Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Monotremes. Srsly. How fucking transitional can you get?

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Testy Calibrate

1
I had egg laying chickens.

Boring.

I want egg laying chickens that require no grain (tillage is bad remember? (and fight back when attacked by dogs lol)

Where have you been all this time?
You are so stupidly blind to yourself that it's seriously disturbing. Dave, when you experiment with living beings, it  is customary to make it as humane as possible. Are you going to experiment with raising goldfish in a sandbox next?
Nope. I'm going to see if chickens can get their supplemental feed from dairy  instead of grain. Like pigs do.
Jesus fuck you idiot.  Might as well chain them with a chain 1 inch too short to reach their food. It might motivate them to lay more eggs.
2
I had egg laying chickens.

Boring.

I want egg laying chickens that require no grain (tillage is bad remember? (and fight back when attacked by dogs lol)

Where have you been all this time?
You are so stupidly blind to yourself that it's seriously disturbing. Dave, when you experiment with living beings, it  is customary to make it as humane as possible. Are you going to experiment with raising goldfish in a sandbox next?
3
You hush
4
I guess it helps if what your selling is something someone might conceivably want. Unlike, say, giving an internet crank a bunch of money and land to slowly starve some sheep to death or have them eaten by dogs.
Ya think?
Why "semi-permanent" i.e. depreciating homes? When, with a bit of render and actual craftmanship, you could build permanent homes would remain an asset?  In every sense?

Answer?  There is no answer.  Hawkins has his reasons.  'nuff said.
There are already plenty of those in the world  and  in my travels I see a lot of them falling apart every day.  I want to try something different.
Also, permitting. Am i right?
5
i fucking can't with these goddamn people


fixt

I can't see the fix  :sadcheer:
Stop giving the joke away
(I thought Testy was just re-sending the same message to be redundant.  I guess I gave too much credit to his sense of humor)
yeah. your joke was funnier. My ego wouldn't let me be the first to acknowledge that  though.
6
yeah. This is a problem.
8
Introductions / Re: So...
I am not sure how I should take that.
9
Introductions / Re: So...
Funny. Most people accuse me of being vague but I hardly ever am told I'm being passive aggressive.
10
Introductions / Re: So...
Hey Hack.
11
OMG now I will stop. But this one is just glaringly dumb:
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/05/26/gmo-myth-busting-crops-and-humans-safely-composed-of-foreign-genes/
Quote
The gene editing revolution, headlined by the invention of CRISPR-Cas9 three years ago, has the potential to put to rest one of the favorite demonization tools of the anti-GMO camp: the use of the term "Frankenfood". It was coined to encapsulate one of their central complaints: transgenics led to the creation of new crops or animals by moving so-called "foreign genes" from one species to another. You know, pictures of tomatoes with fish bodies and children threatened by marauding vegetables.

images-1"Plants and organisms unable to physically reproduce can become unnaturally intertwined," reads a typical scare NGO posting headlined "Frankenfood=Genetically Modified Food". "A novel gene may be cobbled together from a plant virus, a soil bacterium and a petunia plant, for example--creating a kind of botanical Frankenstein."

Gene editing and other new generation genetic engineering tools allow scientists to slice, snip and splice an organism's DNA without adding any genetic material from different species. The Arctic Apple used a technique called gene silencing to turn down the expression of an enzyme that causes browning. Simplot's Innate potato, which has fewer black spots and almost eliminates potentially hazardous acrylamide, was created by editing in genes from a wild potato species that silenced the expression of undesirable traits.

But even as a major technological shift is transforming agricultural and biomedical engineering, vestigial Frankenstein imagery still lingers, making guest appearances at protest marches and littering websites. That will likely persist as most GMO products marketed today--herbicide tolerant and insect resistant corn, soybean and cotton--are the result of transgenics. And GMO critics continue to make a case that we have risked ecological disaster by inserting "foreign genes" into crops--a violation of the order of Nature, they claim.

What does the science say?

Among scientists, even the use of the term "foreign genes" is controversial. There was a time--just a few decades ago--when scientists believed genes were fixed and evolution was linear. Standard theory of natural selection did not account for the possibility of complex organisms suddenly acquiring genes from other species.

But that model began collapsing in the 1970s, when transposons, colloquially known as 'jumping genes' were discovered. It was found that as much as 85 percent of the corn genome and half of the human one is composed of genes that moved from one location to another. The jump was usually "within species' but not all the time. Scientists called this "horizontal" gene transfer, to distinguish it from the "vertical" gene transfer which grounds the theory of evolution. At first scientists thought such events were rare and certainly not applicable to humans. Now?

"It seems our own genome is a patchwork of raw genetic material coming from different places with different histories," Cedric Feschotte, a University of Utah geneticist, told Ferris Jabr in an article for Aeon.

Horizontal gene transfer "is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago," agreed W. Ford Doolittle, a biochemist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.

The how concept of 'foreign genes' seems more and more absurd with each passing year. Earlier this year, Cambridge (UK) scientists, Alistair Crisp and Chiara Boschetti, writing in Genome Biology, identified 145 genes in humans that have crossed the (quite permeable) species "barrier." Our ABO blood group system appears to have been inherited from bacteria, for example. The scientists concluded that horizontal gene transfer is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes.

The total number of imported genes represents only a tiny fraction of our 20,000 or so genes, a transfer of one every 4 million years or so, so it's not an every millennial occurrence. The research is still new and many more such examples of likely to be identified, but it's clear that humans are a mash-up of DNA from bacteria fungi, algae and many other cousins, distant and recent.

Some added nuanced was put on these findings earlier this month with the publication of a study that indicates that the amino acid sequences of humans and yeast overlap by an astounding 32 percent. The scientists injected human genes into yeast cells and found out they functioned just fine in hundreds of cases.

"It's quite amazing," said evolutionary biologist Matthew Hahn of Indiana University, Bloomington, who wasn't connected to the study. "It means that the same genes can carry out the same functions after 1 billion years of divergence."

"It beautifully illustrates the common heritage of living things," said systems biologist Edward Marcotte of the University of Texas, Austin.

This common heritage--shared among eukaryotic organisms, including humans, and prokaryotes, like fungi, helps explain how genetically engineered transgenic crops or animals can safely express foreign genes: the genetic code is similar across all life forms. This means that a specific DNA sequence will code for the same protein in all organisms. This likely means that comparable genes in different organisms have closely related functions.

Due to this similarity in protein sequences, scientists can cut DNA at common protein points and add other genes--the essence of transgenic agriculture. This not a 'crime against nature'. Nature, it appears, doesn't have much respect for so-called species barriers.

The knowledge of horizontal gene transfers was barely understood when GMOs were introduced and the Frankenfood myths were hatched. Knowing what we know now about the promiscuousness of genes in the real world, it's hard to get worked up about a natural bacterial protein engineered into soybeans that repels insects or an herbicide resistant gene in corn--at least if science matters.

This is why we can't have nice things.
12
oh, and
Quote
One example of hybridization between GM crops and wild species has been documented in creeping bentgrass commonly used on golf courses. Scotts Miracle-Gro genetically engineered this grass to contain a gene that confers resistance to a common herbicide so that the golf course can be sprayed to kill weeds without harm to the grass. Because this grass is wind-pollinated, a perennial, and highly capable of outcrossing with related wild species, researchers decided to investigate wild grass in close proximity for the presence of the herbicide resistance gene. The researchers collected seeds from wild plants at varied distances from the origin of the grass farm and used herbicides to detect tolerant plants. They confirmed the presence of the herbicide resistant gene in wild grass up to 9 miles from its origin only one year after the grass was planted [2,3,4]. This distance is very surprising because most hybridization events have been reported between plants that are less than a mile apart. It is clear from this study that genetic modifications can be transferred to wild species through hybridization; however, future investigations will need to be performed in order to differentiate whether the genetic modification increases the fitness of wild species or if these hybridizations are a natural result of planting a large grass farm in close proximity to wild species.

Studies of creeping bentgrass uncovered clear hybridization events between GM crops and wild grass; however, it is important to recognize that cross-pollination is not equally likely for all crops. Many crops commonly cultivated in the US, such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, are not perennials and do not have wild relatives growing in close proximity. It is clear from this study that understanding the reproductive behavior of a GM crop and the function of its genetic modification is very important before introducing it into the wild.
13
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/
Quote
GMO proponents often claim that environmental groups such as Greenpeace should be blamed for slowing the introduction of Golden Rice and thus, prolonging the misery of poor people who suffer from Vitamin A deficiencies.

In a recent article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values, Stone and co-author Dominic Glover, a rice researcher at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex, find little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rice's unfulfilled promises.
...
"Golden Rice was a promising idea backed by good intentions," Stone said. "In contrast to anti-GMO activists, I argued that it deserved a chance to succeed. But if we are actually interested in the welfare of poor children -- instead of just fighting over GMOs -- then we have to make unbiased assessments of possible solutions. The simple fact is that after 24 years of research and breeding, Golden Rice is still years away from being ready for release."

so, youyr singular example of a good idea still isn't even working and ffs, all this one is doing is adding a gene that creates beta-carotene. Yeah, cult of science is a problem. Anyone who thinks GMO's are a slam dunk is an idiot. So far, their application has been on balance, surprisingly negative. We have massive corporate consolidation and control of the global food supply, environmental destruction increasing rather than decreasing, genes in the wild that the ecosystems are not evolved to integrate, what's not to love?

ETA: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetically-modified-crop/
14
decorum has already been killed and I'd hardly say that America is saved.
15
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
i fucking can't with these goddamn people


fixt
16
America is weird then. Most university professors aren't working class, and I don't think many of them take home more than £100k. Teachers certainly don't. Obviously it's more complex than just money, Joe the Plumber might consider himself working class, but is probably better paid than Joe the Astrophysicist.
I think WT is misusing the term.  see my last post.

and, yeah, "working class" carries some connotation of "blue collar" (i.e., work that doesn't require a university degree and involves getting your hands dirty), though they are not coterminous.  I have personally known plumbers who make over 100k, and physics post-docs making 40k.  (though the average person with a physics PhD can expect to eventually make a lot more than your average plumber, especially if they go into industry...)
I guess that's where I was disagreeing with/misunderstanding the term. I get that in most of the US, $100k is pretty decent, but I guess I don't really get where the distinction between 'working class' and simply 'lower income' is then.
I would think working class means most of the population that can't generally get by without their regular income that comes from wages.  Maybe we need some better terms.
it used to distinguish between work that requires a college degree and work that doesn't.
17
well if you agree with Voxrat regarding vaccinations, then you are a reductionist in another important sense which is actually much more important to me, namely, that you feel that we can "Reduce" a human to the sum of its parts and tinker with one part of a whole human being and obtain a good result. 
That is a profoundly stupid and ignorant take on immunology.
The immune system is not one separate part of the organism.
It is intricately and intimately involved with the whole system.
Vaccination does not consist of punching some "Big Button" - like, say, stimulating one particular kind of cell - to get some desired result. (That would  be "reductionist").
 It involves activating the whole system.

Your Dunning-Kruger qualities are shining through here: you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
you're not reading carefully. I did not say that vaccinating is like pushing a "big button." ( which was designed to be pushed for the purposes of control )  In fact I made it clear that  vaccination essentially amounts to  "pushing a little button that was never designed to be a control button."
Good God you are an idiot Dave
18
The interesting thing, of course, is that evolution can only even be understood holistically. You can't reduce evolutionary processes to their parts.

Creationists and IDists try, of course, and they love to reduce it to a sciencey-looking equation: evolution = RM+NS.

And they they scoff at it because it seems to make no sense.  And indeed it doesn't.  Both "RM" (they love that R - but Darwin's "Descent with modification" is better) and "NS" are holistic concepts in themselves.  They can only be understood at the level of the system.  And you can't just add them as though evolution could be "reduced" to the "sum" of those two highly complex constructs.  In fact that formulation tells you very little.

A better version might be:

When a population of self-replicators self-replicate with variance, variants that tend to self-replicate better in that environment will tend to become more prevalent.  As a result, over many generations, any features that function to help the self-replicators to utilise local resources and avoid local threats will be successively optimised, and will serve as "machines" that help the organisms survive and reproduce. 

In addition, any population of self-replicators that have features that result in optimal amounts of variance will tend to adapt to change more readily than populations that have features that tend to result in too much, too little, or too irrelevant variance (which is ACTUALLY what the Third Way thing is all about).


Anyone who understands holistic thinking can understand all that.  Anyone who tries to reduce it to its parts will miss it.





And it gets even more holistic than that: the self-replicators do not just change themselves, but the changes they go through also influence the environment that they and other self-replicators operate in, thus changing the parameters that determine what features make self-replicators more likely to self-replicate.

Systems within systems, influencing each other and themselves. Rather than one static design where each animal has a handful of tasks, and that's it.
All of this is quite wonderful indeed, but the thing you miss is that  we have not the slightest scintilla of evidence that any of these fantastic complicated  software controlled adaptive systems  were not already pre-programmed within living organisms. Programmed by what? Programmed by whom? Again, pick your deity, but there is no evidence whatsoever that these systems evolved by any sort of a chance process.  in fact, the only mechanism proposed by Darwinists - random mutation - is overwhelmingly detrimental to organisms, not constructive or adaptive in any way.

And THAT  is why the third wayers are looking for a third way.  because they realize this.
Fucking doubled down on the stupid in the very next post
Amazing
19
to me it appears that administering vaccinations is essentially "pushing small buttons which were never designed to be control buttons in the first place" as opposed to "pushing big buttons which were designed  to be pushed."  designed by whom? I don't care. Pick your  favorite deity.
You are an idiot.
20
The interesting thing, of course, is that evolution can only even be understood holistically. You can't reduce evolutionary processes to their parts.

Creationists and IDists try, of course, and they love to reduce it to a sciencey-looking equation: evolution = RM+NS.

And they they scoff at it because it seems to make no sense.  And indeed it doesn't.  Both "RM" (they love that R - but Darwin's "Descent with modification" is better) and "NS" are holistic concepts in themselves.  They can only be understood at the level of the system.  And you can't just add them as though evolution could be "reduced" to the "sum" of those two highly complex constructs.  In fact that formulation tells you very little.

A better version might be:

When a population of self-replicators self-replicate with variance, variants that tend to self-replicate better in that environment will tend to become more prevalent.  As a result, over many generations, any features that function to help the self-replicators to utilise local resources and avoid local threats will be successively optimised, and will serve as "machines" that help the organisms survive and reproduce. 

In addition, any population of self-replicators that have features that result in optimal amounts of variance will tend to adapt to change more readily than populations that have features that tend to result in too much, too little, or too irrelevant variance (which is ACTUALLY what the Third Way thing is all about).


Anyone who understands holistic thinking can understand all that.  Anyone who tries to reduce it to its parts will miss it.





And it gets even more holistic than that: the self-replicators do not just change themselves, but the changes they go through also influence the environment that they and other self-replicators operate in, thus changing the parameters that determine what features make self-replicators more likely to self-replicate.

Systems within systems, influencing each other and themselves. Rather than one static design where each animal has a handful of tasks, and that's it.
Cross scale dynamics would make Dave's head explode.
21
Quote
How about pain relief in childbirth, Dave?  Do you think that's a "small button" that wasn't "designed" to be pushed?  I mean, your horrible god actually vindictively removed that button, didn't he?
Yes, but not the kind of pain "civilized" women feel.  What God decreed was probably something more like what Price's indigenous women felt when going through childbirth ... their labors were reportedly quick and involved much less pain.
Women of the world need to collectively slap you.
22
The interesting thing, of course, is that evolution can only even be understood holistically. You can't reduce evolutionary processes to their parts.

Creationists and IDists try, of course, and they love to reduce it to a sciencey-looking equation: evolution = RM+NS.

And they they scoff at it because it seems to make no sense.  And indeed it doesn't.  Both "RM" (they love that R - but Darwin's "Descent with modification" is better) and "NS" are holistic concepts in themselves.  They can only be understood at the level of the system.  And you can't just add them as though evolution could be "reduced" to the "sum" of those two highly complex constructs.  In fact that formulation tells you very little.

A better version might be:

When a population of self-replicators self-replicate with variance, variants that tend to self-replicate better in that environment will tend to become more prevalent.  As a result, over many generations, any features that function to help the self-replicators to utilise local resources and avoid local threats will be successively optimised, and will serve as "machines" that help the organisms survive and reproduce. 

In addition, any population of self-replicators that have features that result in optimal amounts of variance will tend to adapt to change more readily than populations that have features that tend to result in too much, too little, or too irrelevant variance (which is ACTUALLY what the Third Way thing is all about).


Anyone who understands holistic thinking can understand all that.  Anyone who tries to reduce it to its parts will miss it.




This is exactly the thing you need to understand if you want to understand pingu's points, dave.
23
"Your goat prison is illegal"

Bullshit.

Show me your law that says so.

Show me a case where someone was prosecuted for something similar.
Who are you quoting?
24
Just a simple question, Dave.

How would you switch off your "bio-machine"?

Just about every real (human designed) machine can be switched off.  Can your "bio-machines"? And if so. how?


High Rick! Are you new here?
25
hard to switch them back on though

ETA: Damn you rafh