{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/20/2014 7:53:16 PM
29
Confirmed: Natural Selection > Intelligent Design
This week a study in Nature showed that pests have already evolved immunity to GM crops designed to kill them.
[quote]Part of the problem is that rootworms are tough, and the Bt maize does not produce enough toxin to fully control them. The Bt toxins used against pests such as the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) kill more than 99.99% of their targets, whereas more than 2% of rootworms can survive Bt maize. Resistance in the worms can evolve rapidly in fields where the same kind of maize is grown every year — in Iowa it showed up after an average of 3.6 years.[/quote]
Not only did they develop resistance, but it only took 3 years for natural selection to overcome the corn that humans spent a decade intelligently designing. Math says that makes natural selection three times better than intelligent design.
"Life always finds a way" - Jurassic Park
English
#Offtopic
-
11 RespuestasI think it's important to point out that this isn't necessarily evolution. What we see here is merely the thriving of a genetic variation that no longer has to compete for resources.
-
18 Respuestas*Using micro evolution to prove macro evolution* Lol are you joking?
-
1 RespuestaSlightly off-topic: Why are the older, well-known members of B.old making posts about science, and the newer members, some that came from B.next are saying they're full of shit? It's saying something. On to topic: The issue I see with this is that the GM crops might end up affecting humans as well. We already know that pests are very tough to get rid of when it comes to land and food also. Why make them tougher in the long run?
-
Does this mean we can finally stop putting unhealthy or environmentally irresponsible traits in our GMOs? I'm good with increasing crops survivability in arid places, creating heartier/ higher yield stock, and more neutrinos plants... but the crap we're doing with a technology with such potential for good is despicable.
-
2 RespuestasIt's almost like the water is transparent, and all you can see is the hook.
-
2 RespuestasWho says natural selection isn't intelligent design?
-
11 RespuestasEditado por Froggert: 3/21/2014 9:26:42 PMThe flaw in your "logic" is that it assumes that Humans are on an equal level with God. In reality, we of course are not, and you cannot even use a number such as x3 or even something such as x99999^999999 to describe how many "times" better God is then us, for he is infinitely better. So in reality, even though intelligent design by HUMANS is inferior to natural selection, intelligent design by GOD is infinitely better than either. [spoiler]( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[/spoiler]
-
eugh uh huh ehh oh um ehhh chaos theory...
-
Your title is click bait, man. The article is interesting and all but the title is an assertion that is hardly linked to the article.
-
2 Respuestas[quote]Not only did they develop resistance, but it only took 3 years for natural selection to overcome the corn that humans spent a decade intelligently designing. Math says that makes natural selection three times better than intelligent design.[/quote]Three times better than intelligent design? Arguably we could design corn that does a much better job at killing pests, the unfortunate side effect is that I'd imagine that it would render the corn rather unsafe to consume by humans >_>
-
4 RespuestasEditado por Kalameet: 3/21/2014 1:09:03 AMWow, there is a lot of bait in this thread. Anyways, this is old news. We've already documented adaptations in nature, like the peppered moth. Also, lol at people bringing up "micro" and "macro" evolution. Those terms aren't even recognized by the scientific community.
-
This one's never seen so much butthurt over bugs since Pixar and Dreamworks ant movie controversy.
-
131 RespuestasEditado por cxkxr: 3/20/2014 8:08:51 PMLife is intelligently designed to evolve and adapt. What's new?
-
5 RespuestasEditado por ChaosMetalMarty: 3/20/2014 9:56:54 PMMore atheist Shitposting/Baiting...why am I surprised?
-
1 RespuestaOften farmers use the new crops the wrong way. One of the mistakes most often seen is the one illustrated here: There is NO magical super-crop that defeats all bugs. Take these rootworms for example: In crop #1, the worms thrived. This is why the farmer bought crop #2, which thinned out the herd considerably. At this point, what the farmer should have done, is switch BACK to crop #1 - it's very likely that the worms that had adapted to live on crop #2 won't do that well on crop #1 anymore, because they haven't needed to for a long time. You keep switching the crops so the worms thin out more and more. In this case, the farmer bought the new crop and treated is as a miracle übercrop, which is wrong and he paid for it in the end by starting where he left off.
-
1 Respuestasemi-off topic here, but id just like to point out that creationism and intelligent design are two different things. creationism is based almost entirely on theological ideologies, while inteligent design simply proposes that some form of designer (be it a deity or some kind of alien) assisted in the development of life on earth and does not strictly contradict the theory of evolution.
-
The first natural selection example I was given was the evolution of the Peppered Moth, back in high-school biology. Since then you realise how often it happens around you: insects developing resistance to pesticides, super-bugs like MRSA forming from bacteria being resistant to antibiotics, and now GM plants getting their asses kicked.
-
Hmmm, so maybe it's not just Australia that everything is trying to kill us in.
-
6 Respuestasto be fair GM crops were relatively in their infancy then. besides we still engineered crops more resilient to weather and with a higher calorie output, so in my book natural selection can suck a big meaty cock [spoiler]its only a matter of time before we genetically engineer more effective pesticides. maybe even viruses to wipe out nuisance species[/spoiler]
-
8 Respuestas..... Science had known about micro evolution for a while now. None the less, it validates the theory of evolution over creationism
-
[quote]"Life finds a way" - Jurassic Park[/quote]fixed
-
[i] [/i]
-
11 RespuestasEditado por bobcast: 3/20/2014 10:05:52 PMBacteria have been doing this against our antibiotics for a while now.
-
13 Respuestas*tips fedora*
-
19 RespuestasAnd this disproves intelligent design how?
-
Bacteria do the same thing, it's awesome/terrible what nature can do, but why does this disprove theism? The way I see it, theism is a belief that 'order implies purpose.'
