergence, contamination, random noise, and more.”

“I suspect that [these results] won’t be universally accepted,” said Crisp. “But I think it takes a good shot at settling the controversy.”

A. Crisp et al., “Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes,” doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3, Genome Biology, 2015.

same site, may be pushing some agenda, what about skepticism ... there's more still: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms
Abstract
Background

A fundamental concept in biology is that heritable material, DNA, is passed from parent to offspring, a process called vertical gene transfer. An alternative mechanism of gene acquisition is through horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which involves movement of genetic material between different species. HGT is well-known in single-celled organisms such as bacteria, but its existence in higher organisms, including animals, is less well established, and is controversial in humans.
Results

We have taken advantage of the recent availability of a sufficient number of high-quality genomes and associated transcriptomes to carry out a detailed examination of HGT in 26 animal species (10 primates, 12 flies and four nematodes) and a simplified analysis in a further 14 vertebrates. Genome-wide comparative and phylogenetic analyses show that HGT in animals typically gives rise to tens or hundreds of active ‘foreign’ genes, largely concerned with metabolism. Our analyses suggest that while fruit flies and nematodes have continued to acquire foreign genes throughout their evolution, humans and other primates have gained relatively few since their common ancestor. We also resolve the controversy surrounding previous evidence of HGT in humans and provide at least 33 new examples of horizontally acquired genes.
Conclusions

We argue that HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain18292 Posts
January 12 2017 08:31 GMT
#11376
Yup. It's a sad day. The religion discussion is both more sensible and interesting than the "science" one.

My girlfriend, a Muslim, believes that my atheism is not a factor in whether I go to heaven or not. She believes all people who do good, whether in the name of God or otherwise, will go to heaven. But she's an exception insofar as I can find out.

Most Islamic scholars think that the primary requirement for God to consider your good deeds is for them to be done in the name of God. However, a true conversion to Islam whipes the slate clean and all your previous sins are forgiven, so it's never too late to start racking up those good deeds

Also, you don't go straight to heaven/hell upon death. Everybody will be judged on the day of judgement. Until that day the dead sleep in their grave.
Uldridge
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
Belgium5160 Posts
January 12 2017 20:52 GMT
#11377
On January 12 2017 16:52 xM(Z wrote:
GMO and protein triggering(the quoted article was talking about protein discrepancies) was me comparing two things you're still working on, things you only recently began to understand, two analogue things that should share a conclusion: wait for it, we're still studying it.
you inferred causation; i was pointing out the needed procedural similarities and the (lack of)research know how.

the protein digestion part was me emphasizing on the fact that you don't know everything yet (irritable bowel syndrome is this contested thing, not a disease yet but a bunch of symptoms lumped up together because no one cares enough to figure it out(was no money in it)) and the research you do on things is at best a pick and choose game based on financial/(self) recognition merits.

(and fyi, there is DNA from the cells of food you've digested in your blood vessels; has different stages of degradation but still it is technically there).
if you again thought of different things, like weed dna into your own dna, i don't know what to tell you: some could only hope?.

still, HGT/LGT does exist even if it's "controversial".

HGT is not even close to being controversial, how do you think GMO's are created? They exploit the mechanism Agrobacterium tumefaciens uses which is known to inject a piece of DNA into its host (the plant) to make metabolites for it (and as a byproduct, tumors are generated. If you see knots on a treetrunk, there's a chance this is an A. tumefaciens infection).

I still have the slightest clue about what you're trying to say with protein triggering. What does that mean? An elevated level of a protein you ingest somehow gets to fuck you over?
And DNA, while being a pretty stable macromolecule (as opposed to RNA which has very short half lives)
Just read the wiki article, it literally says it gets broken down into mononucleotides by enzymes released from the pancreas (which starts breaking down the stuff in your duodenum, uptake from nutrients is in small intestines).

And yes, there are very complex diseases which are not easy to solve. IBD may not even be just one thing, just like dementia isn't just one thing. When syndromes become these nuanced things without a set definition for them it becomes a pain to classify them and an extreme financial burden for the person who has these issues to get them exactly figured out. It sucks, but if there isn't enough incentive to find all the different classifications so to find what constitutes as IBD (which I'm sure at least someone is busy trying to find out), then all I can do is hope someone does find something soon.
Taxes are for Terrans
Yoav
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1874 Posts
January 12 2017 23:49 GMT
#11378
On January 12 2017 17:31 Acrofales wrote:
Also, you don't go straight to heaven/hell upon death. Everybody will be judged on the day of judgement. Until that day the dead sleep in their grave.


Yeah that's a thing in Christianity too. Some people think it's a right-away judgement, others that it all happens together later on. There's support for both in the Bible+ Show Spoiler +
Luke 16:19-31 for right-away, Matthew 25:31, Revelation, and variously throughout for "later".
. I personally think it is a moot question that fails to understand the nature of eternity. From your frame of reference, you die and are immediately given the final choice/judgement; but everybody else is judged at that moment too, both those who died before and after you.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
January 13 2017 00:02 GMT
#11379
On January 13 2017 08:49 Yoav wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 12 2017 17:31 Acrofales wrote:
Also, you don't go straight to heaven/hell upon death. Everybody will be judged on the day of judgement. Until that day the dead sleep in their grave.


Yeah that's a thing in Christianity too. Some people think it's a right-away judgement, others that it all happens together later on. There's support for both in the Bible+ Show Spoiler +
Luke 16:19-31 for right-away, Matthew 25:31, Revelation, and variously throughout for "later".
. I personally think it is a moot question that fails to understand the nature of eternity. From your frame of reference, you die and are immediately given the final choice/judgement; but everybody else is judged at that moment too, both those who died before and after you.


Catholicism really struggled with this--hence why they had so many variations of hell they had to send people to.

Purgatory, Limbo, etc... all trying to find ways for judgements to be both immediate and delayed.

Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Cascade
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
Australia5405 Posts
January 13 2017 01:10 GMT
#11380
On January 12 2017 16:52 xM(Z wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 12 2017 04:49 Uldridge wrote:
On January 12 2017 04:21 xM(Z wrote:
you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion.
- protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson;
- protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others

pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed.

I didn't mix up jack shit. You just can't read. You're starting a discussion about Parkinson's, which is indeed a signaling disease, which has absolutely jack shit to do with your initial topic at hand. Sure, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and a shitton of other diseases happen because of a malfunction in certain protein signaling pathways. But you bring up the Parkinson's argument in a discussion that has nothing to do with Parkinson's. So why do you bring up Parkinson's?
You know you eat plants and that you don't merge your DNA with them to absorb their powers or some shit right?

Sure protein misfolds can happen, at altered protein sequences can me immunogenic, but that's maybe the most worried you have to be if you make a proteome (and metabolome isn't changed) where altered units make the organism more resistant to certain environmental conditions. Bringing up Parkinson's in a discussion about eating plants..

Edit: and what the fuck does you DNA non digestion comment even allude to? You think there aren't any other enzymes or mechanisms that can destroy DNA? You're afraid there might grow a plant inside of you or something?
Look up nucleases and proteinases please.
Wait, let me do that for you: Nuclease to educate you
Protease to educate you
Stop making me mad please.
GMO and protein triggering(the quoted article was talking about protein discrepancies) was me comparing two things you're still working on, things you only recently began to understand, two analogue things that should share a conclusion: wait for it, we're still studying it.
you inferred causation; i was pointing out the needed procedural similarities and the (lack of)research know how.

the protein digestion part was me emphasizing on the fact that you don't know everything yet (irritable bowel syndrome is this contested thing, not a disease yet but a bunch of symptoms lumped up together because no one cares enough to figure it out(was no money in it)) and the research you do on things is at best a pick and choose game based on financial/(self) recognition merits.

(and fyi, there is DNA from the cells of food you've digested in your blood vessels; has different stages of degradation but still it is technically there).
if you again thought of different things, like weed dna into your own dna, i don't know what to tell you: some could only hope?.

still, HGT/LGT does exist even if it's "controversial".
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36108/title/Bacterial-DNA-in-Human-Genomes/
+ Show Spoiler +
A team of scientists from the University of Maryland School of Medicine has found the strongest evidence yet that bacteria occasionally transfer their genes into human genomes, finding bacterial DNA sequences in about a third of healthy human genomes and in a far greater percentage of cancer cells. The results, published today (20 June) in PLOS Computational Biology, suggest that gene transfer from bacteria to humans is not only possible, but also somehow linked to over-proliferation: either cancer cells are prone to these intrusions or the incoming bacterial genes help to kick-start the transformation from healthy cells into cancerous ones.

“It really does seem that human genome sequence data from somatic cells show signs of LGT events from bacteria, and so do cancer cells,” said Jonathan Eisen from University of California, Davis, who coordinated the peer review of the new study but was not involved in the work. “Wild stuff does happen.”

The trillions of bacteria in our bodies regularly exchange DNA with each other, but the idea that their genes could end up in human DNA has been very controversial. In 2001, the team that sequenced the first human genome claimed to have found 113 cases of such lateral gene transfers (LGT), but their conclusion was later refuted.

This high-profile error “had a chilling effect on the field,” according to Julie Dunning Hotopp who led the new study. Although her team has since found several cases of LGT between bacteria and invertebrates, “it’s still difficult to convince people that it may be happening in the human genome,” she said.

Rather than looking for bacterial genes that had become permanent parts of the human genome, Dunning Hotopp’s team searched for traces of microbial DNA in somatic cells—the cells of the body that do not form gametes.

Lab members David Riley and Karsten Sieber scanned publicly available data from the 1000 Genomes Project and found more than 7,000 instances of LGT from bacteria, affecting around a third of the people they studied. When they analyzed sequences from the Cancer Genome Atlas, they discovered 691,000 more instances of LGT 99.9 percent of these came from tumor samples rather than normal tissues.

Acute myeloid leukaemia cells were particularly rife with bacterial sequences. A third of the microbial genes came from a genus called Acinetobacter, and had been inserted into the mitochondrial genome.

Stomach cancer cells also contained lots of bacterial DNA, especially from Pseudomonas. Most of this DNA had been inserted into five genes, four of which were already known to be proto-oncogenes that can give rise to cancer, emphasizing a possible link between LGT and cancerous growth. “Finding these integrations in multiple individuals, as well as in the proto-oncogenes, really spoke to how significant this might be,” said Dunning Hotopp.

“We know already that a significant proportion of cancers are due to insertion of genetic material from viruses,” said Etienne Danchin from the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, who reviewed the paper. “But this is the first time, as far as I know, that HGT from bacteria could be suspected as a cause of cancer.”

However, Dunning Hotopp is very clear that her results tell us nothing about whether the inserted bacterial DNA contributed to causing the cancers, or were just along for the ride. To get at the question of causation, researchers could deliberately add bacterial DNA into the same sites within human cell lines to see if they turn cancerous, she said. But even if the bacterial LGT can initiate over-proliferation, it would be hard to prevent such transfers with antibiotics. “You don’t know when these transfers occur, and you can’t give people antibiotics their entire life,” said Dunning Hotopp. “A vaccine would be nice, but that is assuming these are causative.”

“LGT is incredibly important in evolution but many claims of specific cases of LGT have been seriously flawed,” said Eisen. “I came into this as a serious skeptic. It just seemed so improbable.”

But the team won him over. They ran an extensive set of checks to make sure that these bacterial sequences were not laboratory artifacts and had not come from contaminating microbes.

For example, they showed that LGT was more common in cancer cells than healthy tissue, and two out of ten cancer types were particularly hard hit. If the bacterial integrations were artifacts of the methodology, it should be equally common in any tissue sample. The team also focused on sequences with high coverage—that is, those which had been read many times over. When the team found evidence of LGT, it was consistent across all of these reads. “In the end, the authors addressed every single question that I and the reviewers raised,” said Eisen.

Hank Seifert from Northwestern University, who was not involved in the study, remains cautious. “This paper is very interesting and potentially important,” he said. “However, until the direct analysis of specific tumor cells can be performed to validate that these are real events, this work [is] still speculative.”

But Dunning Hotopp’s team cannot do these validation studies herself. For privacy reasons, they cannot access the original tumor samples that their data came from. “People with access to the samples need to validate that the integrations are correct,” she said.

Danchin agrees that the results need to be validated but said, “I am personally convinced what they have found by screening the different databases is true. I think LGT happens much more frequently than we imagine but, most of the time, is just not detectable.”

D.R. Riley et al., “Bacteria-human somatic cell lateral gene transfer is enriched in cancer samples,” PLOS Computational Biology, 2013.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42420/title/Horizontal-Gene-Transfer-a-Hallmark-of-Animal-Genomes-/
+ Show Spoiler +
Many animal genomes include bacterial and fungal genes acquired by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) during evolution, according to a study published today (March 12) in Genome Biology. Scanning the genomes of fruit flies, nematodes, primates, and humans, among other animals, researchers found evidence to suggest that some of these horizontally acquired genes may even be functional.

When the human genome was first published, the suggestion that it contained bacterial genes was controversial. Subsequent studies questioned the possibility of HGT, offering alternate explanations for the presence of genes that resembled bacterial sequences, such as gene loss, or convergent or divergent evolution.

“There were methodological issues with both sides of the argument, and the main problem was that we just didn’t have the data back then that we do now,” said Alastair Crisp of the University of Cambridge, an author on the new study.

More recently, several researchers have reported the lateral transfer of bacterial genes into metazoans under specific circumstances. Examples include the interaction of insect hosts with the obligate intracellular parasite Wolbachia, or the transfer of subsets of bacterial genes into specific kinds of cells, such as cancer cells.

But this latest study is the first to extend across a breadth of species and types of genes. “The study makes a compelling case presenting more evidence of lateral gene transfer from bacteria into eukaryotes,” said microbiologist Julie Hotopp of the University of Maryland who was not involved with the work. “Redoing this type of analysis has been needed for quite some time. People continue to cite the papers from 2000 and 2001 as examples that there is no lateral gene transfer, particularly in humans.”

To re-evaluate the extent of bacterial gene transfer into animals, Crisp and his colleagues analyzed 40 animal genomes, including 10 primates, 12 Drosophila species, and four Caenorhabditis genomes. The researchers computed a score to quantitate how closely a gene aligned to a non-metazoan sequence compared to a metazoan, or animal, sequence. Based on this score, they considered genes that strongly resembled non-animal sequences to be horizontally transferred. Depending on the scores, between 55 percent and 88 percent of the sequences analyzed strongly resembled prokaryotic sequences, suggesting they had been introduced into animal genomes by lateral transfer.

“We had an idea that HGT was much broader than people had previously suspected,” said Crisp. “What surprised us particularly was that there seemed to be a broadly similar amount in both vertebrates and invertebrates.”

The results supported analyses from previous studies that suggested human genes—such as FTO, the fat mass and obesity-associated gene—may have been horizontally acquired. Phylogenetic comparisons also found that some genes, such as hyaluronan synthases (HAS) in the human genome, which were originally thought to be horizontally transferred from bacteria but later rejected, may in fact be of fungal origin.

A large proportion of the “foreign” genes analyzed were found on the same genomic scaffolds as native animal genes. The strong linkage suggested to Crisp and his colleagues that contamination of sequenced samples was unlikely to be the source of these non-native genes.

However, the validity of these results hinge upon the quality of the assembled genomes that were analyzed. “Some genomes, such as C. elegans, D. melanogaster, and the human genome, are very well put-together. But in others, the assemblies may not be as good, and poor assemblies will result in something that looks like gene transfer,” said Hotopp. “It just means that in some organisms they may have overestimated it.”

Crisp’s team found that several of the foreign genes in metazoan genomes encoded enzymes and likely had active biochemical functions. In three nematode and all the primate genomes analyzed, the researchers found that 95 percent of foreign genes contained introns, suggesting that these genes have been “domesticated” over time.

“Since HGT events are not incredibly common, it seems likely that the mechanisms [operating] are very similar to the ones that would insert introns into any genes,” said Crisp. “Looking at recent HGT events can tell us how introns were inserted into other eukaryotic genes, or how transcriptional regulation of new genes evolves.”

The process of lateral gene transfer appears to be both ancient and active today. In human and other primate genomes, foreign genes appear to have entered the genome only in their last common ancestors. But in some Drosophila species and nematodes, the process appears to have occurred much more recently.

The results suggest that “if we use the same yardstick to measure a variety of model organisms, it’s possible to say that mammalian genomes have also been subjected to low levels of HGT, although it happened only on very rare occasions at the early stages of evolution,” said molecular geneticist Irina Arkhipova of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts who was not involved with the study. “Some species are more susceptible than others. But it definitely can happen and has happened during evolution, and has played a role in shaping functional diversity of the gene repertoire in metazoans.”

Microbiologist Jonathan Eisen of the University of California, Davis, who also did not participate in the work noted that the study’s results don’t conclusively exclude gene loss as an alternate explanation of their data.

“This is pretty typical of claims of HGT,” Eisen told The Scientist in an e-mail. “Many researchers show evidence that is consistent with the occurence of HGT (which they did here) but few actually explicitly test alternative hypotheses such as gene loss, bad alignments, convergence, divergence, contamination, random noise, and more.”

“I suspect that [these results] won’t be universally accepted,” said Crisp. “But I think it takes a good shot at settling the controversy.”

A. Crisp et al., “Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes,” doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3, Genome Biology, 2015.

same site, may be pushing some agenda, what about skepticism ... there's more still: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms
Show nested quote +
Abstract
Background

A fundamental concept in biology is that heritable material, DNA, is passed from parent to offspring, a process called vertical gene transfer. An alternative mechanism of gene acquisition is through horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which involves movement of genetic material between different species. HGT is well-known in single-celled organisms such as bacteria, but its existence in higher organisms, including animals, is less well established, and is controversial in humans.
Results

We have taken advantage of the recent availability of a sufficient number of high-quality genomes and associated transcriptomes to carry out a detailed examination of HGT in 26 animal species (10 primates, 12 flies and four nematodes) and a simplified analysis in a further 14 vertebrates. Genome-wide comparative and phylogenetic analyses show that HGT in animals typically gives rise to tens or hundreds of active ‘foreign’ genes, largely concerned with metabolism. Our analyses suggest that while fruit flies and nematodes have continued to acquire foreign genes throughout their evolution, humans and other primates have gained relatively few since their common ancestor. We also resolve the controversy surrounding previous evidence of HGT in humans and provide at least 33 new examples of horizontally acquired genes.
Conclusions

We argue that HGT has occurred, and continues to occur, on a previously unsuspected scale in metazoans and is likely to have contributed to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.

Oh, I follow a few of the people mentioned in the HGT the scientist article on twitter.
Ed and the Eisen brothers. I did unfollow the Eisens though, as they tend to be very political and confrontational, which triggers me when I am trying to work. :D

Yeah, bacteria and viruses can insert their DNA into yours, because they have evolved to do exactly that over many million years. That's not really controversial as far as I know. There are technical difficulties with measuring it, as it's hard to guarantee that the bacterial DNA you sequence from your human cells are not contaminants, which has led to false positives, so you can't trust any given result too too much. But there's a pretty uncontroversial consensus that they do this as I understand. Not exactly my area of expertise (I do mainly cancer) though.

But it's a really complicated process, where they have these special vessels made to inject themselves into the cells and hijack the transcription and translation machinery of your cell, or get into the nucleus and splice themselves into the DNA. Plant cells don't do that. Plant cells don't enter your cells and insert their DNA into yours. Plant cells are not bacteria. And the genetic manipulation of the plants doesn't involve building up that entire machinery. And free DNA in the bloodstream doesn't randomly jump into cells and get transcribed and translated, or spliced into our DNA. And if there are some short fragments of DNA that makes it through the digestion, they certainly won't be long enough to code for entire genes. And it'd have to infiltrate a very large number of cells to have an impact.

So in summary, even if you are afraid of having your DNA altered, I wouldn't worry about GMOs. I would be very diligent with sunscreen though, and not smoke. THOSE do nasty things to your DNA! :o :o So well, going out in the sun and worrying about GMOs giving you Parkinson is a bit like racing motorbikes and worrying about being hit by a meteor.

It's a fair concern to check if they produce something toxic though, or less of the important nutrients (not we have a good grasp of what those are), but I think they test for that before they get approved? The paper you linked on that is interesting, but didn't seem to be huge differences. I don't really have any intuition for how big difference you need to impact you though. But I mean... even if a few proteins are 3x as abundant in GMOs, it's no more toxic than eating 3x as much of the original vegetable. I wish the testing process was more open, but IP.... TT
Prev 1 567 568 569 570 571 783 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Monday Night Weeklies
16:00
#52
TKL 2232
RotterdaM957
IndyStarCraft 193
SteadfastSC164
BRAT_OK 97
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
TKL 2232
RotterdaM 957
MaxPax 311
IndyStarCraft 193
SteadfastSC 164
BRAT_OK 97
UpATreeSC 92
elazer 91
ProTech76
MindelVK 22
EmSc Tv 2
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4441
Britney 1802
BeSt 276
Dewaltoss 112
Rush 108
scan(afreeca) 55
Aegong 26
Rock 18
GoRush 17
Dota 2
qojqva2202
monkeys_forever368
Counter-Strike
pashabiceps2102
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu263
Other Games
Grubby6213
Liquid`RaSZi1873
Hui .190
C9.Mang0175
KnowMe164
Trikslyr54
Organizations
Counter-Strike
PGL1635
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 7
StarCraft 2
EmSc Tv 2
EmSc2Tv 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• kabyraGe 83
• StrangeGG 45
• Reevou 3
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 33
• Michael_bg 10
• FirePhoenix5
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV615
• lizZardDota237
Other Games
• imaqtpie1477
• Shiphtur288
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
5h 36m
The PondCast
15h 36m
Kung Fu Cup
16h 36m
WardiTV Qualifier
19h 36m
GSL
1d 15h
Cure vs sOs
SHIN vs ByuN
Replay Cast
2 days
GSL
2 days
Classic vs Solar
GuMiho vs Zoun
WardiTV Spring Champion…
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Spring Champion…
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Classic vs SHIN
Rogue vs Bunny
BSL
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
5 days
Flash vs Soma
RSL Revival
5 days
BSL
6 days
Patches Events
6 days
Universe Titan Cup
6 days
Rogue vs Percival
Wardi Open
6 days
Monday Night Weeklies
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Escore Tournament S2: W7
2026 GSL S1
Nations Cup 2026

Ongoing

BSL Season 22
ASL Season 21
IPSL Spring 2026
KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 2
Acropolis #4
KK 2v2 League Season 1
BSL 22 Non-Korean Championship
YSL S3
SCTL 2026 Spring
RSL Revival: Season 5
Heroes Pulsing #1
Asian Champions League 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
PGL Astana 2026
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Finals
ESL Pro League S23 Stage 1&2

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S2: W8
CSLAN 4
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
Maestros of the Game 2
WardiTV Spring 2026
2026 GSL S2
Bounty Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.