/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8394752
I never indicated that I was against GMOs though, nor that they were imminently harmful. I'm stating that they're a short sighted method of mitigating a marginal issue. Vitamin A deficiency is a joke when the whole spectrum is deficient.

>source for stripping the soil
Basic math sorts this, you subtract nutrients from soil and add them to a container, you remove the container. You do this repeatedly. Eventually the soil has reached peak β-Carotene yield and you're fought with the task of enrichment to ward off diminishing returns.

And as far as absolute rigor is concerned GMOs aren't theory, they are practice. If you get electrons wrong you don't affect anything but electron theory, if you get GMOs wrong you have the potential to effect ecological, economical, and physiological health worldwide. It's the difference between fantasy and reality.

>I'd say you didn't read or understand his point. His point is that "evolutionary pressures on plants don't necessarily select for increased nutritional value or yield"
I did read and understand it, regardless of his intended point, he provided evidence contrary to his own argument. They were bred from naturally existing plants which were selectively bred to reproduce certain naturally existing traits, that is to say that yes, at some point those plants intended to, or at some point, evolved for heightened yield and nutrition. (See noncoding genes.)