[_ Old Earth _] Mixing kinds

[Vaccine]

Lev 19:19
Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

I have mixed feelings about GMO foods, on one hand they've enabled billions to be feed, which is a good thing. On the other hand, they've kinda ruined food. Anyone else think GMO foods are playing with fire?
Or this is playing with fire:
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resea...mples-of-genetic-engineering/glow-in-the-dark

Not trying to alarm anyone, but just as it seems to me a worldwide banking system could be a forerunner of the "mark". I see genetic engineering could be a forerunner of the famine and disease mentioned in the end times.
Anyone else think so? Or maybe I'm misreading lev 19?

 

[Barbarian]

We've been crossing varieties for tens of thousands of years. Genetic manipulation is an ancient practice. We just found ways to do it more efficiently. Unless you think there's something magic about genetic manipulation by lab techniques, as opposed to genetic manipulation by breeding, I don't see the point.

How do you think genetic manipulation has ruined food? My strawberries, onions, and tomatoes taste at least as good as they ever did. But they don't spoil as readily. That seems like a good thing to me.

Pork with less fat, and eggs with less cholesterol are also good things. What's the problem?

 

[Vaccine]

Oh, I didnt intend to discuss problems with GMO foods specifically, after all they've enabled the, is it 7 billion(?) population. I was thinking about the "what if's" regarding genetic engineering. I don't think the people doing the genetic engineering are evil scientists. It just seems to me in the future, maybe less scrupulous people could abuse the technology.
I know many labs are underground as a precaution against accidental pollenation. What other precautions are there? Could genetically engineering crops to be toxic be a new form of terrorism?
I don't think there's anything to worry about, just thought it's an interesting subject. It doesn't have to be all bad either, gene therapy sounds promising. All the talk of HGT got me thinking about Lev 19:19, and whether its relevant.

 

[Barbarian]

It's like any other technology. It can be used for whatever purpose. Biological warfare is over a thousand years old. Plague victims were catapulted into cities under siege to start epidemics, and Native Americans were given blankets infected with smallpox by whites.

What's scary is the increasing efficiency of such things.

 

[WIP]

NASB
19 ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

NKJV
19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

NIV
19 “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

I'm wondering what is meant by the animal breeding. Is it referring to cross-breeding two subspecies such as Holstein with Guernsey for example, which are capable of cross-breeding, or is it talking about cross-breeding cattle with buffalo? I don't know for sure but I believe cattle and buffalo can't naturally do this.

Same with regard to the plants. When I seed new alfalfa I will also put down a cover crop like oats along with it. The oats help by competing against the weeds giving the alfalfa a leg, or rhizome up. Does this text forbid this practice?

 

[Claudya]

Lev 19:19
Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

Are we supposed to stick to those laws any more? Because I am wearing at least three kinds of clothing material right now.
Also planting different kinds of plants on one field is good. Monoculture is more efficient on the short run, but has a number of disadvantages compared to a more diverse agriculture (e.g. plants of a monoculture field, especially when the same kind of plant is grown on one field for several years in a row, attract more specific pests and pathogenes).

Pork with less fat, and eggs with less cholesterol are also good things. What's the problem?

That wouldn't be the problem.
I'm waiting for the day they manage to grow pork meat in a petri dish, without a living pig, so I can eat meat again. Actually, screw the pork. Grow some petri dish salmon meat for me please!! I used to love salmon.
The actual problem with gmo's, especially plants, is not that their taste is ruined or whatever. The problem is that there is a number of scenarios how gmo plants can damage the natural ecosystem of the area where they are grown. It's really hard to find unbiased information on the whole matter. But since genetical engineering is not just quantitatively different from the old fashioned genetical manipulation through breeding methods (like more of it in a shorter time more efficiently), but something qualitatively new (transfering genes of organisms of a totally different kind into plants) there is just no safe way to test the long term ecological consequences of those methods.
So I'll stick with organical farming products, especially when it comes to corn and soy.

 

[jasoncran]

organic food the biggest rip off since recycling. and I do recycle. lets pay twice for the same piece of paper that I use, or once? hmm. oh yeah I can go into the fact the letter often isn't as clean, but we digress.

 

[TOG]

Are we supposed to stick to those laws any more? Because I am wearing at least three kinds of clothing material right now.

Churches need to teach more about the law. The law doesn't prohibit all mixed fabrics, only weaving wool and linen together. Cotton and polyester are fine together.

The TOG​

 

[MysticalJourney]

GMO is not about simple genetic manipulation within kind. They take the genes of a soil bacteria, and put it into the DNA of corn. Then if another insect bites the corn, it gives off poison and the insect dies. Or other cross species manipulation. Corn is virtually 100% GMO today, and animals are fed that corn. It is also almost indigestible to most people. Wheat has been manipulated until it no longer has the same composition as the wheat our parents ate. The protein is very low, and it is full of gluten and is also difficult for many to digest. I really do think there is a conspiracy by Monsanto to drive people to starvation. What has happened in India with GMO crops and failures has caused literally tens of thousands of suicides among simple farmers when they give all their money to Monsanto and have terrible crop failures and have no way out. A conspiracy because of the facts that the Deputy Commissioner for the FDA was formerly Monsanto's Senior Counselor, or Linda Fisher who jumped back and forth between Monsanto and the EPA etc. etc! To say nothing of the laws in place forbidding farmers to use ordinary seeds if their neighbors are farming GMO's. No contamination to GMO's allowed.

So what does this have to do with mixing kinds? A LOT!! They are taking genetic material from one species and mixing it with another species, controlling production and the pesticide business. This is no modern miracle but a monstrosity. God is not happy with people who play with fire and destroy heritage seeds, and make up basically new organisms which they control. Here is a link.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/geneti...-wars-fighting-against-biotech-giants/5353538

I can't find the original video I watched that alerted me to the dangers of GMO food, but hoping this one will do instead. (By the way, I have GMO canola just across the road from my house. It is a big problem because the roots clog ditches and culverts, and nothing can kill it.) This is a long video, but it is really important to watch!

http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/gmo_food_genetically_modified

PS. Please ignore the "evolutionary" references. Think instead "God created!"

 

[Vaccine]

NASB
19 ‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

NKJV
19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

NIV
19 “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

I'm wondering what is meant by the animal breeding. Is it referring to cross-breeding two subspecies such as Holstein with Guernsey for example, which are capable of cross-breeding, or is it talking about cross-breeding cattle with buffalo? I don't know for sure but I believe cattle and buffalo can't naturally do this.

Same with regard to the plants. When I seed new alfalfa I will also put down a cover crop like oats along with it. The oats help by competing against the weeds giving the alfalfa a leg, or rhizome up. Does this text forbid this practice?

I imagine being a farmer nowadays is a pretty complex business. Since it's to suppress weeds and not for pollinating, I don't think it's wrong. Neither should it apply to Holstein with Guernsey since they're both cattle. I thought it applied to trying to cross-breeding animals and seeds in general.

Claudya is right, technically we don't live under the law anymore, but I think it's still relevant warning against mixing kinds. I suppose a mule is harmless, but then there's killer bees. GM foods have helped feed billions but in some cases have been linked to diseases. What I worry is if there is eventually a problem with a crop, how would they undo it?

 

[Vaccine]

Churches need to teach more about the law. The law doesn't prohibit all mixed fabrics, only weaving wool and linen together. Cotton and polyester are fine together.

The TOG​

Thanks TOG I wondered about that one.

 

[Vaccine]

organic food the biggest rip off since recycling. and I do recycle. lets pay twice for the same piece of paper that I use, or once? hmm. oh yeah I can go into the fact the letter often isn't as clean, but we digress.

I read they found GM food in "all organic" food in one case. The GM crops are just so prolific I guess there just isn't much that isn't affected by them.

 

[Barbarian]

I suppose a mule is harmless, but then there's killer bees.

Ironically, "killer bees" are the variety that are not genetically modified. And when they happen to cross with the genetically modified domestic bees, they become less dangerous. It's been thousands of years, probably tens of thousands of years since we've had any domestic species that are not genetically modified.

 

[Barbarian]

(By the way, I have GMO canola just across the road from my house. It is a big problem because the roots clog ditches and culverts, and nothing can kill it.)

Roundup. If it gets in your property, use that, being careful not to get it on any plant you want to keep.

 

[WIP]

I imagine being a farmer nowadays is a pretty complex business. Since it's to suppress weeds and not for pollinating, I don't think it's wrong. Neither should it apply to Holstein with Guernsey since they're both cattle. I thought it applied to trying to cross-breeding animals and seeds in general.

Claudya is right, technically we don't live under the law anymore, but I think it's still relevant warning against mixing kinds. I suppose a mule is harmless, but then there's killer bees. GM foods have helped feed billions but in some cases have been linked to diseases. What I worry is if there is eventually a problem with a crop, how would they undo it?

I know it is unintentional but in your example above we might find a conundrum. If I am correct, the killer bees mentioned came about because two different varieties or sub-species of bees were intentionally cross-bred (an African honey bee with European honey bees). Although we haven't caused a similar problem....yet....what's to say a problem won't come about as we continue to cross-breed varieties of cattle? Another example might be the breeding of various dog varieties to produce dogs with certain temperaments such as the Pit Bull varieties.

The thing that I think a lot of people forget is that even though we have learned how to intentionally cross-breed certain varieties of animals and plants, most of these changes such as hybrids could occur naturally. It would have taken a lot longer to happen though had we not interferred. Its when we start altering the genetic codes that I begin to really wonder if we're overstepping our authority.

Admittedly, I say that with a sheepish grin because I just realized that I have been using those byproducts that have come from that very research. I use Round-up ready soybeans in my farming and I use herbicides to control weeds, which also chemically alter the plants to cause their early demise. The chemical 2-4D for example, fools broad leaf plants into aging at a rapid rate and basically growing themselves to death. The mustard plants in my fields show the effects of this chemical within just hours of application and it doesn't take much. I apply it at a rate of 12oz. diluted in 10 gallons of water per acre of land.

The question then becomes, just because we haven't caused a problem with some of our cross-breeding, does that make it acceptable or are we just using it as an excuse to justify what we have been doing?

 

[Vaccine]

Are we supposed to stick to those laws any more? Because I am wearing at least three kinds of clothing material right now.
Also planting different kinds of plants on one field is good. Monoculture is more efficient on the short run, but has a number of disadvantages compared to a more diverse agriculture (e.g. plants of a monoculture field, especially when the same kind of plant is grown on one field for several years in a row, attract more specific pests and pathogenes).

I have to admit, in light of the benefits of planting more than one crop I can't say I oppose it. What worries me is the experimentation. I can't help wondering what if somewhere out there is the equivalent of mixing bleach and ammonia, for two types of crops.

That wouldn't be the problem.
I'm waiting for the day they manage to grow pork meat in a petri dish, without a living pig, so I can eat meat again. Actually, screw the pork. Grow some petri dish salmon meat for me please!! I used to love salmon.
The actual problem with gmo's, especially plants, is not that their taste is ruined or whatever. The problem is that there is a number of scenarios how gmo plants can damage the natural ecosystem of the area where they are grown. It's really hard to find unbiased information on the whole matter. But since genetical engineering is not just quantitatively different from the old fashioned genetical manipulation through breeding methods (like more of it in a shorter time more efficiently), but something qualitatively new (transfering genes of organisms of a totally different kind into plants) there is just no safe way to test the long term ecological consequences of those methods.
So I'll stick with organical farming products, especially when it comes to corn and soy.

Your enthusiasm for meat from a petry dish made me smile. I'm sure it wouldn't be poison and would taste just great, but I would striggle with the idea of eating something made in a lab. Snap, I must be getting older since I don't like trying new things as much as I used to.
I read where in China they have a herd (~200) cows, mixed with human genes to make human like milk. This milk may hit the market in a few years as an alternative to formula.
I'd prefer formula for my kids. What do you think?

 

[Vaccine]

I know it is unintentional but in your example above we might find a conundrum. If I am correct, the killer bees mentioned came about because two different varieties or sub-species of bees were intentionally cross-bred (an African honey bee with European honey bees). Although we haven't caused a similar problem....yet....what's to say a problem won't come about as we continue to cross-breed varieties of cattle? Another example might be the breeding of various dog varieties to produce dogs with certain temperaments such as the Pit Bull varieties.

The thing that I think a lot of people forget is that even though we have learned how to intentionally cross-breed certain varieties of animals and plants, most of these changes such as hybrids could occur naturally. It would have taken a lot longer to happen though had we not interferred. Its when we start altering the genetic codes that I begin to really wonder if we're overstepping our authority.

Admittedly, I say that with a sheepish grin because I just realized that I have been using those byproducts that have come from that very research. I use Round-up ready soybeans in my farming and I use herbicides to control weeds, which also chemically alter the plants to cause their early demise. The chemical 2-4D for example, fools broad leaf plants into aging at a rapid rate and basically growing themselves to death. The mustard plants in my fields show the effects of this chemical within just hours of application and it doesn't take much. I apply it at a rate of 12oz. diluted in 10 gallons of water per acre of land.

The question then becomes, just because we haven't caused a problem with some of our cross-breeding, does that make it acceptable or are we just using it as an excuse to justify what we have been doing?

Good point about the hybrids in nature. I think God gave us laws for our benefit. By putting those two bits of information together, could it be God was warning against hybrids that wouldn't happen naturally? As though specific seeds and animals in Africa, shouldn't be mixed with animals or seeds in North America? Or specific Australian animals and seeds?

I see pros and cons, but can't see an alternative. If the research makes better crops, there's not much of an alternative.

 

[WIP]

These are good questions and I honestly don't know the answer. One thought that comes to mind is whether or not the result is "better" might be more in the eye of the beholder. Over and over again we do things in the name of improvement only to find out later that what we did caused an unforeseen backlash. For example, we introduce a particular species of fish to a lake to offer as an additional food source or provide added sport for the fishing enthusiast only to find out later that the new species is now producing so prolifically that it is having a negative impact on the indigenous species in the lake. Another example is the killer bee that we've already mentioned. They were intentionally bred as an attempt to produce a better result by our standards but their aggressive nature became a problem for us.

Here in the US there are countless plants and animals that have been brought from Europe, Asia, and and Africa either intentionally for decoration or food sources or by accident that have now become invasive and cause real problems in some cases.

The question that we should be asking ourselves is, "Does God see it as better?"

 

[Vaccine]

Ironically, "killer bees" are the variety that are not genetically modified. And when they happen to cross with the genetically modified domestic bees, they become less dangerous. It's been thousands of years, probably tens of thousands of years since we've had any domestic species that are not genetically modified.

Do you have any killer bees near you? Is there a way to undo the population, or minimize the effects?

 

[WIP]

The "killer bees" found in the US are, according to my research, a hybrid cross between an African honey bee and European honey bees. They were brought to South America and a queen was accidentally released where they spread northward as far as the SW US.