Cherish him.
What do we know about GMOs?
- Thread starter cheri1122
- Start date
The boxer, Pomeranian, spaniels, the spitz family, terriers etc., are all dog species breeds. Not a single dog breeder crossed a dog with some other species, like a bacterium, and came up with a new dog species.
I'm not blinded by the lab coat, because I understand it, I understand genetics, I understand science. You don't understand it, clearly, because your statements in Post #4 are utterly ignorant. There's a reason that GMOs are called "transgenic" organisms. It's because they contain the genes of more than one species. That CAN NOT happen with selective breeding. It's physically and biologically impossible. If you don't believe me, try selective breeding an Afghan Hound and a tomato.
Just out of curiosity, what site would that be?
How, exactly, am I spreading fear and propaganda by stating the stone-cold truth? To my knowledge, I have never said that I was against GMO foods. Not once. I have not voiced a judgement or a position one way or the other regarding GMOs. So, how, exactly am I spreading fear and propaganda?
" If you don't believe me, try selective breeding an Afghan Hound and a tomato. "
Then you would have a dog that hunts pasta. No need for that. It's in aisle 5 at Kroger's.
Then you would have a dog that hunts pasta. No need for that. It's in aisle 5 at Kroger's.
I will be throwing a party at the Plateau Mental Health Center in Rubber Room 4.
All Evolutionist,Mid East Confrontationlist,Gmoism types,Dog breeders , Pot managers,
Uniformist for all nations, please bring your own bottle. We will have munchie food and refer rolling machines and blenders and juciers. Sprinter drivers welcome. All movies will be family movies, no guns please.
All Evolutionist,Mid East Confrontationlist,Gmoism types,Dog breeders , Pot managers,
Uniformist for all nations, please bring your own bottle. We will have munchie food and refer rolling machines and blenders and juciers. Sprinter drivers welcome. All movies will be family movies, no guns please.
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
I give up. You apparently have never read about how and why those dog breeds where created in the first. Check out mental floss on YouTube for some unbiased information, but you would just say they're wrong. Have fun living in the dark from the truth
Not only have I read about it, I know exactly how it was done, and it wasn't done by splicing the genes of one species with another species.
Why didn't you answer my question? How am I spreading fear and propaganda? Should be an easy one to answer.
Sending me to Mental Floss on YouTube without a specific link to a particular video is ridiculous. WHICH episode of the fifty-two Mental Floss videos am I supposed to look at? Sheesh.
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
It's not so much what your saying, is your out look that I'm disagreeing with. Selective breeding was the foundation that GMO's were built on.
This my my example to explain my:
Back before the train or automobile were invented people used teams of Ox to move heavy objects such as good to market or a plow in a field. Today we use tractors for the and tractor trailers to go to market. The objective is still the same, the methods may change but the goal stays the same. The reason ancient dog breeds didn't splice genes is because the technology hadnt been invented. They did the next best thing which was selective breeding, both are man not nature. IMO you can't hate one and not the other especially when in the end they both have done the same thing.
I'll check for the specific mental floss video to watch but they're all very good and informative in a non biased as possible way.
This my my example to explain my:
Back before the train or automobile were invented people used teams of Ox to move heavy objects such as good to market or a plow in a field. Today we use tractors for the and tractor trailers to go to market. The objective is still the same, the methods may change but the goal stays the same. The reason ancient dog breeds didn't splice genes is because the technology hadnt been invented. They did the next best thing which was selective breeding, both are man not nature. IMO you can't hate one and not the other especially when in the end they both have done the same thing.
I'll check for the specific mental floss video to watch but they're all very good and informative in a non biased as possible way.
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
I think your spreading propaganda by vilifying scientist like we're in a horror movie. It's far less exciting or scary as your making it out to be. I don't understand why you are coming against and afraid of this when its be going on for thousands of years.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
The deer in my neighborhood eat it too...
Better than starving. Bet they taste good too. Nothing like GMO enhanced venison tenderloins.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
I recall a cross breeding experiment back in the 80's. A Latino migrant worker was cross bred with an octopus. While a name was never actually given to the result, man, could that thing pick tomatoes!
You said selective breeding and GMO is the same thing. It's not. That's pure marketing propaganda from the GMO industry. The truth is my only outlook.
I don't hate either one. But it's not the same thing. Selective breeding preferentially selects natural genetic traits, whereas genetic modification introduces something new to nature that has never before existed. The selective breeding of cows that give more milk still gets you cows. Genetically modifying cows with a gene from the cocoa plant so the cow will squirt chocolate milk is milk that comes from something other than a cow.
The ox and tractor analogy is a particular bad one, because you can't crossbreed an ox and a tractor, nor can you splice their genes together. All you did was complete replace one thing (the ox) with another completely different thing (tractor). And you've misstated the objective in comparison to the goals of selective breeding and GMOs. My personal opinion is that the positives of GMOs versus the negatives are significant, but that doesn't mean the negatives are irrelevant and should be dismissed, nor does it mean selective breeding and genetic modification are the same thing.
It also doesn't mean the objective of each is the same. The stated goal of the GMO industry is to have more resilient crops (be they plant or animal), but their actions betray them. They pour hundreds of millions of dollars a year into Beltway lobbying and other efforts to prevent legislation requiring GMO foods to be labeled as such. This past November Washington State had a GMO labeling initiative on the ballot which was defeated thanks to it just a snotload of money being spent to defeat it. More than $22 million was spent to defeat the initiative, with $550 of that coming from in-state interests and the other $21,999,450 coming from out-of-state interests, with the Top Five contributors being Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience. That list alone should give one pause.
They also have a tendency to raise the prices of GMO seed. They don't patent GMO organisms for nothing. Then there's all the benefits touted for GMOs, yet to date the only GMO crops that are grown commercially are those who are herbicide and pesticide tolerant, allowing the use of stronger herbicides and pesticides to be used. Actually, not really allowing it, but requiring it. GMOs should result in less herbicide spraying, since the plants have been modified to be herbicide resistant, however, the result of evolution has been the emergence of "super weeds" that are also more resistant to herbicides, requiring increased spraying. Awesome.
The goal of selective breeding is more money. The goal of GMO is total corporate control of the food supply, i.e., a really, really lot of more money. That bothers me far more than a bacterium gene spliced into a plant.
It doesn't matter if they are biased or not. As long as they don't lie and say that selective breeding and genetic manipulation is the same thing, cuz they aren't.
I didn't vilify anyone, all I did was blandly state the facts. The facts are that selective breeding and genetically modifying the DNA of an organism is not the same thing. How in the world is that vilifying (speaking ill of, defaming, slandering) someone?
Where are you reading this crap? I didn't come out against it, and I'm not afraid of it.
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
How about this turtle, since your concrete in with your opinion and I'm concreted in my opinion. How about we agree to disagree? Because I'm not changing your opinion and you aren't gonna change mine. Everything we say the other does agree with; so let's agree to disagree
Mine's not an opinion - it's fact. Genetically modifying the DNA of one species with the DNA of another species is not the same as selective breeding, and I dare you to cite a single credible source that says otherwise.
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
I'm saying selective breeding in principal is the same because they have the same end goal. You wouldn't have GMO's now with selective breeding then. It was/is where the idea came from! How can you deny that? I do not get why you feel as though this is such a taboo thing. Your scientific proof is all well and good but you are refusing to acknowledge history.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Dood, Cross breeding or selective breeding can possibly be construed as one facet of Genetic Engineering but it's a stretch at best. Just because both disciplines endeavor to change the genetic structure of a variety, it does not at all mean they are the same thing. You can leave a half gallon of milk out in the sun for a few days and end up with curds or you could take the same milk and churn it into curds. Is that the same thing? No, it definitively is not.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Just so you know, you are currently being toyed with by a bored, yet skilled, debater. You're not going to win. Before this over he is going to expose every flaw in your personality and leave you fuming, disgusted and sleepless on the floor of your van wondering wha hoppen? you are going to look really stupid. Whatever you do, don't look into his eyes...
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
Everything I'm saying you all contradict and refuse to accept a pov other than you as much as I am
Actually that's not what you said at all, but if you want to go with that one now, then fine.
I can't. And, I'm pretty sure I haven't.
I do not get where you think I think it's a taboo thing. I certainly haven't said that, and I don't think it. In fact, I just got through saying, "My personal opinion is that the positives of GMOs versus the negatives are significant..." and that "corporate control of the food supply... bothers me far more than a bacterium gene spliced into a plant." That's the EXACT opposite of taboo.
I'm not refusing to acknowledge history at all. I'm fully aware and fully acknowledge how evolution, natural selection and artificial selection works, and the history of all three. What I refuse to acknowledge is the absurd notion that artificial selection through selective breeding is anything remotely like the genetic engineering of the splicing together genes from disparate species, because it's jibber jabber marketing propaganda aimed at people who don't know any better.