While one could, mistakenly, apply some of what was said about GE to flora, the bulk of that had nothing to do with the topic of this thread. You spent a whole lot of time preaching to the choir about human/animal genetic engineering. No one person here is arguing for the type of GE you spent any number of hours trying to denounce.

More should be added to a GE rebuttal because a reader might mistake that a GM crop that produces twice the output proves that GM is an “improvement” of Creation

By reading what you wrote, an individual as ignorant in the topic at hand as yourself might mistake that GM crops are somehow dangerous, intrusive or evil. You give off the idea that our world will look alien to us, that we’ll all lose our souls in the future if crop alterations continue, even though you hardly addressed crop alterations. The minimal amount of effort you did put into crop engineering was, once again, simply wrong. For example:

That a plant resembles a soybean plant does not make it a soybean plant…

It absolutely does. That a plant produces soybeans definitively makes it a soybean plant. One better, that a soybean plant produces more soybeans, or larger soybeans, makes it a soybean plant. For our purposes, it makes it a better soybean plant. You have this notion that crops are being transformed into completely different organisms. If you understood crop GE at all you’d realize that the genetic structure of the plant is left intact. Only proteins and enzymes are added or denied to the plant to produce the desired traits. By your logic, synthetic fertilizers will be the downfall of man. I can add 10-10-10 to any plant that’s tolerant of the formula and it will produce the same effects, essentially, as one type of GE. All the labs are doing in this case are cutting out the middle-men, actually increasing the efficiency of the existing plant. Creating hybrid plants is no different than selective dog breeding. I’d hardly consider that evil. I think, Frank, that you’re tuned into some sort of horrible, science fiction train of thought.

Where is the line to be drawn between soybean and human?

Come on, man, are you serious? I get the distinction you’re trying to draw, but I actually laughed out loud. Imagine! Soybean-human chimeras! Better stock up on round-up and weed-eater cord! They’re marching on Richmond! Oh, but they’re round-up resistant! Damn you, GE! Daaaaaamn yoooooou!

On another note, unless you like the taste of your own foot, don’t presume to know what my opinions are unless you hear them from me. If you’d have taken the time to read the few posts I’ve written on Kinism.net, you’d not have made yourself look like a fool to those who know me by making this statement:

I wish to highlight the importance of working among Creation: when a product is produced that is natural, it is designed by God, perhaps bred by one’s ancestors, and grown in one’s [ideally native] soil. If valuing such a spiritual connection with God, nation, and soil makes me a hippie as “My Brothers Keeper” probably meant, then so be it. But as I recall, at least one or more Southern Agrarians valued such spiritual connection, at least to God if not to blood and soil. So, I’m in good company.

If a soybean is no longer defined to include those genes God created soybeans to have, then the sky is the limit.

If you look back, I said that at first small improvements will be made but then later larger alterations will creep upon us. Rather than drawing an artificial line, why not simply preserve what God has given us now?

We have a traditional definition of what genes soybeans contain going by what was created. By creating a new definition you’re creating an artificial definition that will not likely be as widely agreed upon. IOW: it’s much easier to say, “a soybean is this species God made” rather than “a soybean is a plant that adheres to the natural soybean plant except for x, x, and x.”

My Brothers Keeper - 30 April 2008 09:40 PM

On another note, unless you like the taste of your own foot, don’t presume to know what my opinions are unless you hear them from me. If you’d have taken the time to read the few posts I’ve written on Kinism.net, you’d not have made yourself look like a fool to those who know me by making this statement:

I wish to highlight the importance of working among Creation: when a product is produced that is natural, it is designed by God, perhaps bred by one’s ancestors, and grown in one’s [ideally native] soil. If valuing such a spiritual connection with God, nation, and soil makes me a hippie as “My Brothers Keeper” probably meant, then so be it. But as I recall, at least one or more Southern Agrarians valued such spiritual connection, at least to God if not to blood and soil. So, I’m in good company.

Glad to hear it, though just the same you’ve also made unwarranted false assumptions about me in this thread. My foots not going in my mouth till yours is in your own.

...it’s much easier to say, “a soybean is this species God made” rather than “a soybean is a plant that adheres to the natural soybean plant except for x, x, and x.”

A soybean plant is one that produces soybeans. Pretty cut and dry, chief. Focus. This isn’t hard. This isn’t a thread about Eugenics or human cloning or species re-designations. This is a thread about crop GE. If you want to talk about a different subject entirely, start a new thread.

I’m uncertain of the particulars y’all are were discussing…

You know, you didn’t literally walk into a room in the middle of a conversation. Scroll up and read the “particulars”. I’m losing patience with your tendency to wander off, mentally speaking. This is like arguing with a child. To be sure, you can hold a coherent conversation. I can’t help but hope your profession doesn’t involve anyone’s security or safety. 

What unwarranted assumptions did I make about you? The more I read your writings, the more I wonder how you’d like the taste of my foot.

My Brothers Keeper - 30 April 2008 11:38 PM

What unwarranted assumptions did I make about you? The more I read your writings, the more I wonder how you’d like the taste of my foot.

My crystal ball tells me you consume more than the safe dose of Fox news. I think it’s safe to say that your assumption that our “values/ first principles” differ broadly is entirely on the money.

Your grasp of agriculture is on par with your education in political philosophies.

My Brothers Keeper - 30 April 2008 11:38 PM

You know, you didn’t literally walk into a room in the middle of a conversation. Scroll up and read the “particulars”. I’m losing patience with your tendency to wander off, mentally speaking. This is like arguing with a child. To be sure, you can hold a coherent conversation. I can’t help but hope your profession doesn’t involve anyone’s security or safety. 

Yet again you misunderstand what is being said.

EDIT: I (Frank) removed my attack on you because it’s counterproductive. If you missed it, nothing horrible was said and I can readily readd it, but there’s no point having it here otherwise.

This is the particular issue I was referring to:

You can go ahead and file this away with global warming. It’s B.S. Remember the comparison I made with pruning? The farmers experiencing this aren’t practicing proper crop rotation. They’re their own problem. Children in 4H and FFA know this. Many commercial farmers aren’t farmers at all, but businessmen who though they could make a buck at the expense of the little guy, like the movie stars who buy a 1000 acre ranch and fancy themselves cowboys.

I can read the linked stories Faust provided… Does that mean I know all about this particular issue? Of course not.

A soybean plant is one that produces soybeans. Pretty cut and dry, chief. Focus. This isn’t hard. This isn’t a thread about Eugenics or human cloning or species re-designations. This is a thread about crop GE. If you want to talk about a different subject entirely, start a new thread.

I am focusing. Where do you draw the line with the GE, err, chief?

This is going no where. You’re too full of yourself for me to hold a discussion with you, you’re not even trying to understand what I said, which was fairly well organised considering how much time I’ve at the moment. I hold myself to high standards, but relative to most of what’s on the internet my post was very good. I’ve a thorough understanding of a large part of the moral dilemma GE creates, and I’ve not seen the intricacies discussed in as much detail as I offer here.

I suspect now that I’ve stood up to your bullying you’re offended by what I said and will wish to defend your ego by attacking further… So, I don’t think we’ll be conversing again.

Anyway if you ever decide to grow up, I’ll continue this conversation; but as you are, this is a waste of my time.

How a Christian man says words like “Behold the Angel of Death: GE” yet willingly consumes those very products regularly while brushing it off as “a real shame"…

Yet again you miss a point being made (it’s almost a given that you’ll misunderstand what is being said!): GE poses a potential threat, but the current genetically engineered foods do not seem to be harmful. My diet actually does consist mostly of organic foods, but because I’m not a farmer I don’t always have access to them. Also, as you pointed out, organic doesn’t always mean GE-free. Finally, I eat many meals away from home and have no way of knowing whether the food is GE or natural.