Bob Hobden writes

"
"Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip)
Hardly matters because each species has the opportunity to mutate to
resist whatever pressures are brought to bear. RR ryegrass for example.
Further the number of really new molecules that get used by life is
surprisingly small, just compare haemoglobin and chlorophyll, rhodopsin
and vitamin A for example.

Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the
insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there
naturally?

A gene is a gene. Where it comes from really isn't important.
Genes have always been somewhat promiscuous, many parasites and hosts
exchange genes. If an identical gene is naturally produced or introduced
it doesn't make any odds, the effect is the same.

The main reason for organisms blocking gene transfer is the very low
likelihood of the result being useful (typically infertile). The result
would thus be wasted.

BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused
when
they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen
unexpectedly
and cause unexpected results in the Lab .

Indeed, that's why the plants get screened first. In fact they probably
go through a conventional breeding program as any 'useful gene' does,
with plenty of time to check any aberration. So far I don't think there
is a single example you can point to in the field.

I am sure and indeed hope that there is sufficient study done to ensure
nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree
such things do turn up which rather proves my case.

Lots of mechanical designs go wrong at the design stage. That doesn't
mean you scrap the design completely, normally you refine it to overcome
the problems. Almost nothing (electrical, mechanical, whatever) brought
to market avoids this refining stage. Consequently I cannot see anything
novel or worrying in your argument.

Hybrids are used to STOP farmers saving their seeds.

You mean F1 Hybrids only I assume.

Having a 'crop of sorts' isn't exactly conducive to making a living.

True, but I was thinking mainly about the 3rd world when I wrote that.

Strangely even the 3rd world farmer has to make a living.
Or often in this case, feed their family.
Bit hazardous with a 'crop of sorts', particularly when they starve.

But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach
different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is
controlling this science and why.

No, I think the difference is that you cannot place your knowledge
accurately into the reality of both farming and nature.


Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you
conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM science and why.

Big deal. The car manufacturers 'control' cars, electronics
manufacturers 'control' electronics and drug manufacturers 'control'
drugs. The seed manufacturers get their patents and copyrights ripped
off by 2nd and 3rd world farmers within 12 months.

If that's what you consider 'control' then its an odd use of the word.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.