My coco pops are animal paw print shaped for some reason but all it does is make them look like animal trout and it's really conflicting trying to eat them.
Printable View
My coco pops are animal paw print shaped for some reason but all it does is make them look like animal trout and it's really conflicting trying to eat them.
For a while there was this green ketchup that was the exact color of goose trout. It made everything taste wrong even though it was just normal ketchup with food coloring.
If your eyes see something that should not be eaten, even if it is just an illusion, then your brain will go ewwwww and think it tastes nasty.
To be fair, the green ketchup had dye in it, so the taste was off. You know what was even more disgusting? Purple ketchup.
I didn't even realise that it just turned into a Quina. Understandable, then.
I am not a fan of those coloured corn chips. That's just wrong. Corn is not red, green, or purple. Stop it.
Why would you want to eat like, purple corn crisps? :|
sincerely, americahttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_njdGb5_3GH...0/Patch-07.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
That is an aberration.
no uhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-Corncobs.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-GEM_corn.jpg
but yeah that's the kind of corn they make the other-colored corn chips out of if they're any good. it's usually not just dye afaik.
I love blue corn chips. :quina:
From my understanding, corn more naturally shows up like that. Making it all uniform and one standard color is a controlled thing. Or at least the controlled growth of one certain variety.
Pretty sure multicolored corn is more common in nature, but I might be off base.
All ketchup is gross though, regardless of color :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs
Blue corn chips are great. They are made with blue corn!
I Hopi I get to try some of that!
Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn mooooooonnnn?
While I don't doubt the naturality of other colored corn chips and quite agree with it being more common outside of the uniform controlled mumbo jumbo whatever,
I think that in restaurants that actually -serve- these multicolored chips, they're colored with dye. The red in natural corn is much darker than what these chips look like.
Red Lobster & LongHorn both serve multi-colored tortilla chips with their spinach dips and you can totally tell that they're not natural colored.
Here's an example of organic natural red chips:
Attachment 46250
THIS is not natural:
Attachment 46251
(btw, RL's spinach/artichoke/lobster dip is nasty. Never eat it.)
I'm a-maize-d at how bad that joke was, Huxley. :colbert:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
Yours is no less corny!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa's BoobsI'm a-maize-d at how bad that joke was, Huxley. :colbert:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
I really want to eat it, but then... :(
http://24.media.tumblr.com/32d01b9c5...zdqto1_500.jpg
That is the cutest thing on the planet!!! Omg...
Oh how I love thee, Cait Sith
Oh, don't starch with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by PantzYours is no less corny!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa's BoobsI'm a-maize-d at how bad that joke was, Huxley. :colbert:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
These corn puns are a husk of their full potential.
If you're going to insult my puns, you could just send me a private e-meal, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by qwertysaur
Aw shucks, gang. I love your corn-based jokes. In fact, I'm all ears.
Corn doesn't exist in nature. Corn didn't exist until after human agriculture. Corn is a product of conscious genetic selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkythesharkdogg
So the Injuns really -did- have magical powers?
Just the regular old powers of genetic modification that we've been using for 10,000 years.
The Evolution of Corn
Except, of course, it's a lot safer and more accurate today than 10,000 or even 100 years ago.
I can't believe you jackasses brought puns into my thread.
Corn can be whatever goddamn colour it wants to be but don't you touch my smurfing corn chips bro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
You're right. Too much crop in this thread :colbert:
How dare they.
But some colours can be done naturally through spinach and tomato too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
No different from your coon :greenie:
Do you mean corn chips like.... Fritos?
Or corn chips like... Tortilla chips?
i hope he means tortilla chips because if they've made multiple colors of fritos i'm going to be very sad and ask why they would bother
hahahaha
I was about to post a pic of the Tapatio flavoured ones, but got side tracked.
Mmmm chili cheese Fritooooos.
damnit. now i want some.
They're amazing in bean dip and Tostito's cheese dip.
The smurf kind of reject corn chip looking things are those
what is with you and food america
why'd you have to ruin a good thing
Yeah they're really awful. Don't worry, plenty of tortilla chips exist, too, and are both better and more popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
http://www.childhood-obesity-prevent...-6-300x220.gif
Fritos are only good with chili and cheese.
And only in small amounts.
Otherwise... Just. No.
How can you cultivate something that doesn't exist? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by commaCorn doesn't exist in nature. Corn didn't exist until after human agriculture. Corn is a product of conscious genetic selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkythesharkdogg
Zea (genus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Quint EastwoodHow can you cultivate something that doesn't exist? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by commaCorn doesn't exist in nature. Corn didn't exist until after human agriculture. Corn is a product of conscious genetic selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkythesharkdogg
Zea or teosinte was cultivated from nature and gradually turned into corn after thousands of years of genetic selection. Any more questions, let me know, and I'm happy to explain.
Corn (well, maize) as it exists now was obviously cultivated in specific ways, but I think you'd be hard pressed to actually demonstrate that corn didn't exist in nature prior to that. The fact of the matter is that it makes no sense for early humans to "consciously genetically select" an item for consumption that wasn't consumable beforehand. Now, certainly, I'd be willing to believe that it didn't always exist in nature but became extant there at some point, at which time humans domesticated it and began selecting, with modern corn being the eventual result.
But I guess I'm open to being convinced, if you've got a compelling argument.
You're arguing against a well-established history of artificial selection. I'm not hard-pressed at all to convince you that corn didn't exist in nature before human selection; everybody knows that corn cannot grow wildly on its own.
"Maize, more commonly known as corn in America, provides the best illustration that domesticated crops are unquestionably human creations. The distinction between wild and domesticated plants is not a hard and fast one. Instead, plants occupy a continuum: from entirely wild plants, to domesticated ones that have had some characteristics modified to suit humans, to entirely domesticated plants, which can only reproduce with human assistance. Maize falls into the last of these categories. It is the result of human propagation of a series of random genetic mutations that transformed it from a simple grass into a bizarre, gigantic mutant that can no longer survive in the wild. Maize is descended from teosinte, a wild grass indigenous to modern-day Mexico. The two plants look very different. But just a few genetic mutations, it turns out, were sufficient to transform one into the other."
Here are some resources to help quench your curiosity:
So, I read those, and none of that even remotely convinces me that humans didn't discover a mutation of that plant as something resembling maize in the wild, find that it was good to eat, and then start cultivating it.
It doesn't seem so "well established" on Wikipedia, either (not the most reliable source, obviously), since they list several competing theories. I'm not arguing that corn hasn't been artificially selected for thousands of years, it seemingly obviously has. I'm arguing that there is no way they started with something that wasn't meaningfully edible, and then just decided that they could make it edible if they only planted it repeatedly and in different ways.
You read this and still came to the same conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
And it goes on to describe the evidence that maize never existed in nature in any form and was cultivated beginning with teosinte.Quote:
"Some concluded that the crop plant arose through the domestication by early agriculturalists of a wild maize that was now extinct, or at least undiscovered.
"However, a few scientists working during the first part of the 20th century uncovered evidence that they believed linked maize to what, at first glance, would seem to be a very unlikely parent, a Mexican grass called teosinte. Looking at the skinny ears of teosinte, with just a dozen kernels wrapped inside a stone-hard casing, it is hard to see how they could be the forerunners of corn cobs with their many rows of juicy, naked kernels. Indeed, teosinte was at first classified as a closer relative of rice than of maize.
"But George W. Beadle, while a graduate student at Cornell University in the early 1930s, found that maize and teosinte had very similar chromosomes."
Skepticism is healthy, really! And it's a good initial reaction. But until you have qualification, or better, a degree, in biology, genetics, agricultural sciences, anthropology, etc., I don't really see on what grounds you can argue that the accepted theory is wrong. What you're doing is called arguing from ignorance, which is unacceptable with the wonders of Google Scholar so readily available.
Sorry if I sound condescending, but those are my thoughts. When we aren't qualified enough to alter the discussion in a certain field of science, we should believe the specialists who spend their careers working in that subject. And even if you were a scientist, to believe only your research and nobody else's is hyperskepticism, to the point of being absurd.
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.
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 earlier post was a semantics joke. :up:
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"
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quint Eastwood
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
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.
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 Spuuky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Plait
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
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.
This is going to sprawl, but taken in comparison to the scale of time I'm referring to it's absurdly brief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
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
You just showed me you have little understanding of global warming. It's not getting hot because we're burning things and fire is hot. Please read about greenhouse gases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
No, I used the term to correctly refer to the logical fallacy it describes. You were attempting to shift the burden of proof to me despite the fact that you were the one making claims with no proof behind them. You were doing this by arguing that we couldn't possibly have any knowledge of when teosinte was cultivated or how long it took maize to evolve or when. That's an appeal to ignorance, especially because we do actually have that knowledge and you're proving unwilling to read or understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
No, it's just refusing to allow you to use an appeal to ignorance. By your "logic," you could prove to me that God exists by the mere fact that I can't prove he doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Anyway, TristramShandy has made a wonderful, logical case for the anthropogenic evolution of maize, for which I'd see no reason you could deny on rational grounds. In your post edit, you ignore his main point: the logical evidence that man turned teosinte into a nutritive plant is simply the fact that a plant in nature has no reason to be nutritive. What's wrong with that logic?
Global Warming isn't caused by the production of heat energy but by its retention. The sun produces significantly more heat energy than human civilization. Human civilization has merely created an environment that retains more of that energy much to our disadvantage.
You don't seem to understand the argumentum ad auctoritatem. An appeal to authority is not fallacious when it is done by presenting their arguments and evidence, otherwise it would be plainly ridiculous to become an expert in a field. However, we obviously have better results in the Sciences from Scientists than from Non-Scientists.
The fallacy of the Argument from Authority is that an Authority is not necessarily correct about deductive reasoning even if they're more likely to be correct. However, no one made that argument and so your sloppy attempts at criticising it have all been in vain. No one has said that the Authorities we're discussing are necessarily correct because they are Authorities. We have said that they are correct because they have demonstrated by tested methods the truth of their model, however. Models can always be improved, but we do know a great many things we didn't used to know and this didn't come about from people who were not Authorities.
You're right guys, greenhouse gases definitely aren't created by burning things, like, say, oil in combustion engines. I was definitely referring to fire being hot when I said "burning."
Regarding your incredibly asinine and borderline-offensively-stupid God Exists paragraph, no. I can't prove God exists by asking you to prove that he doesn't. That isn't even remotely close to what I said. It's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said. What I essentially said is "if you can't prove God doesn't exist, THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE EXISTS EXISTS." Not that he does, or that there's even reason to believe that does, or that it in any way impacts the possibility that he does. Simply that if you can't prove he doesn't exist, then ... you can't prove he doesn't exist. Nothing more. As it applies to this discussion, if you can't prove that Teosinte naturally mutated, the POSSIBILITY exists that it did. If you can prove that it didn't naturally mutate, great, you eliminated that possibility. I haven't seen sufficient evidence of that to persuade me. That's all I'm claiming. I'm still open to the possibility that you are correct. You're saying it's proven that it didn't - I don't agree, based on the evidence presented to me. I'm not saying "I don't agree with you, so the opposite is true." I'm saying "I don't think your evidence is sufficient, so I don't know. As a random related addendum, here's another possibility which also may be true or untrue."
Other than the vast array of nutritive plants in nature?Quote:
The logical evidence that man turned teosinte into a nutritive plant is simply the fact that a plant in nature has no reason to be nutritive. What's wrong with that logic?
Well, you did say:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Which is not the cause of global warming. You're saying there that humans contribute to global warming by generating heat, which is demonstrably false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
As for the rest, I can tell by the capital letters that you are starting to get annoyed, so I will leave us with that. It's been a pleasure.
That's the point. There isn't a vast array of nutritive plants in nature. We cultivated them. Most plants as they appeared before cultivation were only very minimally nutritive. Some things we eat today were cultivated from plants that provided less energy than the energy it took to consume them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Because of this, human beings like any other animal had to spend almost all of their waking existence finding food. The advent of cultivation is the advent of civilization. It wasn't until we were able to create highly nutritive foods and produce them at a satisfactory scale that we were able to devote time to other pursuits.
It does generate heat. That it does so in a roundabout way it irrelevant to the point and just a semantic nitpick.
So you are saying that all nutritive plants in nature are solely the result of human intervention? The lineage of all wild fruit, berries, figs, nuts, tubers, etc, is solely because people made them have nutritional value via cultivation?Quote:
Originally Posted by TristramShandyThat's the point. There isn't a vast array of nutritive plants in nature. We cultivated them. Most plants as they appeared before cultivation were only very minimally nutritive. Some things we eat today were cultivated from plants that provided less energy than the energy it took to consume them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Because of this, human beings like any other animal had to spend almost all of their waking existence finding food. The advent of cultivation is the advent of civilization. It wasn't until we were able to create highly nutritive foods and produce them at a satisfactory scale that we were able to devote time to other pursuits.
If you're making the claim that no plants ever had nutritive value, then I don't see how that's possible.
No, I said that naturally occurring plants were only very minimally nutritive. They provided enough nutrition to support nomadic humans if they foraged for it all day, and only sometimes as people more often starved to death. However, this was an obviously inferior quality of life to what we have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuukySo you are saying that all nutritive plants in nature are solely the result of human intervention? The lineage of all wild fruit, berries, figs, nuts, tubers, etc, is solely because people made them have nutritional value via cultivation?Quote:
Originally Posted by TristramShandyThat's the point. There isn't a vast array of nutritive plants in nature. We cultivated them. Most plants as they appeared before cultivation were only very minimally nutritive. Some things we eat today were cultivated from plants that provided less energy than the energy it took to consume them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Because of this, human beings like any other animal had to spend almost all of their waking existence finding food. The advent of cultivation is the advent of civilization. It wasn't until we were able to create highly nutritive foods and produce them at a satisfactory scale that we were able to devote time to other pursuits.
If you're making the claim that no plants ever had nutritive value, then I don't see how that's possible.
Saying that ancient plants are less nutritious than modern plants is a far different claim than this one in ways that are relevant to this discussion:
Quote:
a plant in nature has no reason to be nutritive.
who cares about corn enough to write even one paragraph, what's going on in this thread
This thread went from me complaining about the fact that my cereal looked like animal poop into this what the hell
This might be the first time a spam thread turned into an EoEO thread. It's normally the other way around.
A plant in nature has no reason to be nutritive enough to sustain a population of animals/humans. Surely you realize that every time you eat a fruit, vegetable, berry, nut, etc., you are precluding a potential plant. To say that plants naturally just evolved to feed us is not only ridiculously optimistic but also a huge insult to our ancestors thousands of years ago who developed agriculture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuuky
Sigh. I can't continue this discussion if you're going to keep attributing things to me that I did not say. Of course plants were artificially selected for a long time to reach the point they are at now, and, as I've said several times, I never said otherwise. Basically my ONLY claim is this: "I personally find it unlikely (but not impossible) that the plants that have since been artificially selected didn't originally have some nutritional value."
Okay, and my response is that it's funny you find it unlikely when it's been proven, and never refuted, by experts.
End of discussion? *extends hand for shake*
Yep, end of discussion, and we clearly have different definitions of "proven."Quote:
Originally Posted by comma
Is there a handshake emoticon?
This thread is
http://www.philamfood.com/images/P/I...91217-1641.jpg
Those do not look very appetizing.
The corn I like most is corn by itself (well, with butter and some salt).
Also tortillas.
Watching the two of you go at it is like the episode of Doctor Who when the Daleks and Cybermen meet.
Corn is delicious grilled with lime flavored mayo slathered on it then queso fresco and either Tajin or Klass brand fruit seasoning.
Alternatively, you can just scrape the kernels off and lightly sautee them then put them in a bowl and add all that stuff.
I find sweetcorn quite pointless.
Attachment 47386
That junk is delicious.
ALSO.
I made the most baller crab rangoons last night. Jay was like "These are better than what any Chinese restaurant has."
No soy or sweet & sour sauce needed. And in fact, I tried one with soy sauce on it and it ruined the rangoon.
Mexican grilled corn is awesome, yes. I made some this summer. Actually, this one Cuban place I go to is famous for it.
What is that. It looks like corn ice cream.Quote:
Originally Posted by noxious.sunshine
It's corn with mayo , queso fresco, and Mexican fruit seasoning. And lime I guess. Junk is delishious.
When you buy it like that at the taquerias, they put the lid on the cup and it kinda melts the cheese and mayo. Yuuuummmmm.
I've never seen Mexican grilled corn in a cup, but that's kind of cool. I like it light on the mayo, though.
Some places will give you a choice of how it's cooked - boiled or grilled ..
Also .. Churros. Not the dessert. The fried wheat chip wagon wheel things.
Attachment 47394
That's a sloppy pic.