If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Life finds a way: Worm evolves to eat corn genetically engineered to kill it   (wired.com) divider line 258
    More: Interesting, corn, ecological damage, genetic modifications, biotechnology company, Bacillus thuringiensis, insecticides, agricultural science, National Academy of Sciences  
•       •       •

7534 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2014 at 5:31 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



258 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-18 01:20:57 PM

AntonChigger: Wow, this thread is doing a great job of drawing out the anti-GMO idiots.  Genetically engineered crops are one of the most significant scientific advances of the last couple decades (aside from the genetic selection that was performed for thousands of years before we understood genetics). No advancement is going to be without its problems, but you would be a fool to deny the benefit that GM foods bring to humanity.

/Monsanto sucks, but their products do not


Bolded for truth
 
2014-03-18 01:22:43 PM

Ned Stark: Nothing wrong with genetically modified crops.

We should probably stop buying them from lex luthor though.


This.

The original patent on Roundup Ready soy expires next year or so, so expect to see generic Roundup Ready soybeans flood the market, taking a big wet bite out of Monsanto's profits.
 
2014-03-18 01:24:47 PM

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actually been teste ...


Then please explain how the world rice supply got contaminated. They also mention that this has occurred with wheat and flax as well.

GMO is the future, whether we like it or not, it is pretty much the only way we will be able to feed ourselves, in aggregate. However, we need to do a lot more to test it long term effects across populations, as allergenic and carcinogenic effects can be brought about from the new chemical markers and proteins expressed, both intentionally and unintentionally in the food.
 
2014-03-18 01:24:58 PM

lennavan: Sure but that focus seems mostly on humans in the short term. With appropriate testing, I'm perfectly fine with the safety of GMOs. I'm more worried about the effects on nature in the long term. Here, in the article, a worm evolved to eat a toxin. What happens to the organism that eats the worm? What happens if this gene escapes from the corn population through any number of mechanisms and gets into other plants?
If this had happened naturally, we'd start with a single stalk of corn expressing the toxin to resist the worm. The corn would slowly grow in numbers, while the worms slowly become resistant, so whatever eats them slowly adapts and so on. But with GMOs, instead in evolutionary timescales, it's pretty much just "poof" all corn expresses the toxin. Then "poof" worms become resistant. Worms can adapt that quickly because they have short lifespans and large numbers of babies. But as you move up the food chain, eventually you'll hit an organism that can't adapt that quickly and may go extinct. An alternative possibility is the worms may have become resistant by evolving an enzyme that can metabolize the toxin. What happens when that metabolite works it way up the food chain to our dinner plates, much like mercury does?
That's the message that needs to get out to these assholes:But the scientists' own recommendations - an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that ...


You raise an interesting point. Sounds like a tragedy of the commons situation. Is there an economist in the house who could fix this?
 
2014-03-18 01:25:10 PM

draypresct: khyberkitsune:  Draypresct:
This study looked at two time points: 1950 and 1999.
Because you do this for a living, you're aware that the FDA only passed the nutrition labeling and education act in 1990, right?
This act standardized the reporting of nutritional panel information. Now, before standardization, if you're marketing a food, would you A) report all nutritional information, including the nutritional areas your food is low in, or B) report the nutritional information that makes your food look good?
Non-reporting bias . . . it's what's for dinner.

Way to move your goalposts around by moving away from the subject. To quote the study: Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content
Plenty of GMO been around since the dawn of agriculture. Even selective breeding for phenotype is genetic modification.

Your response (and the study you quote) did not address the issue with non-reporting bias in early (pre-standardization) nutritional labels. Did you not read my post, or do you need to review some  basic statistical concepts?


Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems

Best part, most GMOs wont work with my zero-light production system. The genetic modifications done for any increase in yield get negated by a lowered ability to absorb non-photonic energy (as many plants have been demonstrated to utilize. In fact, despite a study done overseas on wifi radiation affecting germination growth rates, many species of plant thrive in such conditions, preferring that radiation to just pure natural light.)

Silly fools, focusing only on visible and far-range light.
 
2014-03-18 01:31:22 PM

MechTard: Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?

demaL-demaL-yeH: I know: Let's widely plant these GMOs without adequate testing, contaminate natural strains of crops so there's no heirloom stock left to save our butts, and then sue the organic farmers into bankruptcy for stealing our shiat.

1. There are 0 verified cases of cross contamination.  Not "almost zero", not "we project basically zero".  Literally not a single plant that has been planted with GM seed has expressed a modified gene without us intentionally setting it up to in the entire history of modern agriculture.

If you're going to base policy on shiat that only exists in your imagination, make sure you include some sort of regulatory framework so I don't accidentally run people over with my rainbow-pooping flying unicorn.

2. GM may potentially become less viable to some extent a few centuries in the future.  Organic farming literally is not even slightly viable  already, switching to organics would starve 80% of the world to death within a month if you go with the  forgiving estimate of comparative crop yields, more like 90% if you consider reduced calorie content by mass.

Farkage: This is exactly why GMO shiat should be outlawed.  The things (bugs, worms, etc) that they are developing it for will become resistant to it, because that's what evolution does over multiple generations.  In the meantime, we are eating this crap without it actually being proven to be 100% safe because reasons.But, you know, as long as Monsanto is making lots of money...

Nutritionally speaking, GM food is typically healthier than non-GM food, that's one of the two things that it's usually modified for.  Further, GM food has actua ...


He also neglects to mention they have seen GM canola cross with wild radishes.  The wild radish/gm cross was quickly out competed though by non gm wild radish, because the genes that we selected for during domestication are really shiatty for surviving in the wild.

Also GM food is safe, and in most cases has been tested more thoroughly than our existing crops, because everyone just assumes the existing stuff was ok to eat since we've been eating it forever.
 
2014-03-18 01:31:25 PM

khyberkitsune: Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems


How do you know, without using statistics?

Discuss your experimental setup with a professional statistician, and ask them to look at your data. 


/Re: understanding scientific studies: Read the Wikipedia article on response bias. Then re-read my responses.
 
2014-03-18 01:38:41 PM

khyberkitsune: draypresct: khyberkitsune:  Draypresct:
This study looked at two time points: 1950 and 1999.
Because you do this for a living, you're aware that the FDA only passed the nutrition labeling and education act in 1990, right?
This act standardized the reporting of nutritional panel information. Now, before standardization, if you're marketing a food, would you A) report all nutritional information, including the nutritional areas your food is low in, or B) report the nutritional information that makes your food look good?
Non-reporting bias . . . it's what's for dinner.

Way to move your goalposts around by moving away from the subject. To quote the study: Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content
Plenty of GMO been around since the dawn of agriculture. Even selective breeding for phenotype is genetic modification.

Your response (and the study you quote) did not address the issue with non-reporting bias in early (pre-standardization) nutritional labels. Did you not read my post, or do you need to review some  basic statistical concepts?

Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems

Best part, most GMOs wont work with my zero-light production system. The genetic modifications done for any increase in yield get negated by a lowered ability to absorb non-photonic energy (as many plants have been demonstrated to utilize. In fact, despite a study done overseas on wifi radiation affecting germination growth rates, many species of plant thrive in such conditions, preferring that radiation to just pure natural light.)

Silly fools, focusing only on v ...


WTF are you even talking about? I can't even tell if you are pro GMO or not. It sounds like not, but you work for an ag company producing.. something that has not been explained.

Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms? Because that image seems to be for a lettuce leaf, but I can't really see how you would grow a leafy green without any form of input radiation. I could see growing some plants using solely energy found in the soil, but that is some crazy fertilizer.
 
2014-03-18 01:39:43 PM

draypresct: Read the Wikipedia article on response bias. Then re-read my responses.


WIKI = What I Know Is. LMFAO. Wikipedia is at least a decade behind current research.

Wales is too busy whoring himself to vested interests to keep his site afloat. That's pretty much proven in the political areas of his site.

Your source is shiat, son. Gimme real sources from real vetted science communities.

Oh, you can't, because it seems you're that ignorant.

Here, lemme start with debunking LED red:blue bullshiat.

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

Go the hell home you fake scientist. You don't even know what the fark you're talking about.
 
2014-03-18 01:41:13 PM

khyberkitsune: Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.


Aw fark me.  You were farking with us all along.  Goddamn I was hooked good.  Where the hell did you get that lettuce nutrition thing, that one really sold me that you were being serious.

Take notes people, this is how you do it.
 
2014-03-18 01:42:32 PM

Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?


The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!
 
2014-03-18 01:48:43 PM

ciberido: Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?

The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!


A lot of people would do better if they remembered that "Fear is the mind killer".

//Please for the love of all that is good in this world, do not make decisions based on and in fear.
 
2014-03-18 01:49:20 PM

MechTard: I can't even tell if you are pro GMO or not.


Sounds like you need to quit focusing on science until you understand the actual terms, then.

lennavan: Where the hell did you get that lettuce nutrition thing, that one really sold me that you were being serious.


You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.

http://imgur.com/etdVie3

One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)

Oh, wait, need more?

http://imgur.com/1LOWJFa

Oh, wait, need more?

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=14ujcqc&s=5

Oh, wait, you still need even more proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTikdxj8AI  - Hey we're on the BBC, which tends to do REAL fact checking!

Wait, need even yet MORE PROOF?

http://imgur.com/9hMyoK4

There's me getting my happy ass into suit for building the LED and non-LED side of things, as I'm the head EE and biology major of the group.

Wait, need even more proof?

http://imgur.com/QzdqG0c

Hey, look, there's Adam Jensen from BBC Countryfile, in my facility making a video! Picture taken from my remote monitoring robot.

What were you saying again? Looks like I just nailed you to the cross harder than Jesus might have advocated for those being crucified.
 
2014-03-18 01:50:43 PM

lennavan: khyberkitsune: Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

Aw fark me.  You were farking with us all along.  Goddamn I was hooked good.  Where the hell did you get that lettuce nutrition thing, that one really sold me that you were being serious.

Take notes people, this is how you do it.


I don't know . . . Is there a Poe's law equivalent on pure scientific ignorance?

khyberkitsune: draypresct: Read the Wikipedia article on response bias. Then re-read my responses.
WIKI = What I Know Is. LMFAO. Wikipedia is at least a decade behind current research.


Never mind.

/In case anyone is curious, response bias is a basic concept in statistics. Claiming Wikipedia is a decade behind the definition of this concept is like claiming Wikipedia is a decade behind current research into the number three.
 
2014-03-18 01:58:12 PM

khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.http://imgur.com/etdVie3One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)Oh, wait, need more?


What, no pictures of your Canadian girlfriend?

/Hint: Real scientists use basic statistical concepts. Real scientists also read, understand, and publish papers in peer-review journals.
 
2014-03-18 02:03:05 PM

draypresct: khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.http://imgur.com/etdVie3One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)Oh, wait, need more?

What, no pictures of your Canadian girlfriend?

/Hint: Real scientists use basic statistical concepts. Real scientists also read, understand, and publish papers in peer-review journals.


I am kinda curious what he's attempting to do, because that looks a hell of a lot more energy intensive and expensive then planting a seed in the ground and letting nature do its work.
 
2014-03-18 02:04:37 PM

draypresct: Real scientists also read, understand, and publish papers in peer-review journals.


Doesn't understand that many peer-reviewed journals are biased as hell.

Only twenty or so non-biased and capable-of-testing journals exist.

Not one of them can prove or disprove my results, and they've tried.

Because they're 50 years behind.

Learn about electronic optics with regards to biological mechanisms.

/ladies and gnetlemen, you can tell this fool has not even a bachelor's degree in science of any sort.
 
2014-03-18 02:05:11 PM

MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?


Asparagus
 
2014-03-18 02:11:43 PM

Saiga410: MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?

Asparagus


Farkin' ditch weed. Had to mow that stinky crap every farking day in the spring. Never understood its appeal.
 
2014-03-18 02:12:32 PM

khyberkitsune: 50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems.


This is a giant farking lie.
 
2014-03-18 02:12:44 PM

meat0918: draypresct: khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.http://imgur.com/etdVie3One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)Oh, wait, need more?

What, no pictures of your Canadian girlfriend?

/Hint: Real scientists use basic statistical concepts. Real scientists also read, understand, and publish papers in peer-review journals.

I am kinda curious what he's attempting to do, because that looks a hell of a lot more energy intensive and expensive then planting a seed in the ground and letting nature do its work.


It looks like a research greenhouse. They might have the plants indoors to keep the specific line from interbreeding with an outside strain. It's clear this wouldn't be the setup used for production.

It could be anything - trying to breed a specific type of resistance, trying to test a new fertilizer, etc.

/Someone tell the PI that the gardener is posting pictures of the research facility on Fark.
 
2014-03-18 02:13:01 PM

meat0918: I am kinda curious what he's attempting to do, because that looks a hell of a lot more energy intensive and expensive then planting a seed in the ground and letting nature do its work.


Plants are only roughly 5-10% efficient in conversion of light to biomatter.

I've done better simulating the effects via direct electrochemical stimulation.

Which is why you see the grass growing in my links all nice and green, instead of sickly yellow like other 'zero-light' technologies. We get about 30% efficiency. And with the LED testing we're doing, we're hitting that 10% mark and pushing it some by directly targeting actual lighting systems per wavelength. Look at a plant like a solar-electrical system, but change solid state parts for organic ones.

Chlorophyll = capacitors, right down to the pile stack design.
Caps need proper voltage to work.
Biological responses require a certain eV to work.
Certain plant functions require certain eVs to work, overall.

Real science. Just like people say with LED "No green light needed!" except green light has higher quantum efficiency as shown in - http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

Back to school for most of you.
 
2014-03-18 02:13:40 PM

Saiga410: MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?

Asparagus


Asparagus look like the earth has a multitude of erections.

livethelive.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-18 02:16:11 PM

give me doughnuts: khyberkitsune: 50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems.

This is a giant farking lie.


Agreed. khyberkitsune tried to imitate a scientist on-line. He doesn't seem to understand that movie scientist dialogue isn't going to fool anyone.

It's too bad. If he'd tried reading & discussing the topic, he might have learned something.
 
2014-03-18 02:16:38 PM

khyberkitsune: meat0918: I am kinda curious what he's attempting to do, because that looks a hell of a lot more energy intensive and expensive then planting a seed in the ground and letting nature do its work.

Plants are only roughly 5-10% efficient in conversion of light to biomatter.

I've done better simulating the effects via direct electrochemical stimulation.

Which is why you see the grass growing in my links all nice and green, instead of sickly yellow like other 'zero-light' technologies. We get about 30% efficiency. And with the LED testing we're doing, we're hitting that 10% mark and pushing it some by directly targeting actual lighting systems per wavelength. Look at a plant like a solar-electrical system, but change solid state parts for organic ones.

Chlorophyll = capacitors, right down to the pile stack design.
Caps need proper voltage to work.
Biological responses require a certain eV to work.
Certain plant functions require certain eVs to work, overall.

Real science. Just like people say with LED "No green light needed!" except green light has higher quantum efficiency as shown in - http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

Back to school for most of you.


It still looks hella energy intensive and costly

Will it be viable for mass production of inexpensive fresh produce, i.e. cheaper than current methods of cultivation?
 
2014-03-18 02:18:03 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Saiga410: MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?

Asparagus

Farkin' ditch weed. Had to mow that stinky crap every farking day in the spring. Never understood its appeal.


Drench it in olive oil.  Place on grill, blacken the edges some.   Add salt. Soooo Good.
 
2014-03-18 02:18:09 PM

khyberkitsune: You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.


That's not a study.  That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce.  Read your "Please Note" section at the bottom of it.  I don't think you understand, I jokingly suggested you were trolling.  The reason I jokingly suggested that was because the alternative is you actually believe the things you post.

khyberkitsune: many peer-reviewed journals are biased as hell.
Only twenty or so non-biased and capable-of-testing journals exist.


khyberkitsune: Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess those "biased as hell" journals didn't publish your results because you didn't do statistical analysis on them.  But you don't need statistics, that's a "soft science" amirite?
 
2014-03-18 02:18:13 PM

meat0918: It still looks hella energy intensive and costly

Will it be viable for mass production of inexpensive fresh produce, i.e. cheaper than current methods of cultivation?


*sees what you did there*

/"Cheaper than dirt" indeed.
 
2014-03-18 02:19:08 PM

Saiga410: demaL-demaL-yeH: Saiga410: MechTard: Are you trying to tell me you have a non-GMO crop that grows without sunlight? Aside from mushrooms?

Asparagus

Farkin' ditch weed. Had to mow that stinky crap every farking day in the spring. Never understood its appeal.

Drench it in olive oil.  Place on grill, blacken the edges some.   Add salt. Soooo Good.


Nasty weed. Makes people smell nasty, too.
 
2014-03-18 02:22:03 PM

give me doughnuts: This is a giant farking lie.


Yea, which is why the BBC came in, took samples before the show, proved us right, and decided to do a show on us.

Keep trying and digging.

draypresct: /Someone tell the PI that the gardener is posting pictures of the research facility on Fark.


Too bad the PI is giving the information to me to post on Fark. He's already aware.

draypresct: If he'd tried reading & discussing the topic, he might have learned something.


I already did. It's you idiots trying to derail the conversation.
Learn to follow conversation.

meat0918: It still looks hella energy intensive and costly

Will it be viable for mass production of inexpensive fresh produce, i.e. cheaper than current methods of cultivation?


It's less costly versus any traditional land/outdoor grow, also more efficient. We can harvest the sun energy in a given area, convert to red/blue/green light of specific avelengths, and make it work, or we can emulate said wavelengths by making wavepulses of extremely high electron-voltages through the nutrient medium, and with roughly 200% higher efficiency get the same results in 7 days versus 14, with equivalent nutritional content with half the biomass. We also utilize 90% less water and nearly 70% less in nutrients.
Payback time: 6 months. Everyone else: 5 years.
 
2014-03-18 02:22:11 PM

khyberkitsune: Plants are only roughly 5-10% efficient in conversion of light to biomatter.


Plants convert light (energy) to biomatter? Let's see . . . E = mc^2 . . . the amount of biomatter produced should be just about a single electron over the lifespan of a tree.

Actually, plants convert light energy into chemical energy. They don't convert light into matter. They obtain matter from the air (carbon) and the ground.

Please stop pretending to be a scientist.
 
2014-03-18 02:29:50 PM

khyberkitsune: give me doughnuts: This is a giant farking lie.

Yea, which is why the BBC came in, took samples before the show, proved us right, and decided to do a show on us.

Keep trying and digging.



There's a show on TV called "Ancient Aliens." It's about as legit as your claims of growing plants without any source of light.
 
2014-03-18 02:30:29 PM

lennavan: That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce


Try analysis on a full kilogram of leaf lettuce.

lennavan: The reason I jokingly suggested that was because the alternative is you actually believe the things you post.


Yet I've got the proof before you in photos and video, yet you still refuse to believe. Yay cognitive dissonance.

draypresct: Plants convert light (energy) to biomatter?


Uh, yea. Plants are photosynthetic systems. Do you not understand this? In general, without light they're useless. But we have systems that can emulate light and still make the plants grow. My BBC video shows this. Why do you ignore real science? The BBC isn't known for following bullshiat science and is in fact known for fact checking.

draypresct: Let's see . . . E = mc^2


That's the argument I use against idiots in weed forums saying "One gram per watt!" Uh, no, it's grams per kilowatt-hour, because any gram of matter has more than a watt of energy invested in it. And if you wanna get picky, I can convert from kWh to micromole if you give me the LED types you're using.

Keep digging, man.

draypresct: Actually, plants convert light energy into chemical energy.


It's like you totally forgot about thermodynamics.

draypresct: They don't convert light into matter. They obtain matter from the air (carbon) and the ground.


Yep, you forgot about thermodynamics. Energy = mass = matter. Without the light, there's no energy source to convert from nor obtain and fix matter to.

Still waiting for you to beat horticultural knowledge taught in high school since 1996. We had one of the best programs in the entire country.
 
2014-03-18 02:32:32 PM

khyberkitsune: Yea, which is why the BBC came in, took samples before the show, proved us right, and decided to do a show on us.

Keep trying and digging.

draypresct: /Someone tell the PI that the gardener is posting pictures of the research facility on Fark.

Too bad the PI is giving the information to me to post on Fark. He's already aware.


Let's be clear, thus far your "proof" is pictures and a video of you growing stuff.  You have conclusively demonstrated that you are a gardener.  People here are questioning the validity of your scientific claims.  To prove that, you should cite your own published studies so we can see the data actually backing up your claims.  A picture of you smiling next to some green shiat doesn't prove you can grow plants without any light whatsoever.
 
2014-03-18 02:36:29 PM

khyberkitsune: lennavan: That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce

Try analysis on a full kilogram of leaf lettuce.


Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude.  It's not a study.

khyberkitsune: Yet I've got the proof before you in photos and video


You have photos of you next to plants.  I believe that you garden plants.

khyberkitsune: My BBC video shows this. Why do you ignore real science?


BBC is not science.  Post your peer-reviewed published scientific study with your results.
 
2014-03-18 02:38:27 PM

lennavan: thus far your "proof" is pictures and a video of you growing stuff.


And have you done anything similar to disprove? No? Then you aren't even qualified to contest.

My studies stand and nobody is challenging them because they're rock solid without bias. My goal is to prove every biased idiot wrong, and my studies do so.

Everyone says "This light is needed!" "No, THIS light is needed!"

No, no light is needed you ignorant farks. Pay attention to physics and learn how analogue systems work like digital ones.

Like the navy analog gear-driven aiming devices for 50+mm shells that could land within 50 meters of a target (of which those targets were far larger than that, and could easily sustain damage, granted, but from 30 miles away? Yea, real science, not your proposed 'wind projections' like you ballistical idiots claim on forums.)
 
2014-03-18 02:40:23 PM

Jim_Callahan: Peki: We're genetically engineering ourselves into a famine,

Not really.  We're very, very easily staying ahead of actual reductions in output, the only potential thing we're in danger of falling short of is keeping up with increased demand.

So... go convince people to stop having more than one child per capita for us, will ya?


The best way to get women to have fewer children is to simply educate them.  If overpopulation is your concern, then your top priority should be to provide girls and young women with a complete education.
 
2014-03-18 02:41:19 PM

khyberkitsune: It's less costly versus any traditional land/outdoor grow, also more efficient. We can harvest the sun energy in a given area, convert to red/blue/green light of specific avelengths, and make it work, or we can emulate said wavelengths by making wavepulses of extremely high electron-voltages through the nutrient medium, and with roughly 200% higher efficiency get the same results in 7 days versus 14, with equivalent nutritional content with half the biomass. We also utilize 90% less water and nearly 70% less in nutrients.
Payback time: 6 months. Everyone else: 5 years.


Sounds magical.

Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

Otherwise, I'll just chalk you up as another in a long line of "Green" snake oil salesman.
 
2014-03-18 02:41:32 PM

khyberkitsune: lennavan: thus far your "proof" is pictures and a video of you growing stuff.

And have you done anything similar to disprove? No? Then you aren't even qualified to contest.

My studies stand and nobody is challenging them because they're rock solid without bias. My goal is to prove every biased idiot wrong, and my studies do so.

Everyone says "This light is needed!" "No, THIS light is needed!"

No, no light is needed you ignorant farks. Pay attention to physics and learn how analogue systems work like digital ones.

Like the navy analog gear-driven aiming devices for 50+mm shells that could land within 50 meters of a target (of which those targets were far larger than that, and could easily sustain damage, granted, but from 30 miles away? Yea, real science, not your proposed 'wind projections' like you ballistical idiots claim on forums.)


YOU ARE FULL OF shiat

 
2014-03-18 02:42:56 PM

lennavan: Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude. It's not a study.


For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.

It's like you don't know how international testing works.

We tested against other countries claiming better values. Easily proven wrong with the top nutritional claim for a specific GMO crop pretty much gets 25% lower than what we have for nutritional content on the same crop.

Hell, I have 'SuperAngryGuy' on reddit doing the same thing, getting closer than me to the same results.

And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?
 
2014-03-18 02:45:39 PM

khyberkitsune: My studies stand and nobody is challenging them because they're rock solid without bias


Nobody is challenging your studies because you haven't posted any of them.  You posted some pictures of you standing next to some plants dude.

khyberkitsune: My goal is to prove every biased idiot wrong, and my studies do so.


Your imaginary, non-existent studies?  Because at this point, they may as well be.
 
2014-03-18 02:46:32 PM

khyberkitsune: lennavan: Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude. It's not a study.

For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.

It's like you don't know how international testing works.

We tested against other countries claiming better values. Easily proven wrong with the top nutritional claim for a specific GMO crop pretty much gets 25% lower than what we have for nutritional content on the same crop.

Hell, I have 'SuperAngryGuy' on reddit doing the same thing, getting closer than me to the same results.

And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?


So you have no peer reviewed studies of your methods you can point too?

This might be appropriate to post now

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is isttestable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are
Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
 
2014-03-18 02:49:21 PM

khyberkitsune: And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?


In Biology, a Masters Degree means you either failed out of a PhD program, or you wanted to boost your resumé to get into medical school.

khyberkitsune: For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.


Read the "Please Note" at the bottom dude.  Pay close attention to the "and is representative only of that sample."

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-18 02:49:54 PM
On the off-chance that khyberkitsune has actually fooled an investor in real life into thinking he's a scientist, here's a brief summary of a few of the idiotic things he's said in just this thread:

khyberkitsune: Everything has a half-life. Soil degrades no matter what you do, it's just thermodynamics in effect.
No. Half-life is a concept in radioactive decay with applications in population research. Not everything has a half-life (iron doesn't), and thermodynamics is a different concept entirely. This is an argument taken from Creationist attempts to attack evolution. Short version of the answer: the Earth is not a closed system, so the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

khyberkitsune: Only twenty or so non-biased and capable-of-testing journals exist.Not one of them can prove or disprove my results, and they've tried.


There are tens of thousands of journals out there. No one has done a survey determining the precise number of "non-biased" journals; it's a very difficult claim to evaluate, since there are so many possible sources of bias (publication bias is just one).
Journals don't try to disprove anything. Authors submit papers to journals. Reviewers provide feedback. The journal isn't doing independent work. khyberkitsune does not understand how scientific publishing works.

khyberkitsune: draypresct: Read the Wikipedia article on response bias. Then re-read my responses.
WIKI = What I Know Is. LMFAO. Wikipedia is at least a decade behind current research.....Your source is shiat, son. Gimme real sources from real vetted science communities.


As I indicated earlier in this thread, response bias is a basic statistical concept. While there is research into the concept, the definition is not "a decade behind current research." That's like saying that the definition of the number 3 is a decade behind current research.

Personal opinion: Anyone who does not understand response bias should not be allowed to publish in a scientific journal.

khyberkitsune: Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.


Statistics is pretty much the only way an actual scientist knows he's got a result. It might be simple statistics (we compared the mean response of the two groups, and the mean response was zero in the non-intervention group and several thousand plus or minus 2 in the intervention group), but any time you're using data (e.g. any time you're doing science), you need statistics.

khyberkitsune: 50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place.


People used to project the state of science 50 years into the future back in the 30s and 40s. We've basically stopped - progress is too fast now, and things change radically. Look how recently the first internet-capable phone came out . . .

khyberkitsune: Plants are only roughly 5-10% efficient in conversion of light to biomatter.


No plant or animal converts matter to energy or vice versa. Plants convert light energy to chemical energy. This chemical energy is used by the plants to grow, incorporating matter from their environment.

khyberkitsune: Yea, which is why the BBC came in, took samples before the show, proved us right, and decided to do a show on us.


If he's given an interview on the BBC, that's nice, but the BBC is not a peer-review publication, and they do not validate scientific claims themselves. Claiming that the BBC has validated your research is as silly as claiming that a journal is trying to disprove it. If anything, the BBC has been criticized for being too inclusive of fringe theories in its science reporting.


Short version: If someone claims that the scientific journals are out to get him, but the BBC has "proved him right", and mis-uses basic scientific concepts and terms in his field, he is not a scientist. He's a con artist. Don't waste your time or money.
 
2014-03-18 02:51:03 PM

khyberkitsune: lennavan: Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude. It's not a study.

For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.

It's like you don't know how international testing works.

We tested against other countries claiming better values. Easily proven wrong with the top nutritional claim for a specific GMO crop pretty much gets 25% lower than what we have for nutritional content on the same crop.

Hell, I have 'SuperAngryGuy' on reddit doing the same thing, getting closer than me to the same results.

And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?


So you don't even have a master's degree and you're smearing whatever this is all over the thread?  Why don't you show us your peer-reviewed study explaining exactly what you did, what statistical analysis you did to show that your results are statistically significant, with your discussion of what you think the impact is.  Then we can have a scholarly discussion.  If you haven't done this, you have the credibility of some dude with a grow light in his basement.
 
2014-03-18 02:52:04 PM

draypresct: Personal opinion: Anyone who does not understand response bias should not be allowed to publish in submit to a scientific journal.


FTFM
 
2014-03-18 02:52:40 PM

Farkage: log_jammin: Farkage: Go learn how vaccines work and rethink your post mkay? Not remotely the same.

I didn't say, or imply they work the same way.

what I was saying, is that you are using the exact same fear mongering tactics used by anti-vaccers.

Farkage: Now tell me the long term health consequences of ingesting bt toxin. Show your work.
We'll wait.

as I said, anyone is free to test that. no one is forced to take Monsanto's word on their "pinky swear"

now, do you have a peer reviewed study that shows the long term health consequences of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis? Because I never claimed to have that information, but you seem pretty sure of it, so lets have it.

No, I don't and I freely admit that. I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to engineering our food to become more toxic though. Glad to see you are so complacent on the issue.



As an exercise, could you try posting something that doesn't mock or belittle the person to whom you're speaking?
 
2014-03-18 02:52:48 PM
lennavan:

In Biology, a Masters Degree means you either failed out of a PhD program, or you wanted to boost your resumé to get into medical school.

Also,  this.
 
2014-03-18 02:53:59 PM
Evidence against kyberkitsune: Every photosynthesizing organism that has ever existed on this planet.

Evidence for khyberkitsune: bupkis
 
2014-03-18 02:55:21 PM

khyberkitsune: draypresct: Actually, plants convert light energy into chemical energy.It's like you totally forgot about thermodynamics.draypresct: They don't convert light into matter. They obtain matter from the air (carbon) and the ground.
Yep, you forgot about thermodynamics. Energy = mass = matter. Without the light, there's no energy source to convert from nor obtain and fix matter to.


Thermodynamics =/= "E = mc^2".

Thermodynamics. Is. Not. Relativity.

When you burn a log, do you really think you're converting mass to energy?

/the stupid, it burns.
 
Displayed 50 of 258 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report