| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Loptr  |
(I probably sound like an idiot asking this...) Isn't this a sort of equilibrium difference? In a natural process, the equilibrium will be
maintained, while if you specifically introduce a gene you are essentially pushing the equilibrium favorably to one side?
|
I'm not sure what you're asking exactly, but populations genetics can shift, at the most extreme towards speciation, in 3 classical ways: sympatric,
allopatric, and parapatric speciation.
Inserting a gene may be an extreme form of indel mutation (or not, if you consider a virus), but any risk of introducing a genetically modified
organism mirrors the typical problem of invasive species today. These species are thought to have emerged from any one of those 3 classical speciation
event types.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Loptr | I realize that changes take place and the genetics of an organism are going to very over generations. However, what I am not clear about is how
effective the changes typically are across generations, as compared to deliberate introduction of a specific functional change to a genome, which is
known to accomplish XYZ in the original organism. Isn't it possible that such a cherry picked change is more likely to have a greater effect on the
target organism, than say those generational changes you mention?
|
The evidence doesn't seem to bear this out at all.
I believe that with "genetics of an organism are going to vary over generations" you're referring to 'natural' variations and not man-made ones? But
what about the latter ones, where huge chunks of genomes get reshuffled by various cross-breeding methods? Why a priori assume these would
have less 'impact' (unintended consequences, if you prefer) than the quite pin-point insertions used in transgenetic methods?
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Please pardon my obvious ignorance.
Would it not be the case that the matrix of Life would be more likely to be able to respond to a mutant species that mutated in the same Environment
that the rest of life did ?
Introduce, say Gasoline into a wasps' nest and they tend to die a lot, as they never had such an environmental evolutionary pressure exerted, ever
(light it and they die more).
Having said that, Life is so accustomed to change and adaptation, it would most likely respond in a way that kept it alive.
My only worry is that Life generally would find a way to exclude Human Life from that matrix as a solution to whatever threat(s) we introduce.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Exactly! Most of aren't! So we are "forced" to rely on the experts opinions. We still have the right to question it, to be critical to it but we can't
simply dismiss it without evidence.
I'm not saying I trust science blindly, we KNOW it can miss and mess up badly. But the method works nevertheless. It is our only working model of
reality that has anything to show for it.
Are there any potential problems with GMO? Sure, as it it with any technology. But the same goes for NOT doing it. The wrong antibiotic can kill a
person, but not using them would kill millions if not billions.
You have to look at both the pros and the cons, if GMOs weren't fundamentally useful we wouldn't be having this discussion?
And no, I'm not saying the politics and economics surrounding GMOs are all good, but can't you at least see the potential when it comes to
feeding our growing population? This isn't just about our food, it's about food for everyone.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
GMOs are certainly useful in the Lab.
How is GM Food useful apart from $ ?
More exactly, is GM food actually doing anything Good anywhere ?
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen |
Exactly! Most of aren't! So we are "forced" to rely on the experts opinions. We still have the right to question it, to be critical to it but we can't
simply dismiss it without evidence. |
Completely agreed, and I don't consider myself a nutritional or crop expert at all. I have a good background in understanding things about them, but I
will defer to experts where applicable. Clearly everyone can have an opinion, but an analysis should come from fact.
Aga, GMO proponents believe GMO food can alleviate world hunger by growing closer to sources of poverty, making trans-national shipment less of a
logistical issue.
Also http://www.goldenrice.org/
Nutritional deficiency alleviation is a goal of some projects. So money is not the only goal, but money is indicative of a market demand for a good or
service, otherwise no one would pay.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Almost none of the food we eat is not the result of intensive cross-breeding over hundreds or thousands of years. Would you call a modern carrot
'good'? Or 'bad'? Clearly people buy them. Even allotment-grown varieties (usually lower crop yield varieties and reportedly tastier) aren't
substantially different from cash crop types. I'm not sure 'good' or 'bad' are useful terms here but surely no one advocates returning to the root
vegetables from which they were originally developed?
Did you read the story linked to upstairs about how corn and humans are essentially in a symbiotic relationship?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1048800...
[Edited on 22-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
Genetically modified/selectively bred crops:
-Don't taste as good as more traditional ones(they are bred for size and color)
-Don't contain as many nutrients
-Provide a distinct advantage to supercorporations that can afford such research, edging out the little guy
I say allow genetic engineering of produce while setting nutritional standards for all GMOs, and ban the patenting of genes or crop strains.
Nationalizing the agriculture industry might do some good, too, so that profit isn't the main motivation for providing food to the population.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Amos | Genetically modified/selectively bred crops:
-Don't taste as good as more traditional ones(they are bred for size and color)
-Don't contain as many nutrients
|
Do you care to put up even a scintilla of evidence for these claims, in particular the more easily quantifiable second one? Remember that this is
supposed to be a forum about science, not the op ed pages of some anti-GM blogger...
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Amos | Genetically modified/selectively bred crops:
-Don't taste as good as more traditional ones(they are bred for size and color) |
If this is true, then they probably won't monopolize the market. (Of course this is silly because all crops are selectively bred, whether by natural
selection or horticultural. Seedless grapes? Watermelon?)
| Quote: | | -Don't contain as many nutrients |
Source? Because currently the FDA seems to disagree: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/uc...
As does UC Davis: http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=11038
| Quote: | | -Provide a distinct advantage to supercorporations that can afford such research, edging out the little guy |
Wealthy people, corporations, and governments always have an economic advantage over less wealthy ones. Return on investment may be less, which makes
the company far less appealing to shareholders, but this is not anything new. Whether the process entails planting lots of foodstock to select for
traits or splicing a gene into a foodcrop, it's easier when you're wealthy. As for what defines "supercorporation" that is a new one on me. Is there
some kind of capital requirement or asset/debt ratio involved in that title?
[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4280
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Amos | Genetically modified/selectively bred crops:
-Don't taste as good as more traditional ones(they are bred for size and color)
-Don't contain as many nutrients |
This is much more a problem with selectively bred crops than genetically engineered ones. The Red Delicious apple? Selectively bred to turn red
early, so that it looks good in the store. Sure, it tastes like crap, but it's still one of the most produced apples in North America. But genetic
engineering had nothing to do with it.
If you want to blame anything for such things, blame industrial agriculture.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
It could be. See golden rice. People fight against legalization of this not because it's bad, but just because it could lead to more acceptance of GMOs.
Ridiculous.
Also this thread is scaring me. Amos, ISC, guys, come on. Most anti-GMO rhetoric is on about the same level as that of homeopaths, both claiming
marvelous effects from nonexistent sources.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu |
It could be. See golden rice. People fight against legalization of this not because it's bad, but just because it could lead to more acceptance of GMOs.
Ridiculous.
Also this thread is scaring me. Amos, ISC, guys, come on. Most anti-GMO rhetoric is on about the same level as that of homeopaths, both claiming
marvelous effects from nonexistent sources. |
We should be focusing on something real like Psychic surgery.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu |
Also this thread is scaring me. Amos, ISC, guys, come on. Most anti-GMO rhetoric is on about the same level as that of homeopaths, both claiming
marvelous effects from nonexistent sources. |
My favourite is probably 'Urotherapy':
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/UT/Urine.aspx
Beats homeopathy in wackiness, pants down (no pun)!
Also available in cow-variety, for the really adventurous...
[Edited on 22-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
Just this title "Urotherapy is an Acclaimed Traditional Method of Healing with Urine" was enough of a read for me.
I don't believe Pee is good for too many things.
Now Feca Theropy on the other hand...
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Looks more like UroThrappy to me.
Anyway, back to the Science maybe ?
I have accumulated 20 minutes of Scientific Data, gathered under controlled conditions, that proves that my genome will do no harm ever.
(it's a lie, but roll with it)
Does that mean that releasing my Genome into the Wild will be OK every time over it's interactions with Others out there over the next 50 years ?
GM may be Scientific, yet so New as to have little provenance, therefore insufficient Proof to said to be 'safe' in any sense.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Do we have reason to believe the horticultural crops out there today won't "do harm" with their genome (not sure what that means)? What mechanism for
harm do you expect?
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | | GM may be Scientific, yet so New as to have little provenance, therefore insufficient Proof to said to be 'safe' in any sense. |
Repeating the same falsehood doesn't somehow make it true all of a sudden, aga.
That question has already been dealt with.
No amount of research can provide the 100.000 % answer as regards the safety of any given technology. But extensive testing can provide
reasonable answers regards the safety of a 'new' technology. GM technology, BTW, is hardly new.
You use (air)planes all the time, in the knowledge that by and large the technology is very safe but also in the knowledge that plane disasters do
occur. For GM you seem to demand other standards, possibly inspired by your repeated use of the word 'wild'.
GM crops are no more 'in the wild' than your garden variety carrot. And DNA doesn't just 'jump' from species to species in that largely imaginary
'matrix of life' you mentioned earlier.
Arguments of the 'it hasn't been tested enough' variety continue to be used ad infinitum by 'sceptics' in all kind of fields, e.g. 'mobile
phones may cause brain tumours' (despite there being not a shred of evidence supporting that claim). It's difficult to satisfy those who not only are
poorly qualified to be judges but also tend to lazily cherry-pick 'evidence' that supports their claims, while ignoring more mainstream and
established science.
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
They have been doing this for a long time.
As I remember those Bio Steel or Spider Goats went back to the 70's. Same w/ the cloned sheep, and countless other examples.
Lots of crops, lots of insects, mammals, fish, ect.
I can honestly state that I have never seen a directly relate-able issue or cause for mass concern.
Now I'm going to take this conversation backwards 400 years. American bred slaves!
lots of folks comment on how or why professional sports athletes in the US are predominantly of African American descent.
Don't take this the wrong way but it is a direct result of Bio Engineering. The term used then was, selective breeding.
This whole topic is nothing new.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga |
Does that mean that releasing my Genome into the Wild will be OK every time over it's interactions with Others out there over the next 50 years ?
|
This is just an indirect way of asking us if it's a good idea for you to procreate... If you need to ask perhaps a chemistry forum isn't the best
place to do so.
The arguments that GMO's have some sort of inherent competitive advantage over wild ecological species and therefore pose a danger to them are
fundamentally untrue.
The basis of evolution is the alteration of a species genome geared specifically towards increasing that species ability to survive and reproduce in
it's environment. Genetic modification invariably requires deleting or replacing a gene in that organism with one that has been chosen for a
completely different purpose. If the resulting organism was still capable of reproducing with it's wild type parent strains, the changes it has
undergone will inherently make it less survivable and continued cross reproduction will produce generations progressively less likely to include the
inferior genes.
It would require a targetted and fairly significant modification intentionally focused to achieve that purpose in order to be an honest threat. Even
then, it's fairly unlikely most evil scientist's creations will work without years of trial and error.
Evolution has just got so much of an advantage over us in it's ability to chose what variations give the most effective advantages for the resulting
generations.
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by Mesa]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mesa | This is just an indirect way of asking us if it's a good idea for you to procreate... If you need to ask perhaps a chemistry forum isn't the best
place to do so.
|
Alternatively, if you come across a genome wandering 'in the wild', you know who to U2U!
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Top 10 consumer questions on GMOs:
https://gmoanswers.com/studies/top-10-consumer-questions
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
Wow, guys, way to jump to conclusions here and label me as anti-GMO when I clearly said nothing of the sort. As DraconicAcid pointed
out, yes, I suppose what I am far more against is the general practice of industrial agriculture and the concept that what we put into our bodies was
given no second thought by the people that produced it other than the profit margin they can skim off it.
Factory-farmed fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, etc. do not taste nearly as good as the stuff you can grow at home or find at a farmer's market.
Supermarket tomatoes will never touch a good heirloom variety. I have no clue why anyone would every ask for sources on this; what do you think all of
the country's best restaurants are shifting towards, and where have your taste buds been your whole life? My source is that I have a functioning
tongue. Chemosynthesis says that if todays mass-produced, brightly-colored produce actually didn't taste as good as that from old
strains grown on small farms, it wouldn't sell. Of course it sells! It's cheaper, more easily distributed to large grocers, and more importantly, the
majority of the population has seldom ever tasted really good food.
As for whether or not agricultural products today are less nutritious than they were decades ago, I was mainly quoting a National Geographic article
that I had read a little while ago. I can hear all the scoffs and jeering already. But as it turns out, they aren't the only ones that say this:
http://news.utexas.edu/2004/12/01/nr_chemistry
That article references this study, which follows the decline of nutrients in vegetables and some fruits since 1950, using findings by the USDA(a third party that has no
direct role in this research and would have no reason to fudge the facts). If anyone wants to poke holes in this research, I'm all ears; I would
actually love to change my mind and believe that we haven't all been put at a disadvantage when compared to past generations.
My third point, which stated that practices like genetic modification give vastly wealthy corporations even more ability to crush competition from
smaller farms and businesses, was not said as a way of attacking the practice of genetic engineering. It was more my way of saying "this is great
technology, but it's not being put to good use for the betterment of mankind". The more comfortable agricultural giants become in their ability to
eliminate competition, the less they have to worry about what they're feeding us. If you fall on the right(as opposed to left) side of the aisle
economically, you probably think otherwise.
Genetic engineering is a fascinating technology with enormous potential, and it may end up a regular part of my job(I'm a bioengineering student) in
a few years. There are so many applications for it in the agricultural industry it could be used for, but at the moment, the only focus seems to be on
producing more crops and bigger ones. And it's being done by the kinds of people that time and time again have shown that money comes first, not
public health or safety.
Will I buy GMO produce in stores, at least for now? Absolutely; I don't think it's going to cause any genetic damage(lol) or other harm to me. But one
day that apple from the supermarket just might not taste good enough to keep me from switching entirely over to farmer's markets or small local
stores. And I don't want those farmer's markets to be gone because Monsanto's put them out of business. Nor do I want government standards on
pesticide safety relaxed because none of the ones deemed safe work anymore to deter pests. I merely think that genetic engineering should be done
delicately, transparently, and without the option of patenting specific genes or sequences.
Edit: One more thing, I'm in no way against selective breeding, just the way it is usually carried out that makes food superficially look better while
potentially sacrificing taste or requiring them to use more or stronger pesticides. Negligence on the part of at least one biotech company MIGHT be
killing off huge numbers of honey bees: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/15/us-usda-honeybees-...
[Edited on 4-23-2015 by Amos]
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | ISCGora:
I do have concerns about GMOs with regards to potential monopolisations of food supplies by a few very large corporations.
[Edited on 21-4-2015 by blogfast25] |
There we go, this pretty much sums up what I was trying to say in a third of my original post.
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: Originally posted by Amos | Wow, guys, way to jump to conclusions here and label me as anti-GMO when I clearly said nothing of the sort. As DraconicAcid pointed
out, yes, I suppose what I am far more against is the general practice of industrial agriculture and the concept that what we put into our bodies was
given no second thought by the people that produced it other than the profit margin they can skim off it.
|
We didn't label you as anti-GMO, we just pointed out how the statements you made in your post displayed a complete lack of understanding of the
subject, and unwillingness to do the basic research required to provide evidence for your argument.
Your point about businesses motivated by profit leading toward less healthy GMO's would have a shred of legitimacy if not for the fact that the bulk
of the GMO's being researched and developed are done by academic institutions on government funded grants. Coles/Tesco etc. aren't exactly famous for
sponsoring scientific research projects.
| Quote: |
Factory-farmed fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, etc. do not taste nearly as good as the stuff you can grow at home or find at a farmer's market.
Supermarket tomatoes will never touch a good heirloom variety. I have no clue why anyone would every ask for sources on this; what do you think all of
the country's best restaurants are shifting towards, and where have your taste buds been your whole life? My source is that I have a functioning
tongue. Chemosynthesis says that if todays mass-produced, brightly-colored produce actually didn't taste as good as that from old
strains grown on small farms, it wouldn't sell. Of course it sells! It's cheaper, more easily distributed to large grocers, and more importantly, the
majority of the population has seldom ever tasted really good food.
|
Case in point.
Farmers markets are swapmeets where commercial farmers sell their day to day produce. The same farmers that generate the bulk of their income
supplying produce to retail outlets.
Do you honestly believe that they can make an adequate living from the money they earn from their 2 day per week stalls?
| Quote: |
As for whether or not agricultural products today are less nutritious than they were decades ago, I was mainly quoting a National Geographic article
that I had read a little while ago. I can hear all the scoffs and jeering already. But as it turns out, they aren't the only ones that say this:
http://news.utexas.edu/2004/12/01/nr_chemistry
That article references this study, which follows the decline of nutrients in vegetables and some fruits since 1950, using findings by the USDA(a third party that has no
direct role in this research and would have no reason to fudge the facts). If anyone wants to poke holes in this research, I'm all ears; I would
actually love to change my mind and believe that we haven't all been put at a disadvantage when compared to past generations.
|
Yep, you've managed to find quite a well written article on how standard farming practices that have nothing to do with genetic engineering have
resulted in lower quality food. Uhh... Thanks?
| Quote: |
My third point, which stated that practices like genetic modification give vastly wealthy corporations even more ability to crush competition from
smaller farms and businesses, was not said as a way of attacking the practice of genetic engineering. It was more my way of saying "this is great
technology, but it's not being put to good use for the betterment of mankind". The more comfortable agricultural giants become in their ability to
eliminate competition, the less they have to worry about what they're feeding us. If you fall on the right(as opposed to left) side of the aisle
economically, you probably think otherwise.
|
Again, a point that even basic research would have revealed to be untrue.
A lot of the GMO's that have passed the required regulations and are ready for large scale production are available to all registered farmers through
the national seedbanks. There are government run conferences every 6 months intended to provide as much information as possible on any new strains
and their applications. My family is heavily involved in the sugar cane industry and I've been to a couple of them myself.
Edit: I'm looking through the BBcode of this post and I can't find where the hell the unpaired quote tag is that's screwing up this post 
[Edited on 23-4-2015 by Mesa] |
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
