Xref: kermit rec.gardens:227221 uk.rec.gardening:142686

In uk.rec.gardening Sue & Bob Hobden wrote:
: "Tim wrote in message
: Bob wrote:

: : I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile,
: : as all GM plants should be.
:
: That's the luddite position.
:
: I don't think it will last - in the future most probably all living things
: will be "transgenic".

: Thanks for that, I'm therefore proud to be a "Luddite".
: Better than being responsible for the GM parsley fiasco in France, the GM
: Sweetcorn pollen fiasco in the UK. I wouldn't mind if it was an exact
: science but it isn't, even those doing it can't be certain about the outcome
: as the introduced gene often causes other dormant genes to react.
: I for one don't think we are knowledgeable enough yet to use GM outside the
: lab.

I think we are. There's no point in waiting forever.

GM plants have been quite successful outside the lab in some areas.

For example see this article on GM cotton:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/stor...891348,00.html

I also think GM food has great potential. For example, currently I suffer
from the effects of many natural pesticides our food plants employ - the
powerful acids in spinach - the phytoestrogens in legumes - and so on.

Personally I can't wait for scientisits to genetically engineer some
of the anti-nutrients out of the vegetables I eat - and use mechanical
barriers - instead of toxic poisons - to prevent pests.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:227222 uk.rec.gardening:142688

Stephen Howard wrote:

: That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
: regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
: for an incident. Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or
: some geezer in a lab clutching a degree?

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

"paghat" wrote in message
news

No, no -- transgenic EVERGREEN tomatos that produce cherry tomatoes in the
window all year round AND have gigantic blue clematis blooms to boot!


No, you've got it wrong too, we want ones that produce beefsteak, cherry and
tiger tomatoes all on one plant so I don't have to worry about which ones
I'm going to be able to fit in the greenhouse and which ones I can't!

Charlie.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/03

On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:12:40 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:56:30 +0200, Tim
wrote:

The difference being that "pick-n-mix" cross breeding transfers any
number of unknown genes, whereas a GM organism would have only a very
few, well known, genes transfered.
The difference between the sledge-hammer and scalpel approaches. Which
one is best ?

You see...there it is again... 'any number of unknown genes'.
Precisely my point. If there are 'unknown genes' then there are
unknown properties.

I don't quite see what you're aguing about here. Plant breeders do this all
the time.


Ever tried crossing a Leek with a Honeysuckle? Had any success?
Most likely not, because somewhere down the line evolution said
'uh-huh, no can do'.
That's a very simplistic view of evolution, isn't it?
You and I know there's more to it than that.


It's interesting that you regard the incredible intricacies of natural
selection as being akin to a 'sledgehammer approach'.

I didn't express myself very well there, sorry. The sledgehammer approach
was meant to be applied to artificial breeding, which to a great degree
side-steps natural selection, and replaces it with human, artificial
selection.

In reality I'd say it's more like two buckets of sand being mixed up. So,
what would be less likely to produce any great unexpected changes - mixing
2 buckets of sand, or just swapping a couple of grains over?

Natural selection can only work on variety. This variety is created by
mixing and remixing the available genes. A little ramdom input from
occasional mutations adds some novel variation as well, but it's a small
part. Mix everything up and see what survives. A simplification, perhaps,
but that's the backbone of the theory of natural selection.


I rather feel that nature's methods make your scalpel look like a blunt
sword.
It's not MY scalpel. If you just fuse germ cells, as happend in the
development of modern wheat strains for exaple, who knows what you're
making? Reduce the number of changes being made, and you have more chance
of finding any problems.


Nature builds on balance - this is why folks who consistently use
pesticides get locked into using them, they create their own
imbalances.

I can't agree with you more. Bit hardly relevant to the topic is it?

Nature doesn't stop working simply because mankind pitches
in with a few crude attempts at tipping the scales - if you leave a
hole, nature will fill it... and not necessarily to your advantage.

Without those unknown genes, how many holes will you create, and what
will fill them?
But we're not talking about building organisms from scratch, where there
would be huge great holes all over the genome. We're talking about taking a
whole genome and adding/changing just one or two genes.


Tim.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:36:58 +0100, Charlie
wrote:


"paghat" wrote in message
news

No, no -- transgenic EVERGREEN tomatos that produce cherry tomatoes in
the
window all year round AND have gigantic blue clematis blooms to boot!


No, you've got it wrong too, we want ones that produce beefsteak, cherry
and
tiger tomatoes all on one plant so I don't have to worry about which ones
I'm going to be able to fit in the greenhouse and which ones I can't!

Actually I'd like a tomato plant that produces beefsteak as well. Perhaps
with some peas and carrots on alternate branches.
Tim.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 13:01:55 +0200, Tim
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:12:40 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:56:30 +0200, Tim
wrote:

The difference being that "pick-n-mix" cross breeding transfers any
number of unknown genes, whereas a GM organism would have only a very
few, well known, genes transfered.
The difference between the sledge-hammer and scalpel approaches. Which
one is best ?

You see...there it is again... 'any number of unknown genes'.
Precisely my point. If there are 'unknown genes' then there are
unknown properties.

I don't quite see what you're aguing about here. Plant breeders do this all
the time.

Yes, they do - and if it works it works because it's a natural process
- it's bringing nature to nature, and all that that encompasses.
In other words, nature sorts it out in its own inimitable fashion.

Ever tried crossing a Leek with a Honeysuckle? Had any success?
Most likely not, because somewhere down the line evolution said
'uh-huh, no can do'.
That's a very simplistic view of evolution, isn't it?
You and I know there's more to it than that.

Simplistic it may be, but it is wrong?

It's interesting that you regard the incredible intricacies of natural
selection as being akin to a 'sledgehammer approach'.

I didn't express myself very well there, sorry. The sledgehammer approach
was meant to be applied to artificial breeding, which to a great degree
side-steps natural selection, and replaces it with human, artificial
selection.

I quite agree there - but in that case we act as mere matchmakers.
You can bring together two people who might not normally meet, but
that doesn't mean they'll get on with each other. And if they do get
on, perhaps it will be in unexpected ways.
The point here is that there's a lot of interplay that goes on behind
the scenes that I'm not convinced we fully understand as yet.

In reality I'd say it's more like two buckets of sand being mixed up. So,
what would be less likely to produce any great unexpected changes - mixing
2 buckets of sand, or just swapping a couple of grains over?

But sand is inert - it won't evolve, mutate or otherwise change its
properties. It's a poor analogy for a gene.

Natural selection can only work on variety. This variety is created by
mixing and remixing the available genes. A little ramdom input from
occasional mutations adds some novel variation as well, but it's a small
part. Mix everything up and see what survives. A simplification, perhaps,
but that's the backbone of the theory of natural selection.

Yes, I understand that - and by the same token that doesn't preclude a
mutation from wreaking havoc - but on the whole the system appears to
function very well indeed.

I rather feel that nature's methods make your scalpel look like a blunt
sword.
It's not MY scalpel. If you just fuse germ cells, as happend in the
development of modern wheat strains for exaple, who knows what you're
making? Reduce the number of changes being made, and you have more chance
of finding any problems.

It's that element of 'chance' that's the problem, you see.
It's just not good enough to say 'hey, we can dabble with this and
tweak that.... and hope to hell we catch any adverse effects'.
And just when d'you stop looking?

Nature builds on balance - this is why folks who consistently use
pesticides get locked into using them, they create their own
imbalances.

I can't agree with you more. Bit hardly relevant to the topic is it?

The balance of nature isn't relevant to transgenic plants??

Nature doesn't stop working simply because mankind pitches
in with a few crude attempts at tipping the scales - if you leave a
hole, nature will fill it... and not necessarily to your advantage.

Without those unknown genes, how many holes will you create, and what
will fill them?
But we're not talking about building organisms from scratch, where there
would be huge great holes all over the genome. We're talking about taking a
whole genome and adding/changing just one or two genes.

So you have smaller holes, is all. And small holes have an annoying
habit of becoming large holes.
And as you well know, the gene stands at the tip of the inverted
pyramid and interacts all the way up and through the plant's whole
structure...which then interacts with other organisms in the same
fashion... and so on ad infinitum. I'm not convinced that anyone is
fully aware of just what the knock-on effects might be.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:37:35 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

: That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
: regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
: for an incident. Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or
: some geezer in a lab clutching a degree?

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

Isn't that all the more reason not to screw around with it then?

Just because something's unpleasant to US doesn't mean it doesn't have
a valuable part to play in nature. We'd be knee deep in carcasses if
it wasn't for the 'nasty' bluebottle.

Regards,


--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Tim Tyler wrote in :

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

And bloody SLUGS! Grrr.

"Zizz" wrote in
:

Something tells me that sooner or later nature will turn around and
bite us on the bum for being so ignorant of her ways!

Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their disposal,
these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

What about a fruiting orange tree that's hardy in Aberdeen?

Victoria

On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:46:41 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 13:01:55 +0200, Tim
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 11:12:40 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:56:30 +0200, Tim
wrote:

The difference being that "pick-n-mix" cross breeding transfers any
number of unknown genes, whereas a GM organism would have only a very
few, well known, genes transfered.
The difference between the sledge-hammer and scalpel approaches. Which
one is best ?

You see...there it is again... 'any number of unknown genes'.
Precisely my point. If there are 'unknown genes' then there are
unknown properties.

I don't quite see what you're aguing about here. Plant breeders do this
all the time.

Yes, they do - and if it works it works because it's a natural process
- it's bringing nature to nature, and all that that encompasses.
What?

In other words, nature sorts it out in its own inimitable fashion.
Ah, but it's not inimitable, is it ? That's what GE is. Imitating.


Ever tried crossing a Leek with a Honeysuckle? Had any success?
Most likely not, because somewhere down the line evolution said
'uh-huh, no can do'.
That's a very simplistic view of evolution, isn't it?
You and I know there's more to it than that.

Simplistic it may be, but it is wrong?
In as much as saying "the bee wanted to suck nectar so eveolved a longer
proboscis" is wrong. Certainly misleading.



It's interesting that you regard the incredible intricacies of natural
selection as being akin to a 'sledgehammer approach'.

I didn't express myself very well there, sorry. The sledgehammer
approach was meant to be applied to artificial breeding, which to a
great degree side-steps natural selection, and replaces it with human,
artificial selection.

I quite agree there - but in that case we act as mere matchmakers.
You can bring together two people who might not normally meet, but
that doesn't mean they'll get on with each other. And if they do get
on, perhaps it will be in unexpected ways.

Going on from your matchmaking analogy, I'd see it as rather like getting a
shirt or tie that you saw someone else wearing, and looks good, and get
"your" person to put it on. Only one item, so you can see if it looks good
on them. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

The point here is that there's a lot of interplay that goes on behind
the scenes that I'm not convinced we fully understand as yet.
True. I don't think many would disagree there.


In reality I'd say it's more like two buckets of sand being mixed up.
So, what would be less likely to produce any great unexpected changes -
mixing 2 buckets of sand, or just swapping a couple of grains over?

But sand is inert - it won't evolve, mutate or otherwise change its
properties. It's a poor analogy for a gene.

All analogies are poor. But do you see what I was trying to say ?


Natural selection can only work on variety. This variety is created by
mixing and remixing the available genes. A little ramdom input from
occasional mutations adds some novel variation as well, but it's a small
part. Mix everything up and see what survives. A simplification,
perhaps, but that's the backbone of the theory of natural selection.

Yes, I understand that - and by the same token that doesn't preclude a
mutation from wreaking havoc - but on the whole the system appears to
function very well indeed.
Of course. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.


I rather feel that nature's methods make your scalpel look like a blunt
sword.
It's not MY scalpel. If you just fuse germ cells, as happend in the
development of modern wheat strains for exaple, who knows what you're
making? Reduce the number of changes being made, and you have more
chance of finding any problems.

It's that element of 'chance' that's the problem, you see.
It's just not good enough to say 'hey, we can dabble with this and
tweak that.... and hope to hell we catch any adverse effects'.

Well, it's not just hoping, they should be looking pretty hard.

And just when d'you stop looking?

That's exactly the sort of question that has to be answered. And I don't
have an answer. But can only be answered by careful testing and discussion,
not by joining either of the entrenched camps and slinging mud and
accusations at each other, which seems to be happening more and more often.
So far we've managed to not insult each other after so much writing. Is
this a record for newsgroups?



Nature builds on balance - this is why folks who consistently use
pesticides get locked into using them, they create their own
imbalances.

I can't agree with you more. Bit hardly relevant to the topic is it?

The balance of nature isn't relevant to transgenic plants??
I don't think it is directly relevant to our discussion at the moment.
Generally yes. But, with teh right approach and development, maybe GM
plants could provide a way of gently easing them out of thier deadlocked
pesitcide use in the future. Which would surely be a good thing.


Nature doesn't stop working simply because mankind pitches
in with a few crude attempts at tipping the scales - if you leave a
hole, nature will fill it... and not necessarily to your advantage.

Without those unknown genes, how many holes will you create, and what
will fill them?
But we're not talking about building organisms from scratch, where there
would be huge great holes all over the genome. We're talking about
taking a whole genome and adding/changing just one or two genes.

So you have smaller holes, is all. And small holes have an annoying
habit of becoming large holes.

....some heal up.
Using a material analogy. No, you'd have little patches of different a
colour rather than holes.

And as you well know, the gene stands at the tip of the inverted
pyramid and interacts all the way up and through the plant's whole
structure...

CAN do, depending on the gene and where it is. Most genes are only active
for short periods and only in certain tissues. Which is why you don't get
red, scented roots on a red, scented rose bush. Those genes are only
activated in the relevant part(s) and the relevant time(s).

which then interacts with other organisms in the same
fashion... and so on ad infinitum. I'm not convinced that anyone is
fully aware of just what the knock-on effects might be.

No one is saying they are, except maybe the multi-nationals, but no-one
believes them anyway (at least I hope not).

Tim.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:52:10 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:37:35 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

: That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
: regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
: for an incident. Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or
: some geezer in a lab clutching a degree?

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

Isn't that all the more reason not to screw around with it then?

Just because something's unpleasant to US doesn't mean it doesn't have
a valuable part to play in nature. We'd be knee deep in carcasses if
it wasn't for the 'nasty' bluebottle.

Absolutely. But the places these GMOs are likely to be used is on
agricultural land. Not really a natural environment is it.

And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in places
that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be negligable.
I don't mean pollution or global warming. Nearly all the land in the UK is
or has been intensively managed at one time or other. Places we call
"natural" are nearly all man-made. Probably the most "natural" part of the
country is the stagnant rock pool just below high tide.
Tim.

Tim Tyler wrote:

In uk.rec.gardening Sue & Bob Hobden wrote:

: I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile,
: as all GM plants should be.

That's the luddite position.

Being an ex-North American, I wondered what this term 'Luddite' actually
referred to. So I investigated -- and found no reason to regard it as an
insult. Those who smashed the machines were not fools spurred by fear of
the unknown. The followers of 'General Ludd' knew precisely what they
were doing, and why: they were protecting the livelihoods of the
knitters, lacemakers and weavers who faced poverty and ruin in the hands
of those building the new manufactories. Traditionally entire families
found comfortable employment in the industry: the youngest children
prepared the raw materials, the wife and older girls spun the yarns,
while the husband and sons did the weaving. They worked at home, often
in small villages, where they were able to maintain gardens and perhaps
livestock for food. Contrast this with the lives of workers living in
the new industrial centres, and I at least understand why men would risk
their lives to destroy the machines before the machines destroyed them,
and their families. The Industrial Revolution had costs as well as
benefits, and we're still paying for it today.


regards
sarah


--
"Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view,
is silence about truth." Aldous Huxley

"Polar" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:22:50 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family
tartans.

Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers
that
glow in the dark.

Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA
experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, &
glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who
says science fiction can't happen?


I didn't see it, but I guess I have an active imagination! I can just
see
entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim
that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability
of
the nuclear family.

Speaking of the nuclear family, I guess you've noticed that Dubya
wants us to start manufacturing cute little battlefield-sized nukes.
Not, of course, to be classified as WMD!!

those flashing plants, they will be obliterated by blasts from our
new death-ray satellites, as we merrily proceed to weaponize space.
Well under way, as I am told...


Oh, I'm sure what ever Dubya does is the result of Devine inspiration. If
you tune into any AM talk radio shows you would think they were talking
about the second coming of Christ until they mention the all important tax
reduction legislation.

"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
.222...
"Zizz" wrote in
:

Something tells me that sooner or later nature will turn around and
bite us on the bum for being so ignorant of her ways!

Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their disposal,
these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

What about a fruiting orange tree that's hardy in Aberdeen?

....or, a plum tree that produces Viagra so older guys can eat prunes that
make them come and go.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 13:36:47 GMT, Vox Humana wrote:


"Victoria Clare" wrote in message
.222...
"Zizz" wrote in
:

Something tells me that sooner or later nature will turn around and
bite us on the bum for being so ignorant of her ways!

Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their
disposal,
these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

What about a fruiting orange tree that's hardy in Aberdeen?

...or, a plum tree that produces Viagra so older guys can eat prunes that
make them come and go.


LOL! I guess that's an old one by now. I really should get out more.