Is a food tag really necessary in a food forum?

I bought a bag of popcorn kernels at Wal Mart.

And attempted to pop some in a pot.

Popcorn exploded -everywhere- ... It was quite entertaining.

Jay was like "HAHAHA. Now clean it up, asshole"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

I certainly am no expert in the field. But yes, I read those, and came to the same conclusion: that maize has been cultivated into what it is over thousands of years, but that it still makes no sense that it was artificially selected from something inedible.

Where, exactly, is the evidence in that paragraph that teosinte had not naturally mutated in some small region into something more maize-like, which was from that point then artificially selected?

I mean, coming into this discussion, I didn't know that it had been artificially selected for nearly that long, or that it was a genetic descendant of that other plant, or anything like that. I'm perfectly willing to take their specialist words for those things because they're either explained well or make intuitive sense as a possibility.

---

I don't have all the answers on hand, and I'd have to do research that you could just as easily do yourself. I've simply made the case that you can't argue from ignorance here, since there are plenty of resources on hand that come from authorities on the subject. I also never said they picked out teosinte knowing it would turn into corn eventually. By "conscious genetic selection," I mean they simply picked out the best examples and cultivated them. Over and over, for thousands of years. And that's how you turn something difficult to eat into something easy to eat while running the risk that the plants you're growing may not be capable of surviving on their own, like with corn. It seems like maybe you didn't realize that teosinte is edible; was that your source of confusion?

You're also demanding I give you evidence against a claim that you invented. Me not being able to provide that evidence is not proof of your claim. That's the logical fallacy I'm talking about. "Corn existed before humans! Prove that it didn't!" is the same as "Vaccines cause autism! Prove that they don't!" or "God exists! Prove that he doesn't!" The burden of proof is actually on you to support your claim, not on me to disprove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quint Eastwood

The argument of "you're not a specialist, so shut up" has never been accepted by any scientist, teacher, child or mentally handicapped marsupial. And the argument of "it's what everyone agrees on, so shut up" has been proven unsuccessful almost 100% of the time. You're embarrassing science with your responses.

---

My point is this: as a non-specialist in a field, you should trust the specialists in the field that you're discussing. Having done absolutely no research on the subject, you can't really come out of nowhere and argue that there's no evidence that's adequate to support the prevailing theory, while also providing no evidence to support your alternative theory. An argument from ignorance is typically used to attempt to turn the burden of proof on one's opponent, but it's a logical fallacy. Most scientists will agree that specialists in their respective fields should be trusted, as the scientific method and peer review never fail to produce knowledge.

My "evidence" was Occam's Razor. The claim I "invented" is that the simplest possible explanation is the most likely one. By far the simplest, most intuitive explanation is that it existed in some form, humans found it, and then selected the "best" ones over many generations until the traits that are exhibited by modern corn became prevalent. If that happens to be wrong, then it's wrong, but the burden of proof is always on proving Occam's Razor wrong, not the other way around.

And yes, from the descriptions I read, it did not seem to me that teosinte was edible; at least not any more than, say, a dandelion is edible (sure, you can eat it, but it isn't going to sustain you, much less a population, unlike maize). If it's edible, then I guess I'd argue that "corn" did exist in nature; it existed as teosinte, and now as maize, since they're so genetically similar. But at this point, I've lost interest in the argument.

I do not agree that the simplest explanation is that a variety of plant that cannot exist in the wild on its own naturally mutated. But that seems to be what people thought at one point. However, it was shown nearly 100 years ago that it wasn't the case, and there have been mountains of evidence and hundreds, if not thousands, of studies since then confirming this. Just do a search for teosinte and maize on Google Scholar.

Teosinte is not maize; teosinte and maize are separate subspecies.

So no, the burden of proof is not on me to teach you the accepted theory; the burden is now on anyone who wishes to offer an alternative theory. At this point, I think you're just arguing for the sake of being contrary, but that's probably why you started in on this anyway.

Wait, are you seriously saying that because modern corn doesn't exist in the wild, no evolutionary link between teosinte and modern corn could have existed in the wild?

Could have, perhaps, if we were taking stock of all possible outcomes. But no, it didn't. The genetic evidence suggests that teosinte in its purest form was harvested before any mutation toward maize took place, and there is no naturally-occurring cross between teosinte and maize. Unless you have evidence to support your idea. If there were a variety of maize that could survive on its own in nature, wouldn't it still exist today as teosinte does?

Perhaps it mutated in one small area, people discovered that it was better to eat than teosinte, and then began cultivating all of that plant from the area? And that mutation does exist today, as maize, but it was sufficiently cultivated away from being able to survive naturally in that time? Or substitute any other extinction theory regarding any other ancient plant species, I suppose, although this seems unlikely to me given that both maize and teosinte exist, so a condition or event that could destroy a hybrid of them without hitting either one seems like long odds.

I'll certainly concede that it's entirely possible that the accepted outcome is correct. But, given that I still feel it's the less intuitive answer, I'll just also continue to consider that consensus scientific beliefs have a long and noble history of basically all being completely incorrect once sufficient advancements have been made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Perhaps it mutated in one small area, people discovered that it was better to eat than teosinte, and then began cultivating all of that plant from the area? And that mutation does exist today, as maize, but it was sufficiently cultivated away from being able to survive naturally in that time?

---

Pure fiction. Observations of the maize genome found on tools from that time period say otherwise. I thought you said you read the links I provided earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

I'll certainly concede that it's entirely possible that the accepted outcome is correct. But, given that I still feel it's the less intuitive answer, I'll just also continue to consider that consensus scientific beliefs have a long and noble history of basically all being completely incorrect once sufficient advancements have been made.

---

Scientific beliefs aren't typically incorrect, they're just incomplete. We'd be able to tell they were incorrect at any point if they weren't confirmed by observable phenomena. For instance, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is still used today and constantly being reconfirmed by observations even in extreme situations like stars orbiting black holes at a close distance, but it's not a complete theory, obviously, and is constantly being added to. Your stance in refusing to believe scientific theories on the grounds that they'll be altered in the future is a perfect example of hyperskepticism. The adequacy of the available research is an endlessly moving goalpost that the hyperskeptic always keeps a hand on.

Newtonian physics was thought to be either correct or at worst "incomplete," too. Until, actually, it was just wrong. The same can be said for basically every pre-modern theory of everything. I wouldn't be too surprised if, 200 years from now, educated people recognize the flaws of Einstein's work and the things it doesn't take into account (but still use it for everything it is a useful model for) the same way they do with Newton's work now.

I don't disbelieve all scientific theories. I accept many of them on what amounts to faith. I'm only skeptical of ones that don't conform to my basic sense of the world around me and how things work based on what I can see and observe myself. I have a really hard time accepting what I'm told is reasonable science regarding a subject like Schrodinger's Cat, as well - because it doesn't in any way match the reality of my observable world. Maybe things can exist in multiple states of being simultaneously, but I'm going to pretty dubious of any theories based on that because it doesn't even vaguely resemble anything I've been able to personally encounter or grasp. And again, maybe it's correct - but if something in no way makes sense based on what I actually can observe or rationalize, I'm not giving it the benefit of the doubt, ever.

And by the way, being skeptical of something doesn't automatically mean believing that it's wrong; it means being open to the possibility of it being wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Newtonian physics was thought to be either correct or at worst "incomplete," too. Until, actually, it was just wrong.

---

You're not an astronomer or a physicist, and neither am I, so I will quote one in response to your statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Plait

Isaac Newton formulated his Universal Law of Gravitation, and it revolutionized physics and astronomy, allowing us to apply math to the thorny issue of gravity. Newton's Law is still valid today, four centuries later. However, it's limited to a regime where masses are small and velocities low. If you want to calculate the Moon's effect on Earth, Newton is the way to go. We still use his basic equations to plot the trajectories of our spacecraft, and they ply the solar system's gravitational pathways with incredible precision.

But when you start to approach the speed of light, or deal with masses that are very large, Newton's math breaks down. It doesn't work.

Einstein fixed that. His Theory of Relativity uses far more complex math that can deal with these large velocities and masses, and get you the correct answers. When you look at Einstein's equations for low velocities and small masses, they simplify right down to what Newton wrote. Newton wasn't wrong, he was incomplete.

Einstein added to Newton, made the math more accurate. The thing is, we know relativity is incomplete right now. In the realm of the very, very small, relativity has some issues with quantum mechanics. QM is just as solid as relativity as theories go. Atomic bombs make that clear, as well as digital camera, electronics in general, and on and on. Obviously, one or both of QM and relativity are incomplete.

Again, we know they are not wrong -- not like creationism is wrong, or astrology and Geocentrism are wrong, in that they don't explain anything and all the evidence is against them -- but just that we don't know everything about them yet. There may be some bigger idea, some broader concept that unifies them, and reduces to either one if you use the right conditions, just as relativity reduces to Newton's law in certain circumstances.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

if something in no way makes sense based on what I actually can observe or rationalize, I'm not giving it the benefit of the doubt, ever.

---

And what kind of scientific research are you doing? If the answer is none, then you're basically admitting you're willfully ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

And by the way, being skeptical of something doesn't automatically mean believing that it's wrong; it means being open to the possibility of it being wrong.

---

Being skeptical past the point of reason that satisfies experts in the field is more about pushing an agenda or being obtuse, not actually being open to knowledge. You forget that the whole point of skepticism is to ascertain knowledge, not to claim it's unattainable.

I'm performing an empirical observation of everything within my range of sensory perception and attempting to rationally understand it. Are you "willfully ignorant" of the basics of mathematics because you aren't scientifically studying it in an organized manner? Of course not. You can see and observe from the world around you, for instance, that if you have 1 apple, and then you get another apple, that you then have 2 apples. You are able to see and internalize and understand the concept of addition without doing any sort of "research" other than existing in the world.

I'm willing to state that "X + Y = Z" is wrong if it works for low numbers, but when you reach high numbers you discover that actually "kX + nY = Z," with values of k and n that are incredibly close to 1. Those are extremely different equations and the fact that we can approximate most things with the former doesn't mean it's right; it means that it is close enough to be useful. Newtonian physics is incorrect. It is still useful, very obviously, but it is incorrect and the fact that he's saying it isn't is disingenuous.

But if you want to appeal to authority one more time here rather than actually formulating an argument, I'll just stop bother responding. "Experts in the field" aren't always right. They're often wrong, in every field. They often disagree, in many fields. Aristotle was an expert in the field of physics. If you have something rational to say it will by definition stand on its own merit without the need of appeal to authority. As I said, if I can see the basic logic behind what they have to say, that's good enough for me. If what they're saying makes no sense at all to me or contradicts my understanding of the world, I will remain open to the possibility that they are wrong despite their expertise.

I'm not qualified to make my own argument in genetics, nor did I ever intend to make an argument. I started by simply sharing the available research, which I've taken time to understand. I'm citing sources I know are reputable (scientists, universities) because I'm not an expert.

You, on the other hand, seem to think you can invent arguments having done zero research of your own, guided by Occam's Razor and, bizarrely, the logical fallacy of appeals to ignorance.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you refuse to believe the integrity of established research unless I, me, comma, convince you of it with a rational proof right here in this thread. After (supposedly) reading the explanations of the evolution of maize, you say your problem is you don't understand the logic behind it? Yes, you prefer the logic of the fiction you've invented over reality. And the proof you have of your fiction is the false dichotomy you've created, that experts are sometimes wrong and theories are sometimes adjusted, so if they're wrong, you must be right.

All I can do is urge you to rethink what you are saying. It's preposterous. If you're this hyperskeptical of the evolution of maize, I'd hate to see what you think about anthropogenic global warming or the safety of GMOs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Perhaps it mutated in one small area, people discovered that it was better to eat than teosinte, and then began cultivating all of that plant from the area? And that mutation does exist today, as maize, but it was sufficiently cultivated away from being able to survive naturally in that time? Or substitute any other extinction theory regarding any other ancient plant species, I suppose, although this seems unlikely to me given that both maize and teosinte exist, so a condition or event that could destroy a hybrid of them without hitting either one seems like long odds.

I'll certainly concede that it's entirely possible that the accepted outcome is correct. But, given that I still feel it's the less intuitive answer, I'll just also continue to consider that consensus scientific beliefs have a long and noble history of basically all being completely incorrect once sufficient advancements have been made.

---

This is going to sprawl, but taken in comparison to the scale of time I'm referring to it's absurdly brief.

You seem to lack knowledge of what the ancient world was like. The earth was not a place that was hospitable to humans before humans made it that way. You have a massive inheritance in habitability from ancient peoples.

Generally, life in the ancient world was more similar to death. People died much more often, lived significantly shorter lifespans and had considerably less comfort. They ate considerably fewer things, and food was not very palatable or easy to obtain. Starvation was significantly more common. They had no idea what was happening when disease or natural disasters struck. Insufficient knowledge of hygiene lead to deaths which are easily avoidable now. People died of their own teeth, if they were lucky.

However, this isn't to say they were stupid. They were as intelligent as you or I are, but had significantly less knowledge and considerably more to do just to stay alive. So, they did some really brilliant things to that end because it was essentially their job.

Among the most brilliant ancient peoples were the cultivators of South America. The vast majority of food you eat was cultivated in South America from seemingly nothing. Even ethnic food from the old world as you know it now was radically changed by the influx of new cultivars that were brought back from the Americas after the Colombian Exchange. I mean, what would Italian food be without tomatoes or eggplant?

We don't quite know how they did it. We could easily figure out how to breed Teosinte into a variety of Maize with modern technology, but it probably wouldn't taste exactly the same because their process has been lost to time. We can determine conclusively by DNA testing that maize is certainly cultivated from Teosinte, however.

Almost everything you eat was initially cultivated from a naturally occuring plant, usually a grass, that by the looks of it wasn't originally particularly nutritive. So, it is something of a mystery as to why anyone thought of starting to do it, but we can guess the massive risk of starvation in the ancient world had something to do with it. Not to mention the innate human desire for innovation and mastery of skills. Otherwise it would seem equally mysterious not only that we created Maize and Tomatoes and Potatoes and everything else but also that we created hundreds or thousands of varieties of each.

What we know for certain is that there is basically no reason anything you eat today would have developed that way in nature, and that they were specifically cultivated. It isn't beneficial to the natural survival of a plant that it should be highly nutritive.

Consider the Flightless Condor. It so happened that eventually it was no longer in need of flight for survival and so eventually as the generations proceeded it was more effective to spend less energy on the development of wings and more energy on the development of other traits that were directly relevant to its survival. They don't have some weighty excess of energy that they can spend on things it would be neat to have, the genetics drift towards economy and do so rather inefficiently but do so none the less.

There is no natural benefit for any plant to have a nutritive element, so cultivation occurred to allow for unnatural characteristics in plant life. If we control their reproduction then the cycle of natural selection ends. Maize need not spend any energy on the ability to reproduce naturally when the task has been taken up by someone else. It can then spend its energy on being very large and composed mostly of nutritive matter as we directed it to do.

Basically there's no possible argument you can make against this model, but you could make arguments to improve it if you were a Scientist in the field.

Global warming makes sense to me because I can observe pollution being pumped into the air constantly, and I can understand that the wide-scale burning of things generates heat. I'm open there to the distant possibility that it could be wrong for some reason I don't understand, but I'm willing to accept it.

Also, you seem to think that an appeal to ignorance has something to do with the common lexical meaning of ignorance, which it doesn't? Maybe I'll give you a free pass there, since I could be misinterpreting what you're saying. Appeal to ignorance means that I believe something to be true because you can't prove it false, or that I believe something to be false because you can't prove it true. Neither of those things is the case. In fact, my entire argument is basically the exact opposite of that - that the possibility of insufficient understanding always exists on either side, excepting things that are tautological or can be derived logically from absolute, indisputable fact (of which there are few). Given that this possibility always exists, I am going to interpret all OTHER facts and arguments presented to me through the lens of my own experience and rationality. To do anything BUT that is preposterous.

The fundamental disagreement we are having seems to be that you read those articles and were convinced that they had sufficient and sound premises and logical arguments. I read those articles and was not convinced of all three of those things. Where exactly my disagreement lies is not really the point.

When you say "the fiction I invented" you're saying it's a fiction because you already believe it's a fiction, rather than by providing actual evidence that it's fiction. That's called circular logic. If you start with the premise that I'm wrong, it doesn't matter how logical or illogical your argument is from that point; I don't care about the logic if I think the premise is false. What I invented wasn't a "fiction," nor it is a "fact." It was a "possible explanation." I think that's no different than the experts you've cited, regardless of any consensus among them or not. I lack evidence for my premise, but I'm not actually claiming my premise is true - I'm saying it's POSSIBLE that it's true, and I don't know. You think it's false because it's in conflict with something else you believe is true, which is fine - I don't think that thing that you believe is true, I think it's merely a possible truth, also. You think their evidence and logic is both convincing and conclusive, and I don't.

EDIT: Regarding that last post by TristramShandy, I'm not arguing that plants haven't been artificially selected ever since humans became capable of agriculture and cultivation. Never was arguing that, and I wish people would stop implying I had ever made that argument.

i liek corn