"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe
****
From: "Moosh:]"
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture
Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Message-ID:
Lines: 89
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT
[...]
In the junk DNA there is just about
everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted
over the aeons.
[...]
****

That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for
turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point.
Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to
have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all
your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change
(antibiotics) , you will outcompete them.

But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the
junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes
ears and advanced emotions by mutation?

What if some thing that are now blue turn green on August 5th, 2005 and we
have a new color bleen, blue that turns to green.

You stabbing in the dark about thing you have no knowledge of. Do you trust
propaganda machines more than scientist that spend their lives working in a
field?

Gordon

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe
****
From: "Moosh:]"
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture
Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Message-ID:
Lines: 89
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT
[...]
In the junk DNA there is just about
everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted
over the aeons.
[...]
****

That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for
turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point.
Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to
have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all
your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change
(antibiotics) , you will outcompete them.

But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the
junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes
ears and advanced emotions by mutation?

What if some thing that are now blue turn green on August 5th, 2005 and we
have a new color bleen, blue that turns to green.

You stabbing in the dark about thing you have no knowledge of. Do you trust
propaganda machines more than scientist that spend their lives working in a
field?

I am not stabbing in the dark, I am trying to get Moosh:] thinking.

Linkname: Molecular Genetic Engineers in Junk DNA?
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MGEJ.php
size: 183 lines
[...]
Perhaps only 1% of the human genome codes for genes, and that's what
the human genome map contains. The rest is mainly repetitive DNA,
commonly known as `junk DNA'.

However, evidence has been emerging that lurking within junk DNA are
armies of transposons (mobile genetic elements) that play an
indispensable role in `natural genetic engineering' the genome. They
make up nearly half of the human genome, and serve as `recombination
hotspots' for cutting and splicing, and hence reshuffling the genome.
They are also a source of ready to use motifs for gene expression, as
well as new protein-coding sequences.

These important transposons are scattered throughout the genome. There
are two main categories: Long Interspersed Elements (LINEs) about 6.7
kilobasepairs in length and Short Interspersed Elements (SINEs) of
several hundred basepairs.

The most abundant SINEs are Alu elements, of which 1.4 million copies
exist, comprising 10% of the human genome, and are apparently only
found in primates.

[...]
There is increasing evidence that physical and chemical stresses to
the cell, such as heat shock, chemical poisons and viral infections,
tend to activate Alu elements. The resultant gene reshuffling may be
responsible for a variety of chronic diseases (see "Dynamic genomics
", this series).

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:16:30 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:32:15 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:42:54 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:25:11 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:30 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:59:36 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:06:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:02:44 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:06:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
.. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim.
"Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word.

Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants,
while referencing that information to a source which
says in some plants it remains bloody intact.

"Bloodywell intact", Torsten, try to be grammatical

Hello? There is inconsistency between your claim and
the source to which you reference it. Deal with it.

See below. Oh, and see the smiley. Are you a Fin?

John Riley, is that you?

Nope. Who's he?

Never mind who he is. He used the same smiley, and knitted
like a madwoman, much like you do.

There's someone over on one of the bike groups with that name IIRC.
Dunno about the knitting,

It is a very personal thing put words together -- you know, like
a voice, fingerprints, or DNA profile. Your word-knitting
is much like that of the John Riley I refer to, or should I
say close to identical.

Perhaps he is an Australian like me? I see several Australians
responding to Americans on different groups, and it sometimes seems to
me as though I wrote their messages. My name is Jack Lawson, if it's
helpful to you

but smilies are pretty common. I copied this
one from seeing it used by others. It's the easiest to type

It is not regarded as
persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was
amongst these.

Well, what can one say.

That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC.
Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of
references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes.
Can you mention any harm from glyphosate?

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:34:29 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a
pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a
cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on.
I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is
always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in.
You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and
powerful that can fund you for a three month strike.

in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't.

I understand this, but what always amazes me is that supermarkets
don't vote.

Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible would
lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if
they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see
what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of the
outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms)
In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the supermarkets
were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in the
country to stand a two week break in supply.

Yes, I believe London has only a short survival time if food imports
are cut.

On 28 Jul 2003 16:29:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC.
Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of
references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes.
Can you mention any harm from glyphosate?



Linkname: Glyphosate Factsheet (part 2 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of
Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00
URL:

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...sheet-Cox2.htm

Look at the source. "Pesticide Reform". Nuff said.

But then look at some of the graphs here. Most misleading. Wouldn't
pass the editor of any reputable journal.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
posted:

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you don't
have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green propaganda.

But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by
scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches

The USDA experiment stations are not in Monsanto's clutches nor are the US
farmers. We buy what works. In face most seed breeders at universities are
very bitter about the loss of public funding for crop breeding and if there
is a bias it would be ageist private breeders.

Monsanto's main problem is they didn't have a public relation effort on the
benefits of GM crops for anything but the bottom line of the farmer. They
should have capitalized on the reduction of erosion, insecticide use and use
of less toxic herbicides and their positive effect on the environment.

I agree, but must say that I've heard of lots of advantages of GM,
often from the greenies saying that it is false

The whole scientific world was caught off guard by the lies that the green
lobby used to line their pockets at the expense of the environment they
claim to be protecting.

I understand that the US public were reasonably accepting of the
technology until, the European "Frankenfoods" scare campaign came to
town.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:42:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
..GM crops .. reduction of erosion

Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift
to conservation tillage in USA.

Who claims this myth? What exactly is the definition of "conservation
tillage"?

Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to
2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation
tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %.

And is it done better and easier with Roundup application?
It certainly makes a lot more marginal area usable in Australia.

Over the same period the percentage of cropland in
intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %.

As conservation tillage is likely to be done where necessary,
regardless of the consequences, the pertinent point is surely the
efficiency of being able to do it, where necessary, with modern
technology.

USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage
in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres
in conservation tillage.

Maybe rainfall, and different crops can avoid temporarily the need for
conservation tilling. The net erosion and profit from land is surely
the kicker.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:01:40 +0100, Oz
posted:

Moosh:] writes
Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a
pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a
cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on.
I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is
always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in.
You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and
powerful that can fund you for a three month strike.

Illegal under uk law.

Well yes, so are many strikes. We just had an illegal bus strike here.
Worked out with a little win for the drivers who were being screwed
into the ground by the British company who bought the govt contract
recently. Illegal makes for good publicity, so long as it isn't
pollitically too dangerous for the authorities to "take the farm" so
to speak.

See cartels.

Cartels, Schmartels

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:34:29 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a
pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a
cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on.
I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is
always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in.
You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and
powerful that can fund you for a three month strike.

in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't.

I understand this, but what always amazes me is that supermarkets
don't vote.


farmers are now an insignificant proportion of the electorate in the UK, in
any constituency. So you can ignore them and just stuff the party coffers
with supermarket funds


Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible
would
lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if
they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see
what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of
the
outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms)
In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the
supermarkets
were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in
the
country to stand a two week break in supply.

Yes, I believe London has only a short survival time if food imports
are cut.


I suspect very few major cities actually have meaningful food stocks.How
many public authorities actually do have any food stockpile?
Jim Webster

On 29 Jul 2003 08:52:24 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 25 Jul 2003 15:01:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

The Organic folk would not accept it if it were
properly labelled as GM.

I suspect they are so desperate for permitted pesticides, that they
don't want to know

Label it and find out.

It's not up to me. Talk to the regulator. I believe that there is so
much lies and ignorance about re GM, that labelling one way or the
other is a moot point. Perhaps the Organic crew accept this GMO, as it
is not food. They are very pragmatic when it suits. Afterall, at base,
it is just a commercial venture.

They would use the non-GM sort.

Then they may be restricted from the various BTs that target different
insects. Not sure which are GM, but there are BT chemicals for
mosquitoes and so on.

An dsupposed usefulness is at the cost of extra risk.

What extra risk?

All you have to
be amazed about is the labelling issue.

No, the hypocrisy of Organic growers trying to bend their rather silly
rules to accept what they need. Ferinstance, there are many safe
fungicides, but organic folk only permit the toxic and very persistant
heavy metal, mined, copper salts. Go figure.

Copper is an essential trace element.

So is manganese which is killing many pine plantations. The toxicity
(or nutrient value) is in the dose.

It is part of the respiratory enzyme
ceruloplasmin.
Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it
only has a limited useful life.

Now that it is present perpetually, whether really needed or not, you are
right.

Well it is that by use of the protein powder by agriculture and the
home gardener.

No, because when GE'd into a crop it is present all the time, though
gradually fading in strenght as the crop matures.

But it is present whenever the caterpillars are present in the garden
or crop. When there is no plant predatiojn, there is no resistance
occurring.

As we discussed with DDT, anything used for too long breeds resistant
creatures.

So? The point is that the use of BT in the plant and on the plant is
hardly different. When the insects are not present, they can't be
developing resistance.

When the pesticide is interrupted then resistance to it is no
longer an advantage.

And the pest destroys your crop, and you go bankrupt.

So the non-resistant ones grow again and oust the
resistant ones.

Why do they? The resistant ones could just as easily oust the
non-resistant ones, if there are any left.

Then DDT will work again, or Bt. But if it is there all
the time resistance to it remains an advantage for pests.

Sorry, "there all the time" means nothing if the pests are not there.
It might as well be withdrawn if the pests are absent.
No contact, no advantage for the resistant mutations.

When home gardners use it, or non-GM soy farmers &c, it is only present as
needed, then disappears.

And why does it matter if it's there or not, if the pests aren't
predating the crop?

There are always a few about, from the mandatory refuges, or other crops
near by.

But how does this matter? The chances of a resistance mutation are so
much lower.

New specific pesticides will be
developed.

Which we do not know the problems with.

Same problems as with BT. Have you heard of testing?
Happens all the time.

So the Bt crop suppliers, who are ruining it, should be paying for the
research for something new organic.

They are, all the time. They developed BT, so why shouldn't they use
it, and develop further selective pesticides. BTW, who says they are
ruining anything?

They didn't invent the original stuff. They `developed' it.

Same thing.

In other words
they are in a marketing mode.

How else could it be done?

As Gordon says all that is wanted is money.

Without it, nothing will be achieved. No crop growth even.

In that respect the farmers are at the mercy of the `developers'.

Just as the consumers are at the mercy of the farmers. That's
commerce.

When
resistance develops then there are recommended packages of pesticides to
go with the product.

Which product? When resistance develops to one insecticide, another
must be used.

With spider mites, three classes of miticide were used in rotation as
each one developed reistance, and the one furthest away used has
regained its effectiveness.

Or when the plants are expending so much energy
producing Bt all throughout them that they have less for fighting the
other pests.

Get real. The plants produce hundreds if not more proteins for no
other purpose than to deter pests. One little BT protein is neither
here nor there. Didn't seem to worry the bacillus that made it in the
first place.

And the produce will probably not
sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally.

Only because the public has been hoodwinked into believing that
Organic is somehow better.

It is.

No evidence that it is.

More per acre,

Less per acre, because nutrients can't be replaced.

better antioxidants for nutrition,

Exactly the same for identical strains, grown in identical conditions,
and harvested at the same stage of ripeness, according to all properly
done comparisons.

less chemical cost,

That's why the yield is less, and nutrition gets poorer and poorer.
The soil nutrients can't be replaced.

the
only extra cost is a little more manpower and we needs jobs anyway.

Sorry, that does not provide for the nutrients needed to replace the
ones removed in the harvested crop.

Why buy corn with Bt protein in it?

To get a pest free crop, without having to spray, thus saving much
fossil fuel needed in applying the sprays a number of times.

I am talking about poeple who are looking for someting to eat.

Get to it before the insects do!

Why do they
want to eat Bt protein right throughout the plant,

It's as good as any other mixture of amino acids.

whereas the organic
producers sprayed it on the surface of the plant only if needed and it
dispersed again before eating?

And how is it harmful to humans? What is the witholding time on food
crops?

Why buy paste made from tomato which keeps longer, but with no guarantee
about the nutritional qualities lasting in proportion?

Huh? Tomato past is hardly a staple. It's a flavouring or a spice IME.
Does it matter if a bit of any nutrient in it disappears?

It has important nutrients for people eating `hamburgers' &c whatever you
call those meat filled bread buns for a meal. The few vegetable things in
them may the only source of vitamin C.

Tomatoes on hamburgers here. Nutritionists have labelled hamburgers as
quite nutritious, actually.

On 29 Jul 2003 23:31:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 12:45:08 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
To my knowledge they only test people with protein that they expect the GM
plant to make. The actual plant could have the engineered promoters
switching on other genes, causing troubles you would not be looking for.

And do they look for unintended effects from mutations and cross
pollinating?

Possibly not as thoroughly as they ought. But those are not being applied
to such a wide sector of people as RR & Bt stuff, which goes to nearly
everyone in North America.

Mutations and cross pollinations go on constantly every minute in
every corn field in the world.

When the tryptophan from GE sources killed some people it might not have
been discovered if the symptoms were similar to some other lethal
but fairly common disease.

But that tryptophan affair was nothing to do with GE.

If the govt thought that lack of purification could cause such a terrible
thing what have they done about preventing future such things?

Applied factory/product safety regulations?

Linkname: The Thalidomide of Genetic Engineering
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/tryptophan.php
size: 199 lines
Linkname: Speech by Jeanette Fitzsimons in Urgent debate on GE
decision - 30OCT2001
URL: http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/ge-news/rcgm1o30.htm
size: 258 lines

The Royal Commission has been lauded by some as balanced, thorough,
informed, and many other plaudits. This was the same Royal Commission
which told the representative of oneorganisation, before they had even
made their presentation, that the Commission had already made their
decision and it would be the Great NZ compromise.
The same organisation, after handing in their written submission much
earlier, found there was an error and asked to correct it. They were
told it didn't matter as "no-one was going to read it anyway".
In fact the Commission disregarded a great deal of evidence which did
not support its conclusions and made numerous errors of fact - for
example in its reporting and assessment of evidence about the
poisoning of thousands by GE tryptophan

Sounds like grasping at straws -- after their key witness a few years
ago was charged with falsifying evidence?
The tryptophan poisoning had nothing to do with GE.

I can
list several cases of food stuffs that case harm bred with conventional
methods an you can't list a single one with GM methods.

They get withdrawn if they cause trouble that is plain obvious.

Just like foods from plant mutations and cross-pollinating, only these
are more likely

Who is doing studies comparing recent health changes in countries with GM
food compared to countries with non-GM? Who is ready for what may show up
in the next generation?

Health is always being monitored by hundreds of thousands of health
professionals. Have you got ANY evidence of any problems?

On 30 Jul 2003 10:28:05 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe
****
From: "Moosh:]"
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture
Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Message-ID:
Lines: 89
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT
[...]
In the junk DNA there is just about
everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted
over the aeons.
[...]
****

That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for
turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point.
Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to
have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all
your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change
(antibiotics) , you will outcompete them.

But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the
junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes
ears and advanced emotions by mutation?

The latter is as simple as falling off a log. The former is far more
complex. What is your proposed mechanism for sorting through the
sequences to find something suitable? What criteria would the search
engine use?

Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are
getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of
hosts
you just find more

Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last
one of the previous species.

which isn't a problem, those who prey on only one species are very much a
minority

Lots of viruses tend to be specific to certain classes of hosts.

Calici haemorrhagic disease jumped to rabbits in 1970s in China, though I
don't know why.

Using pig organs in humans in concert with GM is a risk that pig viruses
will jump and spread through the human population.

What on earth does GM have to do with this? It happens whether or not,
surely.

Because GM enables more horizontal gene transfer outwitting the past
regulatory mechanisms.

Why does it enable more horizontal gene transfer?
What regulatory mechanisms?
This is just speculation, with no firm basis.

On 31 Jul 2003 01:42:57 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe
****
From: "Moosh:]"
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture
Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Message-ID:
Lines: 89
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT
[...]
In the junk DNA there is just about
everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted
over the aeons.
[...]
****

That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for
turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point.
Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to
have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all
your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change
(antibiotics) , you will outcompete them.

But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the
junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes
ears and advanced emotions by mutation?

What if some thing that are now blue turn green on August 5th, 2005 and we
have a new color bleen, blue that turns to green.

You stabbing in the dark about thing you have no knowledge of. Do you trust
propaganda machines more than scientist that spend their lives working in a
field?

I am not stabbing in the dark, I am trying to get Moosh:] thinking.

You're not going to convince anyone with propaganda and fringe
science, and wild speculation. You must become far more
discriminating.


Linkname: Molecular Genetic Engineers in Junk DNA?
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MGEJ.php
size: 183 lines
[...]
Perhaps only 1% of the human genome codes for genes, and that's what
the human genome map contains. The rest is mainly repetitive DNA,
commonly known as `junk DNA'.

However, evidence has been emerging that lurking within junk DNA are
armies of transposons (mobile genetic elements) that play an
indispensable role in `natural genetic engineering' the genome. They
make up nearly half of the human genome, and serve as `recombination
hotspots' for cutting and splicing, and hence reshuffling the genome.
They are also a source of ready to use motifs for gene expression, as
well as new protein-coding sequences.

These important transposons are scattered throughout the genome. There
are two main categories: Long Interspersed Elements (LINEs) about 6.7
kilobasepairs in length and Short Interspersed Elements (SINEs) of
several hundred basepairs.

The most abundant SINEs are Alu elements, of which 1.4 million copies
exist, comprising 10% of the human genome, and are apparently only
found in primates.

[...]
There is increasing evidence that physical and chemical stresses to
the cell, such as heat shock, chemical poisons and viral infections,
tend to activate Alu elements. The resultant gene reshuffling may be
responsible for a variety of chronic diseases (see "Dynamic genomics
", this series).

Wild speculation. Perhaps a tiny truth here, but likely insignificant
in the washup.

Moosh:] wrote:
On 31 Jul 2003 01:42:57 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe
****
From: "Moosh:]"
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture
Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Message-ID:
Lines: 89
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT
[...]
In the junk DNA there is just about
everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted
over the aeons.
[...]
****

That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for
turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point.
Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to
have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all
your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change
(antibiotics) , you will outcompete them.

But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the
junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes
ears and advanced emotions by mutation?

What if some thing that are now blue turn green on August 5th, 2005 and we
have a new color bleen, blue that turns to green.

You stabbing in the dark about thing you have no knowledge of. Do you trust
propaganda machines more than scientist that spend their lives working in a
field?

I am not stabbing in the dark, I am trying to get Moosh:] thinking.

You're not going to convince anyone with propaganda and fringe
science, and wild speculation. You must become far more
discriminating.


Linkname: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering
URL: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm
size: 723 lines

[...]
Why, then, has the central dogma continued to stand? To some
degree the theory has been protected from criticism by a device
more common to religion than science; dissent, or merely the
discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable offense, a
heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism. Much of
this bias can be attributed to institutional inertia, a failure
of rigor, but there are other, more insidious, reasons why
molecular geneticists might be satisfied with the status quo;
the central dogma has given them such a satisfying, seductively
simplistic explanation of heredity that it seemed sacrilegious
to entertain doubts. The central dogma was simply too good not
to be true.

As a result, funding for molecular genetics has rapidly
increased over the last twenty years, new academic institutions,
many of them "genomic" variants of more mundane professions,
such as public health, have proliferated. At Harvard and other
universities, the biology curriculum has become centered on the
genome. But beyond the traditional scientific economy of
prestige and the generous funding that follows it as night
follows day, money has distorted the scientific process as a
once purely academic pursuit has been commercialized to an
astonishing degree by the researchers themselves. Biology has
become a glittering target for venture capital; each new
discovery brings new patents, new partnerships, and new
corporate affiliations. But as the growing opposition to
transgenic crops clearly shows, there is persistent public
concern not only with the safety of genetically engineered foods
but also with the inherent dangers in arbitrarily overriding
patterns of inheritance that are embedded in the natural world
through long evolutionary experience. Too often those concerns
have been derided by industry scientists as the "irrational"
fears of an uneducated public. The irony, of course, is that the
biotechnology industry is based on science that is forty years
old and conveniently devoid of more recent results, which show
that there are strong reasons to fear the potential consequences
of transferring a DNA gene between species. What the public
fears is not the experimental science but the fundamentally
irrational decision to let it out of the laboratory into the
real world before we truly understand it.

Barry Commoner is senior scientist at the Center for Biology of
Natural Systems at Queen's College, City University of New York
where he directs the Critical Genetics Project. Readers can
obtain a list of references used as sources for this article by
sending a request to [see http for email address and
fair use notice]


Linkname: Molecular Genetic Engineers in Junk DNA?
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MGEJ.php
size: 183 lines
[...]
Perhaps only 1% of the human genome codes for genes, and that's what
the human genome map contains. The rest is mainly repetitive DNA,
commonly known as `junk DNA'.

However, evidence has been emerging that lurking within junk DNA are
armies of transposons (mobile genetic elements) that play an
indispensable role in `natural genetic engineering' the genome. They
make up nearly half of the human genome, and serve as `recombination
hotspots' for cutting and splicing, and hence reshuffling the genome.
They are also a source of ready to use motifs for gene expression, as
well as new protein-coding sequences.

These important transposons are scattered throughout the genome. There
are two main categories: Long Interspersed Elements (LINEs) about 6.7
kilobasepairs in length and Short Interspersed Elements (SINEs) of
several hundred basepairs.

The most abundant SINEs are Alu elements, of which 1.4 million copies
exist, comprising 10% of the human genome, and are apparently only
found in primates.

[...]
There is increasing evidence that physical and chemical stresses to
the cell, such as heat shock, chemical poisons and viral infections,
tend to activate Alu elements. The resultant gene reshuffling may be
responsible for a variety of chronic diseases (see "Dynamic genomics
", this series).

Wild speculation. Perhaps a tiny truth here, but likely insignificant
in the washup.

[...]
Crick's theory includes a second doctrine, which he originally
called the "central dogma" (though this term is now generally
used to identify his theory as a whole). The hypothesis is
typical Crick: simple precise, and magisterial. "Once
(sequential) information has passed into protein it cannot get
out again." This means that genetic information originates in
the DNA nucleotide sequence and terminates, unchanged, in the
protein amino acid sequence. The pronouncement is crucial to the
explanatory power of the theory because it endows the gene with
undiluted control over the identity of the protein and the
inherited trait that the protein creates. To stress the
importance of their genetic taboo, Crick bet the future of the
entire enterprise on it, asserting that "the discovery of just
one type of present-day cell" in which genetic information
passed from protein to nucleic acid or from protein to protein
"would shake the whole intellectual basis of molecular biology."

Crick was aware of the brashness of his bet, for it was known
that in living cells proteins come into promiscuous molecular
contact with numerous other proteins and with molecules of DNA
and RNA. His insistence that these interactions are genetically
chaste was designed to protect the DNA's genetic message - the
gene's nucleotide sequence - from molecular intruders that might
change the sequence or add new ones as it was transferred, step
by step, from gene to protein and thus destroy the theory's
elegant simplicity.

Last February, Crick's gamble suffered a spectacular loss. In
the journals Nature and Science, and at joint press conferences
and television appearances, the two genome research teams
reported their results. The major result was "unexpected."
Instead of the 100,000 or more genes predicted by the estimated
number of human proteins, the gene count was only about 30,000.
By this measure, people are only about as gene-rich as a
mustardlike weed (which has 26,000 genes) and about twice as
genetically endowed as a fruit fly or a primitive worm - hardly
an adequate basis for distinguishing among "life as a fly, a
carrot, or a man." In fact, an inattentive reader of genomic CDs
might easily mistake Walter Gilbert for a mouse, 99 percent of
whose genes have human counterparts.

The surprising results contradicted the scientific premise on
which the genome project was undertaken and dethroned its
guiding theory, the central dogma. After all, if the human gene
count is too low to match the number of proteins and the
numerous inherited traits that they engender, and if it cannot
explain the vast inherited difference between a weed and a
person, there must be much more to the "ultimate description of
life" than the genes, on their own, can tell us.

Scientists and journalists somehow failed to notice what had
happened. The discovery that the human genome is not much
different from the roundworm's, led Dr. Eric Lander, one of the
leaders of the project, to declare that humanity should learn "a
lesson in humility."

[...]
The project's scientific reports offered little to explain the
shortfall in the gene count. One of the possible explanations
for why the gene count is "so discordant with our predictions"
was described, in full, last February in Science as follows:
"nearly 40% of human genes are alternatively spliced." Properly
understood, this modest, if esoteric, account fulfills Crick's
dire prophecy: it "shakes the whole intellectual basis of
molecular biology" and undermines the scientific validity of its
applications to genetic engineering.
[...]

Thus, in the living cell the gene's nucleotide code can by
replicated faithfully only because an array of specialized
proteins intervenes to prevent most of the errors - which DNA by
itself is prone to make - and to repair the few remaining ones.
Moreover, it has been known since the 1960s that the enzymes
that synthesize DNA influence its nucleotide sequence. In this
sense, genetic information arises not from DNA alone but through
its essential collaboration with protein enzymes - a
contradiction of the central dogma's precept that inheritance is
uniquely governed by the self-replication of the DNA double
helix.

[prions &c]

Moosh:] wrote:
On 30 Jul 2003 10:28:05 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe
****
From: "Moosh:]"
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture
Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Message-ID:
Lines: 89
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT
[...]
In the junk DNA there is just about
everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted
over the aeons.
[...]
****

That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for
turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point.
Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to
have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all
your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change
(antibiotics) , you will outcompete them.

But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the
junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes
ears and advanced emotions by mutation?

The latter is as simple as falling off a log. The former is far more
complex. What is your proposed mechanism for sorting through the
sequences to find something suitable? What criteria would the search
engine use?

How the living cells control enzymes to repair DNA to such
miraculous toerances may not be fully understood either. Recently I
gave Mae Wan Ho's words about recombination hot spots in the junk
DNA. Here is something else to get us thinking about the
complexity of the life which GM tinkers with, their safety
message based on the `Central Dogma' which is so lacking.


Linkname: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering
URL: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm
size: 723 lines
[...]
Alternative splicing can have an extraordinary impact on the
gene/protein ratio. We now know that a single gene originally
believed to encode a single protein that occurs in cells of the
inner ear of chicks (and of humans) gives rise to 576 variant
proteins, differing in their amino acid sequences. The current
record for the number of different proteins produced from a
single gene by alternative splicing is held by the fruit fly, in
which one gene generates up to 38,016 variant protein molecules.

Alternative splicing thus has a devastating impact on Crick's
theory: it breaks open the hypothesized isolation of the
molecular system that transfers genetic information from a
single gene to a single protein.

[...]
Alternative splicing is not the only discovery over the last
forty years that has contradicted basic precepts of the central
dogma. Other research has tended to erode the centrality of the
DNA double helix itself, the theory's ubiquitous icon. In their
original description of the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick
commented that the helix's structure "immediately suggests a
possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." Such
self-duplication is the crucial feature of life, and in
ascribing it to DNA, Watson and Crick concluded, a bit
prematurely, that they had discovered life's magic molecular
key.

Biological replication does include the precise duplication of
DNA, but this is accomplished by the living cell, not by the DNA
molecule alone. In the development of a person from a single
fertilized egg, the egg cell and the multitude of succeeding
cells divide in two. Each such division is precede by a doubling
of the cell's DNA; two new DNA strands are produced by attaching
the necessary nucleotides (freely available in the cell), in the
proper order, to each of the two DNA strands entwined in the
double helix. As the single fertilized egg cell grows into an
adult, the genome is replicated many billions of times, its
precise sequence of three billion nucleotides retained with
extraordinary fidelity. The rate of error - that is, the
insertion into the newly made DNA sequence of a nucleotide out
of its proper order - is about one in 10 billion nucleotides.
But on its own, DNA is incapable of such faithful replication;
in a test-tube experiment, a DNA strand, provided with a mixture
of its four constituent nucleotides, will line them up with
about one in a hundred of them out its proper place. On the
other hand, when the appropriate protein enzymes are added to
the test tube, the fidelity with which nucleotides are
incorporated in the newly made DNA strand is greatly improved,
reducing the error rate to one in 10 million. These remaining
errors are finally reduced to one in 10 billion by a set of
"repair" enzymes (also proteins) that detect and remove
mismatched nucleotides from the newly synthesized DNA.

Thus, in the living cell the gene's nucleotide code can by
replicated faithfully only because an array of specialized
proteins intervenes to prevent most of the errors - which DNA by
itself is prone to make - and to repair the few remaining ones.
Moreover, it has been known since the 1960s that the enzymes
that synthesize DNA influence its nucleotide sequence. In this
sense, genetic information arises not from DNA alone but through
its essential collaboration with protein enzymes - a
contradiction of the central dogma's precept that inheritance is
uniquely governed by the self-replication of the DNA double
helix.
[...]
Because of their commitment to an obsolete theory, most
molecular biologists operate under the assumption that DNA is
the secret of life, whereas the careful observation of the
hierarchy of living processes strongly suggests that it is the
other way around: DNA did not create life; life created DNA.
When life was first formed on the earth, proteins must have
appeared before DNA because, unlike DNA, proteins have the
catalytic ability to generate the chemical energy needed to
assemble small ambient molecules into larger ones such as DNA.
DNA is a mechanism created by the cell. Early life survived
because it grew, building up its characteristic array of complex
molecules. It must have been a sloppy kind of growth; what was
newly made did not exactly replicate what was already there. But
once produced by the primitive cell, DNA could become a stable
place to store structural information about the cell's chaotic
chemistry, something like the minutes taken by a secretary at a
noisy committee meeting. There can be no doubt that the
emergence of DNA was a crucial stage in the development of life,
but we must avoid the mistake of reducing life to a master
molecule in order to satisfy our emotional need for unambiguous
simplicity.
[... & Fair use notice cut]

Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are
getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of
hosts
you just find more

Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last
one of the previous species.

which isn't a problem, those who prey on only one species are very much a
minority

Lots of viruses tend to be specific to certain classes of hosts.

Calici haemorrhagic disease jumped to rabbits in 1970s in China, though I
don't know why.

Using pig organs in humans in concert with GM is a risk that pig viruses
will jump and spread through the human population.

What on earth does GM have to do with this? It happens whether or not,
surely.

Because GM enables more horizontal gene transfer outwitting the past
regulatory mechanisms.

Why does it enable more horizontal gene transfer?

Because gene transfer packages are included in the GM process to get
genes to outwit the natural barriers.

What regulatory mechanisms?

Those like the repair mechanisms of the cell on innacurate DNA
copying by itself.

This is just speculation, with no firm basis.

The research is moving very fast. Like Copernicus those at the
forefront are branded as heretics by those who stand to lose power
and money.