I am one of those who edits a page once a month. I have a few pages and topics a like and have added to my watch-list. Most of the reverts I see and do myself are plain vandalism. The remainder are punctuation and a bit of grammar.
I have had few cases of something I thought to be good being reverted. Recently on a page I added a few new facts that had been reported in the news, with citations. They where reverted by a moderator without a comment (I call that rude). After confronting him on his personal page, he argued that he could not read Spanish, therefore could not confirm my citation. Oddly, as I pointed out, the topic was a topic for which you absolutely need to be fluent in Spanish to read primary and secondary sources. Well, after a bit he got a moderator who could read Spanish to check my citations. But did not revert his revert, I had to do it myself.
Did this make me stop contributing to the Wikipedia. NO! It is our duty to confront such morons until they give in.
This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.
It states clearly that both nutrition AND health benefits where studied. It does not exclusively look at nutrition. Check the actual study, they state to have tested: vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids, titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant non-digestible carbohydrates, -carotene and sulphur.
Yes, I usually hear people argue for organic on only one level. It is supposed to be healthier than normal supermarket food. I guess you want to argue nutrition != healthy. But that is not what the study focused on. From the article:
Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.
Whats to argue against that? It leaves everything else open: you can argue that organics have less pesticides, taste better, no chemical enhancers or what ever other claim not tested by this study. But that is how science works. You single out ONE variable, keep everything else constant, peer-review, publish. I see nothing strange here, especially something that would point to the study being paid by "corporate interests".
why would you engineer the study to avoid accounting for the very factors that make the products attractive to them?
Where do you get the impression that someone was "avoiding" dealing with any other factors. It is just the nature of the beast, that you have to choose ONE variable to do a study, and these scientist chose nutritional value. I am pretty sure there are copious studies on how organic food contains less pesticides. I still don't see how choosing nutritional value makes you think it was paid by "corporate interests"? The actual title of the study is "Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature". "Organic 'has no health benefits'", that was title of the BBC article. I also find that article overly simplistic, but that is modern news reporting style, but don't read that cynical slant you report. And on your last comment
I do not disagree with its outcome nor its methods
How can you disagree with the outcome? Organic foods have just the same amount of nutritional value as non organics. That's a fact based on this study. Again, I see no reason to think that for this reason it was paid by "corporate interests"?
Evolution is defined as natural selection of random mutations.
In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia)
Once our society begins selecting and/or rejecting offspring based on their genes, or we begin manipulating our genetic codes, evolution stops.
I think you are mixing up natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is part of evolution but not equal to evolution. Genetic drift is an alternative as is artificial selection and sexual selection. I am not sure if there is an "official" definition, but I would argue, that screening of embryos is as much a part of evolution.
Strange, you compare the EU with to the USA? The EU doesn't even have a constitution or a democratically elected president. Currently it's just a NAFTA on steroids. Taking into account, that France has nukes, I would argue that they are quiet powerful. And what is the "obvious" reason not to give Germany a permanent seat?
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein