Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. the laws do not even exist in some countries, and even if they are, the funds do not exist to police them, and even if policed, all you get is a peasant with no money, land worth nothing, and a large lawyers bill Jim Webster -- 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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
"Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? 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. so why mention it. Just to point out that mutations are as common as muck, and always have been. That is unpredicted and unpredicatable changes have been the normal course of events for life from at least 1,000,000,000 years. Strangely the world hasn't ended. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message ... Bob Hobden writes Bob Hobden's note to which Oz replied here has not shown up in my mail, so I am replying to Bob here, slightlu out of sequence. "Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Yes, I am quite sure of that. A mutated gene is a gene which is not the gene which existed at that spot before the mutation occurred. It is therefore a new gene which exists at that spot after the mutation has occurred. It may express itself in a way which bears no obvious relationship to the gene which originally occupied that spot. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? 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. so why mention it. Just to point out that mutations are as common as muck, and always have been. That is unpredicted and unpredicatable changes have been the normal course of events for life from at least 1,000,000,000 years. Strangely the world hasn't ended. Franz (in reply to Bob, not to Oz) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. the laws do not even exist in some countries, and even if they are, the funds do not exist to police them, and even if policed, all you get is a peasant with no money, land worth nothing, and a large lawyers bill Quite! My point exactly. -- 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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Jim wrote in message Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. the laws do not even exist in some countries, and even if they are, the funds do not exist to police them, and even if policed, all you get is a peasant with no money, land worth nothing, and a large lawyers bill Quite! My point exactly. so why are you worried about peasants being dispossessed or being forced to pay vast sums to the big companies? Jim Webster |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message in reply to... Bob "Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. 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, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. 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. 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. That's one of the old worries about GM. No doubt the GM scientists are watching those wild Parsley plants in France with great interest. -- 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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Franz tried to confuse me ( don't take much) Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Yes, I am quite sure of that. A mutated gene is a gene which is not the gene which existed at that spot before the mutation occurred. It is therefore a new gene which exists at that spot after the mutation has occurred. It may express itself in a way which bears no obvious relationship to the gene which originally occupied that spot. We are splitting hairs here and are both correct if you think about it. :-) There are no more genes after the mutation or change of one (or more) of them. -- 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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
We are back to that Parsley that flowered and contaminated the wild parsley growing nearby. Should that have been allowed out of the Lab? I don't think so, not with a wild plant nearby able to cross with the GM plant. It was an accident they said, it shouldn't have been allowed to flower they said, well who the hell was in control of that experiment, GM scientists! Fills me with confidence regarding their abilities. I am not familiar with this particular event. Perhaps you could detail who did the work and what genes were transferred. Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM science and why. Big deal. The car manufacturers 'control' cars, electronics manufacturers 'control' electronics and drug manufacturers 'control' drugs. The seed manufacturers get their patents and copyrights ripped off by 2nd and 3rd world farmers within 12 months. Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. The tough. US or EU laws do not apply in other countries and they will go their own way no matter what the US or EU thinks. Of course if you want GM work to move to india or china (as it increasingly is) where there are very few controls, then carry on banning it and so giving the other countries a free rein to do what they like without fear of competition. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
"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. 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. 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. 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. 2) To allow crop genes to disappear is trivial. Simply stop growing the crop. 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). 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. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Oz" wrote in message in reply to... Bob "Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. 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, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural mutation creates something new and essentially untested Jim Webster |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
The message
from Oz contains these words: (snip) Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. You've convinced me of that, if nothing else. Janet. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
The message
from Oz contains these words: (snip) Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. You've convinced me of that, if nothing else. Janet. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message You tell me to get some knowledge, fine, but it's all in the interpretation and that changes with life's experiences. From your comments I see my replies to your blind faith in everything GM are obviously annoying you, and that's not my ball game. THE END! :-) -- 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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message You tell me to get some knowledge, fine, but it's all in the interpretation and that changes with life's experiences. From your comments I see my replies to your blind faith in everything GM are obviously annoying you, and that's not my ball game. THE END! :-) -- 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
International Science and Engineering Fair-Call for Judges | Plant Biology | |||
Genetic engineering of plants | Plant Science | |||
problems with genetic engineering | sci.agriculture |