Random Comic
gene

gene



└ Tags:

Discussion (34)¬

  1. [...] Cartoon von jesusandmo.net unter CC-Lizenz. This entry was written by Daniel Fallenstein, posted on Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007 at 14:33, filed under Kurzweil und Erkenntnis and tagged jesus, jesusandmo.net, mohammed, religion, Wissenschaft. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Die schweigende Mehrheit? [...]

  2. arensb says:

    Spot-on!
    I’ve also wondered how fundies would react if there were a test that could show that a developing fetus would most likely grow up to be gay. Would they condone abortion in such cases?

  3. tie says:

    nice one, religion and their random taboos… never cease to impress.

    just today I was watching in the news the man with no face, a Jehovah’s witness that did not extirpate a small tumour in his face due to the restriction on blood transfusions of his religion, and now looks like a person attached to a tumour.

    very sad and preventable.

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,70141-1295834-3,00.html

    check pic 2, thats how he use to look

  4. Rob says:

    Well, I guess you gotta take his comittment to his religion seriously. Eep!

  5. [...] As usual, Jesus and Mo nail it on the head. [...]

  6. Chris says:

    Funny comic, but the GM foods comment is crap. Not only are they dangerous, but we’ve already got enough food to feed the world. The problem is allocation.

  7. Toast in the machine says:

    Apologies for the links, but they’re worth reading.
    http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
    ‘Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral…

    Soon, genetic treatments may allow for changing the profile. Welcome to the world of designer babies.

    If that happens, how many parents — even among those who consider themselves most liberal — would choose a gay child? How many parents, armed with this diagnosis, would use the patch and change the orientation?

    Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

    1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.’

    and –

    http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/corwin20070816/
    …’regardless of my critique here, I don’t see why it might not be possible that atheism could have a genetic component. What if there really are certain brains less likely to accept religious claims and tenets? What would the social consequences of this be? Here’s a potential clue: some members of the Far Religious Right (which is by no means representative of all people of faith) are already backpedaling somewhat on their usual anti-biotech stance; Albert Mohler suggests:

    If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.’

  8. Jakob says:

    “Funny comic, but the GM foods comment is crap. Not only are they dangerous, but we’ve already got enough food to feed the world. The problem is allocation.”

    I assume you have evidence to back those dubious claims.

  9. JayBee says:

    Sharp!
    extremely sharp!

  10. Colin says:

    Very good as usual.

    ” “Funny comic, but the GM foods comment is crap. Not only are they dangerous, but we’ve already got enough food to feed the world. The problem is allocation.”

    I assume you have evidence to back those dubious claims.”

    “FAO has thus evaluated food supply for 1992 at an average (after losses) of 2 718 Calories per person per day, of which 2 290 Calories were from plant products and 428 Calories from livestock products. ”
    http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w2612e/w2612e04a.htm

  11. Wonko the Sane says:

    There are a lot of problems with GM food that don’t involve religious believes. One of them is that farmers (including those in 3rd world countries) become dependent on companies like Monsanto because of patents. This doesn’t excatly help feeding the world.

  12. Kristian says:

    GM food isn’t bad in itself. It becomes bad, however, when the vast majority of GM crops grown (some 90% I think, without actually remembering my sources), only bear a gene conferring resistance to herbicide or make the plant generate its own pesticide (that’s in cotton, so nobody eats it). There’s a tremendous potential in GM crops, but only if used sensibly – and outside of Monsanto patents, it would seem.

    To say that there’s enough food in the world, and it “just needs to allocated”, is callous, ignorant and naive.

  13. TB says:

    O RLY? All the luxury and inefficient food like cattle used by McDonalds fed tons of grain every day, plus the lack of development of entire arable areas on the planet that are never farmed since farming is a business nowadays that needs investment, you’d really think the world is that barren?

    I know, I have no direct link,but I just need some solid proof about the urgent need for GM crops. It sounds ridiculous.

  14. Colin says:

    ” To say that there’s enough food in the world, and it “just needs to allocated”, is callous, ignorant and naive. ”

    Sorry Kristian, I couldn’t disagree more. There are studies, including the one I have linked above, that shows there is enough food. To state otherwise is ignorant, to state otherwise when you have the evidence is callous. Naive; well, we are all naive.

  15. ms morbo says:

    i don’t think kristian is actually arguing that there isn’t enough food, just that the idea that the world problems can be solved by just reallocating it.

    it can’t, the system that has created this over production is complex and fragmented. you can’t just reallocate mcd’s beef and soya and use it to feed the world, that assmption is indeed, callous, ignorant and naive.

    sorry!

  16. jONES. says:

    I don’t think the starving kids in Ethiopia would care if they were eating GM foods or non-GM foods, but they might disagree with the “enough food in the world comment”. That’s a relative term… there might be a billion tons of Quaker Granola Bars sitting in a warehouse in Idaho, but until you actually get it to where it’s needed, there isn’t enough food around the world…

    GM or non-GM, as long as it keeps people from starving, what’s the difference? Whichever can be delivered where it’s needed quickest and cheapest, that’s all that really matters, isn’t it?

  17. TB says:

    @Jones:

    Um, what about a GM crop getting out of control? Anything can happen. As far as I remember, genetics involve gadzillions of A-T-C-G combinations that determine a living being.

  18. mat says:

    the worst danger about GM crops is genetic “pollution”, that is when they crosspolinate with non GM crops. The problem is that these GM genes are dominant and actually wipe out nonGM crops when cross polinated. The lack of plant biodiversity has caused great famines, for example the Irish potato famine. The famine was caused by a potato disease that wiped out the few varietes of potatos grown in Ireland. When the disease reached Peru, the enormous variety of potatos meant that only a few species were wiped out, and there was no famine. Imagine if that happened to corn, or rice, or wheat in the US or in another country. A good documentary about this is “The Future of Food”… I think it’s still up on Google Video

  19. Don says:

    ‘Whichever can be delivered where it’s needed quickest and cheapest, that’s all that really matters, isn’t it?’

    Well, I guess, that could work. In a good world. But I recall seeing many years ago in Sudan market stalls piled high with bags of grain stenciled ‘Gift from the USA’ and sold very cheaply. and seeing the irrigation works fall into terminal disrepair because you can’t make a living if the crop you are growing is given away free. For now. With understood conditions.

    For some, food can be a weapon. They are scum, but they influence the way the world wags.

    Efficency is not enough.

  20. Wonko the Sane says:

    Donating food to poor countries produces more problems than it solves because it makes the local economy collapse. The world isn’t that easy, unfortunately. It may be necessary to avoid a big famine once in a blue moon but that’s it. How shpuld local farmers survive when we provide free food. They can’t compete with this price. The same goes for cheap, subsidised food (and other products) from our rich countries. No local farmers garantee the next famine. It’s our economy that keeps poor countries poor. GM crop won’t change that.

  21. Josh says:

    erm, yeah sorry to burst the bubble and everything, but I work at a food research institute in the UK. GM food has been produced here and put in the supermarkets. It was consumed by many with zero ill effects, until the ridiculous scaremongering began and the supermarkets decided to stop selling it just for the sake of PR. No problems have ever been found with any of the products produced here. They are safe and useful. GM corn and rice products have allowed areas of the world to feed themselves that would otherwise have no where near the required food production for their populous. GM foods are now being grown in some african nations that would otherwise be untenable due to pest and disease that these products are modified to resist. This has allowed these farmers to use the land they have to feed themselves, and sometimes even to employ others. GM food has saved millions of lives that would have been lost to starvation and has yet to cause a single death.

  22. IshMalik says:

    This might be of interest to some people, it’s from Penn and Teller’s Bullshit series

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8

    BTW, this comment ‘The problem is that these GM genes are dominant and actually wipe out nonGM crops when cross polinated.’ bears no connection to reality as I understand life and genetics

  23. jONES. says:

    wow… when did this website turn from entertainment to world politics and activism? Think we all need to dial it back a bit.

  24. GE fears as they stand are unwarranted. The techniques are more detailed, precise, safer, and better tested than traditional breeding. Not a single person in the world has had a confirmed case of a complication arising from consuming food that has had a transgene inserted into it. In contrast, traditional breeding, which everyone accepts, has had accidents.

    the worst danger about GM crops is genetic “pollution”, that is when they crosspolinate with non GM crops. The problem is that these GM genes are dominant and actually wipe out nonGM crops when cross polinated.

    That is so far off the mark – it reminds me of the piles of dreck that creationists claim about evolution. A little research goes a long way.

    Patents are involved, but they only last for 23 years, I believe. Then anyone can grow them. Also, there are groups working on open-source genetic engineering tools that do not require the use of patents. These will be to Monsanto what Linux is to Microsoft.

    People in other countries are very dependent upon us, and it behooves us to help them become agriculturally independent. GE technologies can help them do that. What we do not need more of are European countries threatening to cut off imports from developing countries that are considering GE crops (or even accepting food donations that include GE food), which is little more than Old World colonialism.

    One of the things that we really need is better communication of this field. That’s one thing I try to do on my blog and podcast. After all, I’m a grad student in plant breeding and genetics.

    Great comic strip

  25. [...] about relevant commentary on the news, Jesus and Mo delivers with another hilarious strip. It is so true! Spread this [...]

  26. Jerry w. says:

    Too many people living on a piece of crap land that can not support the population?

    Import enough food so they can keep reproducing and the problem continues.

    Darwinism held in check by technology.

    Here in the Los Angeles, California area we have an artificial desert that has been

    overpopulated but sustained by importing water from northern California, so the

    result is more people moving here to take advantage of the water supply…

    There’s no water shortage, just too many people trying to live off land that isn’t

    really able to support them. Soon we will have recycled water from our pee?

    Umm, Soylent Yellow!!!

    http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

  27. Joe D says:

    Oh yes, absolutely — Monsanto’s products are devastating for the environment, and a terrible deal for farmers, so I fully support a boycot of GM. Similarly, I am boycotting milk, chocolate and coffee, following the really quite awfull behaviour of Nestle. And because Nike use sweatshop labour I have become a full time naturist. I have been free from association with the medical profession since the whole Harold Shipman thing. Appologies, by the way, for this message being so late, but I had to send it by snail mail — the dubious practaces of microsoft mean that I an boycotting software.

    Come on. I know you guys are better at spotting bad arguments than this. It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent, rational, critically thinking people can fall on a single piece of nonsense, and make all of the same argument faux pas that they criticise in other nonsense. Suddenly they think it’s acceptable to use technical terms like “dominance” without finding out what they mean, or whether the Greenpeace press-release or Daily Mail article that they read it in bear any resemblance to reality. Would any of you make similarly uninformed comments about evolution, climate chance, HIV/AIDS, the MMR vaccine, or quantum physics — even if you had seen a YouTube video about them?

    GM is not a black and white issue.

  28. Hush says:

    Thank you, Jerry.w.
    Escaped from LA. Realized that it followed me to Oregon. Arable land and timber being populated by consumers with high standard of living expectations. And we’re trying to make everyone feel wanted (fed, clothed, and mobile) on the planet without respect for carrying capacity. And we call ourselves educated.

  29. Kristian says:

    I so much agree with that other comment that commentators here on Jesus&Mo are eloquent & interesting to read (their ironic self-referential attempts of humour notwithstanding).

    Joe D: my beef with Monsanto isn’t from an ecological point of view. It’s more of an political disagreement with (parts of) their business model:

    GM crops are in my view unlikely to have much detrimental impact on people’s health – as we screw ourselves up with all sorts of potentially dangerous, all-natural or not-so-natural products anyway (I say as I sip my coffee & nibble my biscuits).

    And following at least some analysis and forethought (yeah, right..) GM crops are also unlikely to have any lasting effects in the environment, as what we introduce in plants is entirely unlikely to help the plant itself as it and its offspring are exposed to natural selection. Check for example what effects 7000 years of non-GM plant breeding has had on natural populations, outside of direct human agricultural interference. The latter, which admittedly counts for quite a lot in itself.

  30. Rob says:

    Yes- let the darkies starve while we indulge our scientifically illiterate moral posturing about things we barely understand. Like genetics. Or sums. Or words. Get back to the trees hippies.

  31. Kristian says:

    I beg your pardon? I’m a biologist :-)

  32. Rob says:

    I wasn’t talking to you, but hey- if the cap fits then by all means wear it! And being a biologists does not make you immune to talking utter crap- remember Steve Gould?

  33. ToddAwful says:

    [arensb Says: "I’ve also wondered how fundies would react if there were a test that could show that a developing fetus would most likely grow up to be gay. Would they condone abortion in such cases?"
    Muslim fundies would kill it.
    Christian fundies would "educate" it.

    [Rob Says: "Yes- let the darkies starve while we indulge our scientifically illiterate moral posturing about things we barely understand."]

    The darkies starve because of business, because they don’t have anything we want.

  34. Paige says:

    Aw. You made is one on my birthday.
    :D

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a safe place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.