On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:06:24 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:35:09 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:42:19 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

.. GM methods are infinitely faster then conventional methods
for introducing many genes not already in the seed stock.

;^)

You mean, like, a drill is infinitely faster than putty for
drilling a hole?

?

You mean, like, a rocket is infinitely faster transport to
the moon than a car?

That's not quite true. It is probably possible to induce a mutation for
round up resistance and find it in a crop. It is probably true for BT
protein genes as testing for them would take so long that it would be
impossible to find.

I think you got it now. Good! What would 'method Y infinitely faster
than X' practically mean anyway, if not 'by method Y possible,
whereas with X not'.

So, if the difference is one of possibility, why did you express it in
terms of speed?

As I remember how this came by, first you said GM seeds can be
developed in a short time. But, then we found Novartis had said that
GM does not reduce development time of new varieties, but rather
increases it. So, we were in a way talking about relative speed there.

However, you were pressed on this issue, so you sought to leap to
examples of transgenesis rather outside the scope of conventional
breeding, but made possible by GM, while expressing this as
demonstrating that GM is in some way 'infinitely faster' than
conventional methods.

Round up resistance could be found by spraying with
Round Up and seeing if anything lives.

But, not if it is not there in the first place. I should not need to
educate you on the difference between 'finding' and 'introducing'.