|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2003 : 19:32:00 [Permalink]
|
ComputerOrg wrote:quote:
There can be NO doubt that if a new species is introduced which, for example, carries around its own pesticide, it will survive much better than the old stuff. The new guys WILL dominate; they WILL survive; they WILL almost-certainly replace the old guys.
Hey, if you see the world as always black-and-white, then you're right that there's no doubt about these things. However, to those of us who see the world in color, there are plenty of doubts. Evolution is only a sure thing in that species will change. But how they will change is largely unpredictable.
Besides which, man has already been artificially selecting for hardier, healthier, more pest-resistant crops for 10,000 years. If someone had been able to jam in pesticide-creating genes 9,000 years ago, they would have done it.
quote:
As far as I know, in all of Earthly history a shrimp has NEVER been crossed with a plant; yet that is EXACTLY the kind of thing that geneticists and molecular biologists do.
If you can find one example of a plant/animal mix of genes which is currently on the market, I will be surprised. I have little doubt it's done in the lab, but has a single such GM product ever been approved and sold for consumption? Everything I can think of is either a plant with another plant's genes, or an animal with another animal's genes.
But damn, wouldn't a tree which grew shrimp as fruit be cool? I wanna shrimp orchard, now.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 20:33:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Computer Org:
@tomic 's worries are under stated, at best. The (eventual) success of a new species which has advantages over the old guys is, as I understand things, what "evolutionary processes" are all about. There can be NO doubt that if a new species is introduced which, for example, carries around its own pesticide, it will survive much better than the old stuff. The new guys WILL dominate; they WILL survive; they WILL almost-certainly replace the old guys. (For better or for worse-----THAT'S the problem: will the replacement of the old by the "genetically modified" new be for the better or for the worse?)
Try to make a point about hysteria and GM foods and see what you get. Love the caps! I just don't have the energy to respond to all of your response to my response to your original post. I really have nothing to add to what I have already stated except to ask if you checked the links I provided? You seem to think that there is no controversy here and that GM foods are simply a bad idea and that's that. Sources? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Penyprity
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 20:55:11 [Permalink]
|
Ya know, this is a very interesting topic. It never fails to make me wonder about all the nay-sayers who cannot invision a better future through science. I hope you will forgive the bad language here, but that is very republican thinking.
I think a good example of science over natural selection might be the mule. A cross between a mare and male donkey. Yet our planet still has lots of donkeys and horses. The mule did not destroy those breeds, so why is it assumed that a genetically engineered food would wipe out any other crop. Plus, as pointed out so wisely before, man has been cross-breeding crops for a very long time. None of the fruits, vegatables or meat we buy now is without some genetic engineering. Look at Minute Rice. You think that is a natural crop? Think again. Although that is not the best example since the process used to create Minute Rice destroys most, if not all, of the nutrients of whole rice.
When the choice is feeding the hungry, or jumping off the bridge of hysteria....I vote for feeding the hungry. |
Make your vote count. Become a supreme court justice......Peny |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 23:57:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Penyprity
I hope you will forgive the bad language here, but that is very republican thinking.
Oh O! you don't want to start sounding like those people who divide everything into 'us against them' do you? If they are 'right wing' than, according to them, you are all wrong if you say anything against them and they call you 'left wing'. Instead of taking each issue and judging it for it's own points 'they' put things into right and left and must never meet.
Just asking!
quote:
The mule did not destroy those breeds,
I should hope not because then there could never be another mule either. A mule can't reproduce! |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 04:50:03 [Permalink]
|
| I have one question...Can we now support the worlds population without the use of genetically modified foods? |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 08:37:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
ComputerOrg wrote:quote:
There can be NO doubt that if a new species is introduced which, for example, carries around its own pesticide, it will survive much better than the old stuff. The new guys WILL dominate; they WILL survive; they WILL almost-certainly replace the old guys.
Hey, if you see the world as always black-and-white, then you're right that there's no doubt about these things. However, to those of us who see the world in color, there are plenty of doubts. Evolution is only a sure thing in that species will change. But how they will change is largely unpredictable.
Not to nit-pick but I am a statistician who sees the world as a vast nest of stochastic processes. That is, I view those of you who only see the world in color as nearly blind.
With genetics, the the element of chance is removed; the changes in a species are carefully and deliberately controlled. Most of those changes are dramatic (--as in the self-production of pesticide--). It should not surprise anyone that such a new variety of a species would dominate the old guys----not unlikely unto the old guys' extinction.  quote:
Besides which, man has already been artificially selecting for hardier, healthier, more pest-resistant crops for 10,000 years. If someone had been able to jam in pesticide-creating genes 9,000 years ago, they would have done it.
Again: not meaning to nit-pick but this is not true. I don't quibble with either 'hardier' or 'healthier' but 'pest-resistant'? Nunca!
A decade+ ago I threw out all of our pesticides. Imported lady-bugs, lace-wings, several varieties of parasitic wasps, tree-frogs, and other pest-killing guys. It took about 4-5 years, but this was the natural, time-proven method of pest-control. It worked for me ten years ago. It worked even better 10,000 years ago.
quote:
More from Dave W.quote:
Posted by Computer Org
As far as I know, in all of Earthly history a shrimp has NEVER been crossed with a plant; yet that is EXACTLY the kind of thing that geneticists and molecular biologists do.
If you can find one example of a plant/animal mix of genes which is currently on the market, I will be surprised. I have little doubt it's done in the lab, but has a single such GM product ever been approved and sold for consumption? Everything I can think of is either a plant with another plant's genes, or an animal with another animal's genes.
But damn, wouldn't a tree which grew shrimp as fruit be cool? I wanna shrimp orchard, now.
I don't remember where (or even 'if') I read about the shrimp gene but you get your 'useful' genes wherever you find them. IIRC, it was the molecule which made the color that was an attractive genetic trait to put into the target crop-plant. (The color was poison to the pest.) Even though the plant didn't change color, the molecule was produced by the plant and killed (or repelled) the pest. (The 'pest' might, IIRC, have been fungal rather than an insect.)  |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 08:48:18 [Permalink]
|
Kil posted:
"I really have nothing to add to what I have already stated except to ask if you checked the links I provided? You seem to think that there is no controversy here and that GM foods are simply a bad idea and that's that."
GM foods are moving too quickly with too little over-sight. It is true that we have been genetically modifying food for a very, very long time; but we have done it at a VERY pedestrian pace.
One mistake on the part of one GM food R&D team and the consequences might be catastrophic and beyond all possibility of recovery. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 08:53:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
I have one question...Can we now support the worlds population without the use of genetically modified foods?
Yes.
Of course, as to the future, it would help if we would stop producing new consumers as if we needed them in our rush to colonize the Galaxy.  |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 17:17:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
I have one question...Can we now support the worlds population without the use of genetically modified foods?
Who is WE?
Thinking ahead that you might mean the have,s of the world support the have not,s which probably means the USA more than any others would do it. (You must like Hillary too.) There is a limit to how much 'we' can support.
The real answer is to not have that much population in the 1st place-
Speaking of limits. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 17:18:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Of course, as to the future, it would help if we would stop producing new consumers as if we needed them in our rush to colonize the Galaxy.
Right on!  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 21:42:22 [Permalink]
|
ComputerOrg wrote:quote:
Not to nit-pick but I am a statistician who sees the world as a vast nest of stochastic processes. That is, I view those of you who only see the world in color as nearly blind.
You can do that if you like, but your absolutely deterministic view of the world has been shown, again and again, to be wrong.quote:
With genetics, the the element of chance is removed; the changes in a species are carefully and deliberately controlled. Most of those changes are dramatic (--as in the self-production of pesticide--). It should not surprise anyone that such a new variety of a species would dominate the old guys----not unlikely unto the old guys' extinction.
What's unknown, and cannot be predicted, is the effect of the pesticide gene on the other genes the plant's already got. Genes are a gigantic mess of feedback and feed-forward loops, all effected by the environment. A gene added to a plant may look fine in a lab or a test farm, but "in the wild" may lead to a plant which doesn't grow well, or cannot reproduce itself (which has been done on purpose, if I understand things). Here's what the FDA has to say:quote:
many researchers say the ability of biotechnology to isolate and introduce a specific gene or just a few genes makes outcomes more predictable, including the ability to predict risks.
Overall, the idea that even a single genetic change has entirely predictable consequences is ludicrous. It's a 1960's science-fiction view of genetic engineering, which has utterly failed to come to pass.quote:
Again: not meaning to nit-pick but this is not true. I don't quibble with either 'hardier' or 'healthier' but 'pest-resistant'? Nunca!
Oh? You don't think that if someone noticed that particular strains of wheat were eaten less often by bugs than other strains of wheat, the farmers wouldn't select the more bug-resistant strains? What kind of stupidity would that represent?quote:
A decade+ ago I threw out all of our pesticides. Imported lady-bugs, lace-wings, several varieties of parasitic wasps, tree-frogs, and other pest-killing guys. It took about 4-5 years, but this was the natural, time-proven method of pest-control. It worked for me ten years ago. It worked even better 10,000 years ago.
Can I take a ride in your time machine?quote:
I don't remember where (or even 'if') I read about the shrimp gene but you get your 'useful' genes wherever you find them.
Ah, okay, once again I am being asked to take a vague memory as if it necessarily reflected reality. Can't waste much time checking one's own "facts," can one? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 04:23:47 [Permalink]
|
Snake, "we" is the species we is..."we" is the result of millions of years of evolutionary changes.
OK, so I have more than one question.
Does anyone really think that bio-engineered crops aren't in nearly every food product that hits the market? How much northern or winter grain is not selected because of it's properties to resist cold? How many bananas make it to the market that haven't been genetically selected to be yellow, and stay that way longer? How much meat would we have on the market if we stopped selecting breeding stock based on growth rate, and total size? Hell, how many farm or ranch animals aren't fed growth hormones, too?
Look, places like Northern California are already sucking the bulk of the water from Oregon rivers to irrigate crops. This leaves species like Salmon down the creek without any water. These crops have already been selected for genetic markers. The Everglades are getting polluted by fertilizers to accomodate sugar cane and cattle that have already been selected for genetic markers. Do we really want to grow less productive crops? Can our environment handle it?
I don't even know if there are commercial crops or livestock that haven't been genetically modified by our species. What's the point here? Is technology allways bad when it comes to feeding our faces? Or, is it only bad when we screw around with God's precious creations that most people don't give a good shit about unless it winds up on the dinner table?
There's good and bad to a lot of things. Instead of arbitrarily ruling something is good or bad as a whole, let's find out what's good and make it better, and find out what's bad and friggin' fix the SOB! |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 14:40:57 [Permalink]
|
Isn't the main objection to genetically modified food that such foods are developed so as to to incorporate bacteria that allow the plants to withstand more potent pesticides? That in turn will encourage farmers to use such pesticides thereby allowing greater crop yields?
The downside being that consumers are also eventually exposed to these new pesticides, and the long term effects are not known? |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 19:16:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Is technology allways bad when it comes to feeding our faces?
You make me more glad I can eat what's in my yard rather than buy junk in the market.
Ok, so maybe my orange tree could have been engineered although it was here when I moved in, it's got to be at least 30 years old probably much older. So maybe it skiped the more modren messing around than what we have today.
To answer your question....YES, technology is almost always bad.
We shouldn't be feeding all the world. People should be dying off like nature meant them to do. Just as other animals do when there's not enough to live off of. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2003 : 23:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Snake:
YES, technology is almost always bad.
Everything you own and the way it got to you was by way of one technology or another.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
