Billy writes:
In article , wrote:
Billy writes:
In article , wrote:
Billy writes:
In article , wrote:
Billy writes:
Why indeed. Logic, you know, is only as good as it's premise. Either you
are an savant among gardeners and Monsanto has hired an ill informed
bunch of recombinant geneticists , or something is missing from your
knowledge of selection. Which do you think is more likely?
Savant I'm not. Savant isn't required.
How do I know that size and yield are genetic traits?
Because of the numerous times we've already selected for yield.
Why didn't the producers of GMOs do that; create GMOs with higher
yields? You would think that would have been a strong economic reason
for farmers to convert to GMOs instead of spending more on Round Up and
killing what little topsoil that is left.
The Wikipedia article cites apparent instances for GMO improving yield.
I'm guessing that you are unconditionally opposed to any use of GMO.
Is that why you won't concede that GMO _might_ induce a beneficial trait?
Seems like slippery ice to me.
Either it can induce change or it can't.
I think you're mostly opposed to GMO because you worry that it will
induce change. Too much change.
To also hold that it can't induce any beneficial change doesn't seem
rational.