[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-May-06, 21:05, said:

Plus one


Winston you of all...of all makes a key point.


by definition

but one does wonder can theory be reality if only an opinion \? One hopes back up with facts.

--


others in this thread make imp. points.

but I don't think those who advocate only organic/anti genetics make their case.
otoh anti crony big/huge farming......do make the case.

Opinion can match reality, but reality cannot be swayed by opinion (beliefs). Reality does not need an observer.

[onoway]

FM75, on 2013-May-06, 20:09, said:

Because you did not understand the difference between a body and a species, you did not understand the statement at all. A body does not evolve to eat certain kinds of food. A body's genetic content is fixed. It matures from an embryonic state to a fertile state with luck and good environmental conditions. That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is what takes place over tens (at a minimum) to hundreds of generations in the population of a species as the genetic content of the population changes.

sorry, you are talking nonsense. Obviously I wasn't talking of what my specific body had evolved to do within my lifetime but of my body as an example or result of the evolution of the human species. No matter what medical miracles we can do today, and there are many, a human body still needs certain nutrients and they are specific, not any old thing will do. Thus cow parsnip is edible but water hemlock which looks similar is deadly poison. We can eat the stalks of rhubarb but not the leaf.

Some things affect us in tiny, minute amounts such as selenium. Some is essential. A little too much will cause problems and a lot too much is fatal. I don't in the least understand your posts.

[mike777]

":You are trying to fit what you know of farming into what I have touched on, and not understood that I am talking about a system of farming that you are likely (clearly) not familiar with."


Ok And fair point..


Are you a farmer or only a theory?

Do you live this life or only in theory?

Let me put this another way ...to you gain from success or lose or nothing if you are wrong?
-----------


if YOU DONT WANT TO RISK YOUR MONEY ..I MEAN YOUR JMONEY OK.


I only point that lawyers and us finance majors lose nothing.....so LISTEN TO THOSE THAT DOD.

[akwoo]

Back to the original question a bit...

I'm thinking about my experiences teaching this semester, and I think I have noticed something very disturbing about my students:

They have no faith in reason and inference!

To expand on that, they don't seem to believe that they can take ideas from outside their direct experience, think about these ideas, and decide if those ideas are reasonable or not. They will trust their direct perception, and they'll at least pretend to believe what trusted authorities tell them, but they won't believe their own logic or even try to use it.

It's as if they were illiterate peasants from before the Reformation, dependent on priests to tell them the Word of God instead of reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves. Indeed, it's as if they refuse to touch the Bible for themselves because they fear they might interpret it wrongly.

(Obviously I'm generalizing, and this does not apply to everyone, but this seems to apply to a significant majority.)

Well - maybe this isn't so unusual; we all know perpetual bridge intermediates who slavishly follow 'nine never; eight ever' with nary a thought as to when that might be wrong, or who at best memorize a short list of specific exceptions and deviate woodenly in those cases.

[dwar0123]

FM75, on 2013-May-06, 20:09, said:

Because you did not understand the difference between a body and a species, you did not understand the statement at all. A body does not evolve to eat certain kinds of food. A body's genetic content is fixed. It matures from an embryonic state to a fertile state with luck and good environmental conditions. That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is what takes place over tens (at a minimum) to hundreds of generations in the population of a species as the genetic content of the population changes.

A body isn't actively evolving, no one has suggested that this was the case, so your clarification only speaks to your inability to comprehend.

This isn't surprising as the apparent misunderstanding can be traced to you using the word 'evolved' rather than 'evolving'

Our bodies are most certainly evolved, they have very clearly evolved over many generations to handle food.

Irrelevant to the discussion but sadly for you the argument isn't to hard to make that our digestive ability does evolve during our life time. Our gut bacteria do go through many thousands of generations and the gut culture is known to change over time which can and has been known to change a persons ability to handle different types of food.

Also evolution happens every generation, not tens our hundreds but every single one. It may be so gradual that you can't see much between individual generations, but there is no minimum amount of change that is required before it is called evolution, so it is utter nonsense to think there is a minimum number of generations required before it occurs.

[mike777]

akwoo, on 2013-May-07, 00:22, said:

Back to the original question a bit...

I'm thinking about my experiences teaching this semester, and I think I have noticed something very disturbing about my students:

They have no faith in reason and inference!

To expand on that, they don't seem to believe that they can take ideas from outside their direct experience, think about these ideas, and decide if those ideas are reasonable or not. They will trust their direct perception, and they'll at least pretend to believe what trusted authorities tell them, but they won't believe their own logic or even try to use it.

It's as if they were illiterate peasants from before the Reformation, dependent on priests to tell them the Word of God instead of reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves. Indeed, it's as if they refuse to touch the Bible for themselves because they fear they might interpret it wrongly.
-----

(Obviously I'm generalizing, and this does not apply to everyone, but this seems to apply to a significant majority.)

Well - maybe this isn't so unusual; we all know perpetual bridge intermediates who slavishly follow 'nine never; eight ever' with nary a thought as to when that might be wrong, or who at best memorize a short list of specific exceptions and deviate woodenly in those cases.

------


so what is you point



sorry but you seem afraid to make a point of view?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2013-May-06, 22:06, said:

Opinion can match reality, but reality cannot be swayed by opinion (beliefs). Reality does not need an observer.

ok so we agree....great


so what is your point?


if your point is tiny ok....agree tiny....

[onoway]

akwoo, on 2013-May-07, 00:22, said:

Back to the original question a bit...

I'm thinking about my experiences teaching this semester, and I think I have noticed something very disturbing about my students:

They have no faith in reason and inference!

To expand on that, they don't seem to believe that they can take ideas from outside their direct experience, think about these ideas, and decide if those ideas are reasonable or not. They will trust their direct perception, and they'll at least pretend to believe what trusted authorities tell them, but they won't believe their own logic or even try to use it.

It's as if they were illiterate peasants from before the Reformation, dependent on priests to tell them the Word of God instead of reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves. Indeed, it's as if they refuse to touch the Bible for themselves because they fear they might interpret it wrongly.

(Obviously I'm generalizing, and this does not apply to everyone, but this seems to apply to a significant majority.)

Well - maybe this isn't so unusual; we all know perpetual bridge intermediates who slavishly follow 'nine never; eight ever' with nary a thought as to when that might be wrong, or who at best memorize a short list of specific exceptions and deviate woodenly in those cases.

How old are they?
It sounds as though they haven't run into many situations where their ideas have been given any respect so they have no confidence that what they think has any value. Not uncommon, especially if they have had a series of teachers who take the easy road and demand rote learning (where it isn't especially appropriate)" Ï'll tell you what's what (reality) and if you can tell me exactly what I told you when I ask, then you'll get an A." It sounds as though either they don't trust themselves to have an idea worth the breath to articulate it or you to give whatever they come up with respectful consideration, which may or may not even have anything to do with you. Or both.

Building confidence in kids can be difficult if you're trying to reverse years of negative experiences. But if you are trying to get them to think then that's where it has to start.

[barmar]

There are some well known examples of human evolution directly related to food consumption. One of the most commonly cited is lactose tolerance. Most mammals, including all the other primates, lose the ability to digest milk once they're weened. But when humans domesticated cattle, and started milking them, some populations evolved the ability to continue to continue digesting milk into adulthood, and this eventually spread more widely. Now about 35% of humans are lactose tolerant. This evolution took about 20,000 years.

http://www.npr.org/b...ctose-tolerance

[billw55]

barmar, on 2013-May-07, 10:57, said:

There are some well known examples of human evolution directly related to food consumption. One of the most commonly cited is lactose tolerance. Most mammals, including all the other primates, lose the ability to digest milk once they're weened. But when humans domesticated cattle, and started milking them, some populations evolved the ability to continue to continue digesting milk into adulthood, and this eventually spread more widely. Now about 35% of humans are lactose tolerant. This evolution took about 20,000 years.

http://www.npr.org/b...ctose-tolerance

Interesting story, but I find it hard to believe that only 35% of people are lactose tolerant. I guess my sample is biased to that European ancestry they mention. Must be much lower elsewhere.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2013-May-07, 12:49, said:

Interesting story, but I find it hard to believe that only 35% of people are lactose tolerant. I guess my sample is biased to that European ancestry they mention. Must be much lower elsewhere.

Exactly. Asia currently accounts for 60% of the world's population, and I believe the lactose tolerance gene didn't spread much through that population.

[onoway]

mike777, on 2013-May-06, 23:13, said:

":You are trying to fit what you know of farming into what I have touched on, and not understood that I am talking about a system of farming that you are likely (clearly) not familiar with."


Ok And fair point..


Are you a farmer or only a theory?

Do you live this life or only in theory?

Let me put this another way ...to you gain from success or lose or nothing if you are wrong?
-----------


if YOU DONT WANT TO RISK YOUR MONEY ..I MEAN YOUR JMONEY OK.


I only point that lawyers and us finance majors lose nothing.....so LISTEN TO THOSE THAT DOD.

I have been involved with farming to some degree all my life, though for a good portion of that time mostly as an intense interest.

[Winstonm]

See "Benghazi Redux Poll" for the perfect example.

[Winstonm]

More bad news for the wrong side of the dividing line - results are coming in about ACA costs.

Quote

In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a medium-level “silver” plan — which covers 70 percent of a beneficiary’s expected health costs — on the California health exchange would cost $5,200 annually. More recently, a report from the consulting firm Milliman predicted it would carry a $450 monthly premium. Yesterday, we got the real numbers. And they’re lower than anyone thought.
As always, Sarah Kliff has the details. The California exchange will have 13 insurance options, and the heavy competition appears to be driving down prices. The most affordable silver-level plan is charging $276-a-month. The second-most affordable plan is charging $294. And all this is before subsidies. Someone making twice the poverty line, say, will only pay $104-a-month.

Those with no "skin in the game" created an environment where increased competition lowered prices - or is it that all of us have "skin in this particular game"?