"Oz" wrote in message
"Oz" wrote in message in reply to...

Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR
resistance,
and a gene added to give RR resistance?

Where it came from and how,

I didn't ask you where it came from, I asked what was the difference in
effect.

No you didn't. Anyway that's one of my worries, the effect of these manmade
mutations as you call them, I don't know the difference in effect,
especially over time.

an unnatural source

It wasn't unnatural, it was a natural mutation.


that I am not yet sure
"Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way.

Why not, nature has been coping with mutations for 1,000,000,000 years.
How much more evidence do you want?

BY the way I notice you avoid answering these questions, I presume
because you have no answer to them.

But this is something new, very new, and whilst you are certain about the
science I'm not yet. Quite simply, I'm a bit more cautious than you mainly
because I don't trust scientists to do what's good for the world, or hold
back untill they have mastered the science fully.

It's something we will have to differ on.


From your replies I
understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that.

I see. 1B years worth of evidence isn't good enough for you.

GM science has not been around for 1b years.


Doubling of genes is not at all unheard of, in fact it's quite common.

And you don't seem to get to grips with the fact that around 999999
out of 1000000 natural mutations are deleterious and most of them
are
removed by selection in subsequent generations.

Will that happen with GM then? No,

Yes. It's a gene like any other.
Only continual selection keeps the genes as you want them for a crop
plant.

Being GM crops (or any crops) these genes will not be allowed to
disappear
by natural selection will they. So your comment was irrevelent.

1) I notice you are evading the question.

Think I answered it fully.

2) To allow crop genes to disappear is trivial. Simply stop growing the
crop.

Well yes that's true, so what I should have said is GM crops will not be
allowed to disappear by natural forces untill the scientists decide to allow
it.


With regard to any escaped GM genes, they could die out or quite the
reverse, they could make the wild plant more suited to it's environment
and
the one with the GM gene would then start to take over ousting the
original
plant.

Quite, and the mechanism is pretty obvious and I already explained it.
Now you explain what scenario in nature makes rr-genes successful in the
wild (that is outside a farmed field).

Why outside a farmed field, that's where it is in it's own nich in nature.
In that nich it will be supreme. Outside it's home teritory it will be in
competition with the non mutated form.


That's one of the old worries about GM.

Only by those who know nothing about nature.

No doubt the GM scientists
are watching those wild Parsley plants in France with great interest.

I await you posting the details.


I think it's time this was brought to a close. You are never going to see my
side of the argument and I'm certainly not ready to see yours, I don't wear
rose coloured glasses and am a suspicious sod by nature.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.