NNTP-Posting-Host: f-airlock203.esatclear.ie
X-Trace: kermit.esat.net 1065529585 23661 194.145.135.203 (7 Oct 2003 12:26:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:26:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!nntpserve r.com!news2.euro.net!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!diablo.theplanet.net! newsfeed.esat.net!news.esat.net!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52329 uk.rec.gardening:169328 uk.rec.natural-history:17808 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:137302 alt.animals.rights.promotion:14477 uk.business.agricultu131324

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Bob Hobden" wrote:


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.

But lateral gene transfer has been around, proably since before true
cells evolved. Down amongst the protists there isn't a tree of life, its
a web. How do you classify a bacterium with 20% of its genome from this
lineage, 30% from that lineage 45% from this one and sundry genes from
other places? Bacteria with genomes like this exist, just because we
have only recently developed the tools to analyse them does not mean it
hasn't been going on for billions of years.

Human mediated lateral gene transfer (aka GM or GE) is, to evolution not
different from natural lateral transfer. If you wish to argue that it is
then you need to present reasons for any difference. There is nothing
intrinsicly different in the dna a human causes to be transfered from
that transfered by a virus, a bacterium or a sucking insect.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL
Editorial
November 9, 2000
(Don Lovejoy, who has a doctorate in health and human services, is an
educator based in Cranston.)
'..
From soil to superviruses: In 1994, a genetically engineered bacterium
developed to aid in the production of ethanol produced residues that
rendered the land infertile. New crops planted on this soil grew three
inches tall and fell over dead.

The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that ladybugs that had
eaten the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered potatoes died.

The immune system: In 1998, research by Dr. Arpad Pusztai uncovered the
potential for genetically altered DNA to weaken the immune system and
stunt the growth of baby rats.

Monarch butterflies: In May 1999, researchers at Cornell University
discovered that monarch butterflies died unexpectedly from eating milkweed
plants that had been dusted with the pollen of genetically engineered Bt corn.

Pregnant mice: A 1998 study showed that DNA from the food fed to pregnant
mice ended up in their intestinal lining, white blood cells, brain cells, and
their fetuses. This suggests that the genetically engineered DNA in the food
we eat can end up in our own cells.

Honeybees: Last May, a leading European zoologist found the genes from
genetically engineered canola jumped the species barrier and were picked
up by the bacteria in the digestive tracts of bees. This indicates that
antibiotic-resistant genes in genetically engineered foods can cause the
bacteria in our own intestines to mutate into superbugs that cannot be
killed by antibiotics.

Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used by genetic engineers
to trick a cell into accepting and integrating an alien gene into the cell's
own DNA. Some scientists predict that releasing viral promoters into the
gene pool could lead to the creation of superviruses and novel infectious
diseases for organisms at every level of life -- from bacteria to humans.

These are just some of the dangers that are discernible in the premature
marketing of genetically engineered products. The biotech industry is eager
to point to their so-called successes while keeping their failures under raps.
...'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/GenEng.htm