Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 04:32 PM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 06:42 PM
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 10:44 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 11:03 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 11:04 PM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 11:13 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 05-10-2003, 11:25 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-10-2003, 06:42 AM
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-10-2003, 06:42 AM
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-10-2003, 09:03 AM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-10-2003, 07:02 PM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-10-2003, 10:40 PM
Janet Baraclough
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 06-10-2003, 10:44 PM
Janet Baraclough
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 02:16 AM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 02:28 AM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
International Science and Engineering Fair-Call for Judges KARL ROBERTS Plant Biology 0 13-12-2008 06:39 PM
Genetic engineering of plants Fred Plant Science 10 20-09-2003 07:02 PM
problems with genetic engineering Walter Epp sci.agriculture 19 13-08-2003 02:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017