Dakoth

This is your direct quote this in its elf shows you know little of selective breeding. By combing the DNA of the 2 animals you most assuradely make a concious effort to engineer a genetic masterpiece, even if it is in your own eyes. See thats where I get confused. You freely admit it could happen in time anyway yet because we speed the process up that is bad. Quite frankly no I don't see the difference because I don't split hairs genetic manipulation is gentetic manipulation no matter how you perform the task. The only reason I threw this in was to show you your own hypocrisy. You tell White he is unwise and a fool for talking about things he can not toataly understand, yet you are doing the same. So the wright brothers should have never developed a plane, Henry Ford should have scrapped his idea for an automobile because they had no prior knowledge of the ramifications? Revolutionary inventions usually come from the previously unexplored areas of science and technology. Is this something that is lost on you?

What are your system specs? It is some thing very important to the gaming industry so what are they? 3000XP proc 1gig 3200mhz DDR Ram ATI 9800 pro 128 MB video card ASUS Nforce 2 Mother Board Creative Labs Audigy sound casrd 40 Gig hard Drive ATA 133

Heh you obviously have no idea how selective breeding works do you? Selective breeding takes many years to accomplish as White said, some times many generations. The process goes a little like this you start off with 2 animals that have the traits you desire. After they produce offspring you cull the ones out that don't have the traits you desire and start over. After many generations you are normally left with the traits you desire as the dominate trait, meaning it is the one that normally shows up in the offspring. Can a recessive trait pop up every once in a while? Yes but it is not very often, and from what I understand that can happen to second generation GMed plants also. You see Product the only thing scientist actually bring to the table is the ability to do it faster and more reliably. While I will give you the point I don't belive science can explain everything at this point in time like why we only use something like 20% of our brain or how a big explosion created the whole universe. I do belive in the things science has shown us as fact with tangible experiments. Something you seem to not care about. As you were so fond of saying to White and the others

Ah the typical stance of someone like you. See now you are splitting hairs and giving opinions to justify it. As I said before they are both a means to an end, and they both involve genetic manipulation. One you are ok with the other you are not seems odd to me others might agree with you though. Thats odd when did tomatoes start to taste bad to you? They have been selectively breed for many years to be some what drought resistant. What kind of corn tastes bad to you now? You know there are 2 different kinds of corn right? There is sweet corn normally ment to be ate right off the plant after it is cooked, and usually tastes pretty good. Then there is field corn which tastes horrible off the plant, because it is ment for processing before being consumed.

See now you have went and made me mad :angry: , and it is for the reason Taks usually rebuts your statements of fact. You did no checking into the facts at all you assumed. I never once said I hunted for sport you assume I did because that is what most people do. I have eaten many meats goose, duck, raccoon, muscrat, squirrel, deer, and carp to name a few all things my family has hunted. Since me and my wife are in a better position than my mother and father were when we got married I don't see the pressing need to hunt any more. The other thing is while your bleeding heart is in the right place people like you tend to forget Sport hunting does serve a purpose. You see as people moved west they removed all the top predators( wolves and cougers) because they would kill domesticated livestock. So now we as humans fill the top predator position to keep populations in check. Now normally I would not have pointed this out but since you angered me I feel argumentetive. I pointed out earlier in this thread that humans have genetically manipulated all of its domesticated animals and plants for at least a 1000 years or more. It was a process called selective breeding. I will say it again I find it funny you have no problem eating genetically altered food until it is done in a more scientific way.

Thats kinda what I was getting at White. They are different means to the same end. While the one cuts out a lot of time the other has been shown to be just as effective. Your example also showed the perfect use for it. As I said I find it odd that one is acceptable and one is not, they are both genetic manipulation after all I also truly wonder how many people realise how much humans have genetically manipulated animals, and plants over the years. We have used selective breeding on just about every domesticated animal there is. Here are just a few examples all beef and dairy cattle, chickens, hogs, cats, dogs, fish, birds or would pets sum the last four up better. We have also selectively bread every major grain producing plant for farmers also that would include corn, soybeans, wheat barly, and hay. Now no one has ever complained about it, yet now that a scientist can do it on an actual genetic level be almost assured of the out come, and take less time doing it, it is wrong. Just seems kind of strange to me. The reason I wanted you to answer is because you are in a scientific field so you would know the arguments against as well as for. I was already fairly certain what the argument against was I was just double checking. As for your last statement unless things have changed since the first chemically resistant strains of crops came out. Are there not certain countries that have restrictions on what crops can be sold for human consumption? For example when corn was made to resist a chemical didn't Japan say it could only be sold to there country as animal feed? As I said this is only for my clarification I am not trolling this was something that at one point in time directly affected my job.

That was absolutely hilarious. The best competiotion has to bwe the one where you pick one of four doors to run through and hope its the right one. I am suprised people haven't been hauled off in strechers for that one.

Mith Taks since you seem more versed in science than me answer me this because it is something I don't understand. What is the big deal about GM plants? Has science evolved enough that we get t he results we want every time yes. Haven't we been Genetically moddify plants and animals through selective breeding since te domestication of animals, and the implimentation of farming? This is just to satisfy my curiosty nothing more, because frankly I don't see the difference in the two mwthods. P.S. As a once avid hunter I have never had game give its self to me, I have always had to work for it because natures most hardwired instinct is survival.

Everyone will be driving a hybrid in 15-20 years. Whether you want to or not, as it won

1 out of how many are in? I am sure the number in harms way is fairly small.

Heh I did too. That has to be a pain riding in the rain and cold.

While I never said all of them did it just goes to show reports can only be taken at face value.

It was a Japanese game show that some Americans dubbed over. It is sometimes hard to say what is funnier the falls the contestants take or the comentary. It is normally on Spike tv if you want to check it out.

Most Extreme Elimination Challenge with Vick Ramono and Kenny Blankenship.

Taks the only question I have for you is what positions do they fill in the military. It has been shown in the past that politicians children are shown preferencial treatment in regards to what jobs they get and where they are stationed. I will say it again if they want to be called war heros put them on the front line with the rest of us to be shot at and killed. As far as the miltary service I wish I had joined when I was younger. It would have helped me as much as it would help everyone else.

The we'll get them next year syndrome seems a lot of Chicago teams have that doesn't it? The biggest reason some Heisman trophy winners never make it in the NFL is they are over rated. This is some thing that easily happens in college football because of the number of schools vs number of players. In other words the talent is spread around, sometimes very thin. They go from that to the concentration of talent the NFL has. I will name one notable exception to that and that was the second greatest running back I have ever had the privledge to watch and he is Barry Sanders. As far as Urlacher he is a great linebacker but the boys up front need to start doing something. We have seen in the past what Urlacher is capable of if his line can keep the linemen off him.

Has to be one of the funniest shows I have seen in a while.

One thing you guys are forgetting is that college football is not a true indicator how people will preform in the NFL. I have not been an avid fan for some time but even I know of the Heisman trophy curse. While it honors you as one of the best players in college football few winners have ever made a huge splash in the NFL. I said what I did because it just seems Chicago can not get QBs to perform well for the team. Some notable QBs are Jim Harbaugh, and Doug Fluty. While performing at best average with the Bears and sometimes below they went to other teams and proved given the right cicumstances could lead their teams to the playoffs. The second problem the bears have is a single minded focus on defense. While the old saying defense wins the game may hold true, it is only in a game were your offense can score. As I said I love the Bears but untill things are drastically changed they will never be the calliber of the 86 team again.

I guess my big question is when is there enough money, and what is considered proper in getting it.

Well let me get this straight while I can not say that 2billion is net profit is it safe to say half that is? Is one billion enough to expand any buisness globally if need be? Public traded company means nothing while yes people can pull their money out they rarely do it if the biusness is a money maker. Even if 1 or 2 do there is usually someone to take their place. Micrsoft ring any bells? Here is an example of what I am saying if Microsoft filed for bankruptcy protection they would need to make sweeping changes to show they are trying to get back to positive income. While this will mean massive layoffs for employees it very rarely translates to any pay cuts for the top teir of execuatives. If a CEO, CFO, and vice presidents would take a fraction of what they earned while in the black it could save many production level jobs. This being said it rarely ever happens.

I agree with the fact that unions given the chance get way out of hand, that includes the one I belong to. As I said though Cat obviously is not hurting at 2 billion profit per year, coupled with the fact they don't just want to keep the employees where they are they want to drop wages and benefits. They think they are paying to much for their employees, and ritired ones. As for competeing with the other companies in other markets, well thats why we have terrifs. Our government learned the hardway what happens when you let companies freely compete when one is heavily regulated American companies and others are not alot of foriegn companies. (just look at what happened to the steel industry) I am all for the rich getting their money I am tired of seeing it happen at the expense of the middle and poor classes though. I mean how many millions of dollars is enough to live on?

Di I don't want a redistribution of wealth I want a fair shake in the buisness world. As my example pointed out and anyone who has run a buisness would know the gentleman handing down the layoff order is actually the one costing the company money as he is one man/woman making 6million.(that is a conservative number as there are those that make much more) The other thing is he is the one that could most weather a wage decrease because he makes such a large amount of money. Right now I am watching the Catapiller union battle over wages and benefits for their employees. While the benefits and wages are more than the average person would make I find it funny that a company that makes 2 billion a year profit at current wages and benefits wants t squeez out a little more at the expense of its workers. As for the crack of being unemployed and having the things I do. Thats because while unemployed I don't like it. Considering I make 28 dollars an hour I would much rather be working, at this point there is not a whole lot of construction going on and I am waiting to be placed. Now maybe I took a remark a little to personaly that was not intended that way if so I am sorry.

Actually medical science has improved to the point you don't need your kidneis at all. Your quality of life is diminished greatly by it but you can still live without them.

That was partially my point those people are making enough money in the space of a few years to live the rest of their lives on. Yet the people who absolutely need there job are the ones to lose it when the chips are down.