On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:12:40 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

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

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.

I don't quite see what you're aguing about here. Plant breeders do this all
the time.


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'.
That's a very simplistic view of evolution, isn't it?
You and I know there's more to it than that.


It's interesting that you regard the incredible intricacies of natural
selection as being akin to a 'sledgehammer approach'.

I didn't express myself very well there, sorry. The sledgehammer approach
was meant to be applied to artificial breeding, which to a great degree
side-steps natural selection, and replaces it with human, artificial
selection.

In reality I'd say it's more like two buckets of sand being mixed up. So,
what would be less likely to produce any great unexpected changes - mixing
2 buckets of sand, or just swapping a couple of grains over?

Natural selection can only work on variety. This variety is created by
mixing and remixing the available genes. A little ramdom input from
occasional mutations adds some novel variation as well, but it's a small
part. Mix everything up and see what survives. A simplification, perhaps,
but that's the backbone of the theory of natural selection.


I rather feel that nature's methods make your scalpel look like a blunt
sword.
It's not MY scalpel. If you just fuse germ cells, as happend in the
development of modern wheat strains for exaple, who knows what you're
making? Reduce the number of changes being made, and you have more chance
of finding any problems.


Nature builds on balance - this is why folks who consistently use
pesticides get locked into using them, they create their own
imbalances.

I can't agree with you more. Bit hardly relevant to the topic is it?

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?
But we're not talking about building organisms from scratch, where there
would be huge great holes all over the genome. We're talking about taking a
whole genome and adding/changing just one or two genes.


Tim.