On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:56:30 +0200, Tim
wrote:


There you go then - if it's possible for mankind to make a right royal
screw-up by simply "pick 'n mixing" natural varieties, how much
greater is the potential for disaster by forcibly fooling about at the
genetic level.
Clearly there are many interactions that we do not yet understand.

The difference being that "pick-n-mix" cross breeding transfers any number
of unknown genes, whereas a GM organism would have only a very few, well
known, genes transfered.
The difference between the sledge-hammer and scalpel approaches. Which one
is best ?

You see...there it is again... 'any number of unknown genes'.
Precisely my point. If there are 'unknown genes' then there are
unknown properties.

Ever tried crossing a Leek with a Honeysuckle? Had any success?
Most likely not, because somewhere down the line evolution said
'uh-huh, no can do'.

It's interesting that you regard the incredible intricacies of natural
selection as being akin to a 'sledgehammer approach'. I rather feel
that nature's methods make your scalpel look like a blunt sword.

Nature builds on balance - this is why folks who consistently use
pesticides get locked into using them, they create their own
imbalances. Nature doesn't stop working simply because mankind pitches
in with a few crude attempts at tipping the scales - if you leave a
hole, nature will fill it... and not necessarily to your advantage.
Without those unknown genes, how many holes will you create, and what
will fill them?

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk