GM Foods [Split from Nanotech]

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

GM Foods [Split from Nanotech]

Postby hermaj » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:25 am UTC

Solt wrote:GM foods have not been proven to be safe for human consumption over several million years of testing like regular foods have. There could be unpredictable side effects of the inserted genes that could do anything from helping the body to cause cancer or even slow poisoning.


a) Genetically modified foods go through more rigorous testing than any other types of food. We're talking decades of experimentation and thousands upon thousands of tests. It is extremely thoroughly examined and tested in labs, on animals, on people, before it is released for wide consumption.

b) Every time you eat anything, anything, you're eating its DNA. Characteristics of DNA (and thus the genes carried on it) are non-transferable. It is dissolved in the digestion process in the stomach, not absorbed into the body. If it was, by that logic all ingested DNA would be. Think of how many tomatoes you've ever eaten in your life. Have you developed any characteristics of the tomato plant through ingesting its DNA? No. DNA, or RNA for that matter that has been inserted has the exact same chemicals making it up as DNA or RNA that was already there - sugar, phosphate, adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thyamine or urasil. It's processed in the same manner. If you still think nutritional properties or whatever of the foods will be carcinogenic or poisonous, see a).



Sorry to get off the topic of nanotechnology, and if anyone wants to talk about GM any further we'll split the thread, but you know, I'm studying genetics and the kind of ignorance that is out there (not a personal attack, Solt, but a built-up frustration) really gets to me sometimes.
Last edited by hermaj on Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:12 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Toeofdoom » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:34 am UTC

^I think he was saying the genes inserted into the food product, not into your body. I have heard of people allergic to brazil nuts having allergic reactions to some GM foods totally unrelated to the allergy, although I am not sure of the accuracy of this.

In any case, the tests have not been over as long a time as with unmodified foods. I'm not sure about it personally, but there are definitely other advantages to organic foods also.

Back to nano-tech. Yes, it definitely could totally screw up everything, so safety is an important issue. It is also quite cool so it should be researched alot.
Hawknc wrote:Gotta love our political choices here - you can pick the unionised socially conservative party, or the free-market even more socially conservative party. Oh who to vote for…I don't know, I think I'll just flip a coin and hope it explodes and kills me.

Website

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:52 am UTC

Toeofdoom wrote:^I think he was saying the genes inserted into the food product, not into your body. I have heard of people allergic to brazil nuts having allergic reactions to some GM foods totally unrelated to the allergy, although I am not sure of the accuracy of this.


That did happen. They were trying to modify soybeans to increase nutritional quality (this is from memory; it might have been another reason like growth or endurance, but I'm pretty sure it was nutrition) and some people they gave the product to experienced allergic reactions.

However, the product was still in testing stages, and it was never released. And now they know about different allergens that might retain these properties - kiwi fruit is another one - so they're finding ways to work around it if they have not already done so.


Also, with regard to the genes inserted into the food product - he was talking about human consumption and the side effects so I assumed he would be more concerned with what happened to the genes when digested by humans. Of course the genes will modify the food product, because - well, that's the whole point. They're very selective and careful about which proteins (nucleotide --> amino acid --> polypeptide --> functional protein --> gene) they put in.

And my other point was they don't test unmodified foods nearly as rigorously. GM hasn't been around to be tested for as long, of course, but it is definitely tested much better.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26443
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:09 pm UTC

hermaj wrote:And my other point was they don't test unmodified foods nearly as rigorously. GM hasn't been around to be tested for as long, of course, but it is definitely tested much better.


But has this more thorough testing really made up for the thousands of years we've been eating unmodified foods? Do you really need a double-blind scientific study to check the possible reactions to regular old unmodified potatoes, for instance? I think we pretty much know what the potential side effects of eating a potato are.

In any case, I'm not especially worried about the effects GM foods might have on the person consuming them. While not tested for as long as regular foods, I imagine the testing is on par with that for medications, and I'm generally happy taking those. I'm more concerned with the potential ecological implications of genetically modified plants, whose reproduction cannot be as controlled as animals. I think it's fairly undeniable that natural genetic diversity is ecologically beneficial, but what effect would the introduction of modified genes have on the diversity of plants related to food crops?

(There's already the problem that the food crops themselves aren't especially diverse, but that's been true since long before direct genetic modifications were even possible. Selective breeding has caused incredibly drastic changes in every kind of domesticated plant and animal.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:12 pm UTC

Allergy and toxicity are really the only things to be tested, and you really don't need thousands of years to test those. Just some relatively decent studies.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:32 pm UTC

I really don't expect we'll have serious resistance to GM foods on a board like this. I would imagine the majority of people here know the biology required understand the differences and similarities between GM foods and normal foods.

I mean, regular apples are 'genetically modified', but by millenia of breeding, instead of by a year of laboratory work.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:45 pm UTC

So, there is a wonderful trick to getting around GMphobia.

What you do this this:
Use GM research techniques to find what parts of the genome need to be changed to get the desired results.

Use GM techniques to find plants with the right parts of the genome.

Cross-breed normally. Test the results using GM techniques. Continue until you get the changes you desire.

Sell the result as a non-GMO creation: organism was created using standard breeding techniques, and the genome was never modified by GM techniques.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:47 pm UTC

Species anyone?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:34 am UTC

Use GM techniques to find plants with the right parts of the genome.
While nice, this trick will fail if you need to do cross-species transfers- I won't be able to find a goat with spidersilk proteins in its milk, but I can fetch those genes that produce those proteins out of a spider.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Postby jestingrabbit » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:01 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
hermaj wrote:And my other point was they don't test unmodified foods nearly as rigorously. GM hasn't been around to be tested for as long, of course, but it is definitely tested much better.


But has this more thorough testing really made up for the thousands of years we've been eating unmodified foods? Do you really need a double-blind scientific study to check the possible reactions to regular old unmodified potatoes, for instance? I think we pretty much know what the potential side effects of eating a potato are.


True, but there is a lot more in our processed foods than natural organisms. MSG and sodium benzoate don't grow on trees and I'm not sure how much testing of these sorts of things is persued. Trans-fats are a new one that's been getting attention lately.

I think that a rigorous testing regime is absolutely necessary for stuff that's introduced into our food supply. I'm glad that at least GMO's are subjected to this.

User avatar
Peshmerga
Mad Hatter
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:56 am UTC
Contact:

Re: GM Foods [Split from Nanotech]

Postby Peshmerga » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:56 pm UTC

hermaj wrote:If it was, by that logic all ingested DNA would be.


That would be a problem for a lot of women I know!

As for "it's not been tested over millions of years."

Well neither has Advil, Viagra, and any drug ever been released. If, in a million years, humans are just feeling the effects of their ancestors eating a buncha tomatoes, then we'll have a problem. But for now, genetic modification destroys viruses, creates strong, healthy food that survives different climates and protects against insects and other predators.

It's not like we're introducing a complex, time-released pathogen into the foods that is undetectable and passed down through birth.

That would be silly!
i hurd u liek mudkips???

Xial
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:01 am UTC
Location: California

Postby Xial » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:13 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:So, there is a wonderful trick to getting around GMphobia.

What you do this this:
Use GM research techniques to find what parts of the genome need to be changed to get the desired results.

Use GM techniques to find plants with the right parts of the genome.

Cross-breed normally. Test the results using GM techniques. Continue until you get the changes you desire.

Sell the result as a non-GMO creation: organism was created using standard breeding techniques, and the genome was never modified by GM techniques.


Besides the cross-species problem there is also the issue of time and cost constraints (the cross breeding solution takes longer) and the fact that you could end up with undesierable traits from one of the plants.

User avatar
Kaeleix
Travel Sized
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:20 pm UTC

Postby Kaeleix » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:50 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:So, there is a wonderful trick to getting around GMphobia.

What you do this this:
Use GM research techniques to find what parts of the genome need to be changed to get the desired results.

Use GM techniques to find plants with the right parts of the genome.

Cross-breed normally. Test the results using GM techniques. Continue until you get the changes you desire.

Sell the result as a non-GMO creation: organism was created using standard breeding techniques, and the genome was never modified by GM techniques.


I'll happily let you run the lab/research group using this approach. Call me in ten years when you have something remotely worth marketing (and different from what any farm/livestock group is doing).

A good portion of GMO-protesters won't even let you go so far as to argue the safety and legitimacy of the science involved. They'll stick to the classic, illogical arguements: why do you need to change it? what makes this food better? (I hate to go here, but "God made it that why, what's wrong with it?") Stay natural! Be scared of science! I won't put science in my body! I won't feed science to my children!

So no matter how well tested and well documented GMO-foods might be, you still have lots of illogical reasons to contend with among the potential customers that you won't be able to satisfy by waving around the results of a double-blind nutrition test. You gotta make 'em feel safe!

Xial
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:01 am UTC
Location: California

Postby Xial » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:54 pm UTC

In bio class my teacher played a video on GM foods. They interviewed a chef who basically said that he thought that any human interference with food plants was terrible. He failed to realize that before humans started breeding plants corn was only an inch long and wheat was hardly worth growing.

User avatar
davean
Site Ninja
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:50 am UTC
Contact:

Postby davean » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:13 pm UTC

I would point out that those "safe, tested for millions of years" foods are often proven to be rather unsafe and do nasty things to you when put up to a scientific trial; meaning the GM food could easily be safer.

Take steak for example; causes intestinal cancer.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:29 pm UTC

Kaeleix wrote:
Yakk wrote:So, there is a wonderful trick to getting around GMphobia.

What you do this this:
Use GM research techniques to find what parts of the genome need to be changed to get the desired results.

Use GM techniques to find plants with the right parts of the genome.

Cross-breed normally. Test the results using GM techniques. Continue until you get the changes you desire.

Sell the result as a non-GMO creation: organism was created using standard breeding techniques, and the genome was never modified by GM techniques.


I'll happily let you run the lab/research group using this approach. Call me in ten years when you have something remotely worth marketing (and different from what any farm/livestock group is doing).

A good portion of GMO-protesters won't even let you go so far as to argue the safety and legitimacy of the science involved. They'll stick to the classic, illogical arguements: why do you need to change it? what makes this food better? (I hate to go here, but "God made it that why, what's wrong with it?") Stay natural! Be scared of science! I won't put science in my body! I won't feed science to my children!

So no matter how well tested and well documented GMO-foods might be, you still have lots of illogical reasons to contend with among the potential customers that you won't be able to satisfy by waving around the results of a double-blind nutrition test. You gotta make 'em feel safe!


I'm sorry, what I was describing wasn't a hypothetical. That is a description of a research project being conducted in the real world.

I don't know what information about the project is confidential or not at this time (good old information-via-significant-other), so other than it being implemented, I shouldn't mention any identifiable details.

My apologies for being overly vague. :)

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:23 am UTC

How do they get around the fact there are species?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:50 am UTC

Plants crossbreed across species a lot more easily than animals.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: GM Foods [Split from Nanotech]

Postby Solt » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:59 am UTC

hermaj wrote:
Solt wrote:GM foods have not been proven to be safe for human consumption over several million years of testing like regular foods have. There could be unpredictable side effects of the inserted genes that could do anything from helping the body to cause cancer or even slow poisoning.


I'm studying genetics and the kind of ignorance that is out there (not a personal attack, Solt, but a built-up frustration) really gets to me sometimes.




Well first let me say that I'm actually a supporter of GM foods. If you take what I said in the context of the nano tech thread, it makes perfect sense- when both new GM foods and new nano particles are first created, no one knows what they will do. That's why it's a good idea to not dump a GM food that you first managed to grow last week directly onto the market. And why you shouldn't start large scale manufacturing of nano-molecules that you first synthesized yesterday. There need to be laws to regulate the introduction of such technologies into the environment


BUT, at the same time I think supporters of GM also tend to overlook the inherent danger in their zeal, which is exactly that it takes rigorous testing to understand what genetic modification does.

I know very well how genetic modification works, as well as digestion and protein synthesis and related processes, haha.

There will very often be unanticipated reactions. Unless biology departments the world over start building super computers that rival the NSA's own setup, there could be interactions that might not become apparent until it's too late. There are countless variables to consider when introducing a new strain into the environment. Is is safe for humans is the obvious one. But is it safe for birds? Will it outcompete versions without the new gene? Will it outcompete other plant species and destroy the local ecosystem? Will it poison nitrogen fixing bacteria? Can it become a vector for human diseases? If a seed is accidentally dropped in the middle of the Amazon rain forest, what will happen? Is it vulnerable to any number of pathogens in the environment that we don't know about because no other plant is vulnerable to it? Might inter-species pollination occur that results in run away spreading of the inserted gene and an entirely new chain of events?

Our lack of success in making drugs is proof that these are legitimate concerns. Very few drugs exist that don't have side effects. Sure they do their job, but they inevitably affect other body systems, sometimes in ways that we could never have anticipated. Drugs affect one person at a time, though, while GM foods could rape an entire ecosystem if not understood properly before being used.

User avatar
Drostie
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:17 am UTC

Postby Drostie » Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:26 am UTC

At the risk of stating the obvious, in my opinion, the worst problem with the anti-GMO movement is the effect it has on developing countries.

Think about it: You're a leader of a developing country. You hear that there's a big controversy about how these things are "untested" and may be dangerous, among first-world people. Of course, you don't want to be their guinea pig; so you deny GMO food in your country. And people needlessly suffer, just because some of the anti-GMO people decided to use misleading statements to defend their point.

I don't think GMO researchers are particularly naive about the potential side-effects of GMOs, Solt. That's why they take the precautions that they do -- and it's one of the many reasons why we mostly just extract extant DNA from organisms, transplanting it into other organisms; rather than trying our hand at making new ones.

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:39 am UTC
Location: BrisVegas, Land of Oz
Contact:

Postby Messiah » Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:38 am UTC

Just to shoot down a lot of people's arguments, from memory (haven't done genetics per say in about 2 years, so don't be too harsh) there's about a 20 year testing rule, before which nothing can be added to the market. Anything GM created is also kept in the strictest of controlled situations until it is proven safe for release, just in case it makes it away to breed.

As for species-cross trouble, when you're using enzymes to break the DNA of a jelly fish, and create a glowing blue flower (actual research), species is the least of your worries. Everything can be side-stepped, when there's a will there's a way.
"The possession of anything begins in the mind" - Bruce Lee

Image

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:11 am UTC

I'm talking about:

[quote="Yakk"]
Use GM research techniques to find what parts of the genome need to be changed to get the desired results.

Use GM techniques to find plants with the right parts of the genome.

Cross-breed normally.
/quote]

That, when I'm referring to species.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:11 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Plants crossbreed across species a lot more easily than animals.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Postby Akula » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:03 am UTC

I generally avoid organic foods.

For one, beyond not being GM, organic is also another way of saying that nothing was done to prevent parasites, and that it was probably fertilized with cow shit instead of artificial nitrate fertilizers. I'm all set on that.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:08 am UTC

I generally avoid organic foods.

For one, beyond not being GM, organic is also another way of saying that nothing was done to prevent parasites, and that it was probably fertilized with cow shit instead of artificial nitrate fertilizers. I'm all set on that.
I tend to have similar views, but I don't go out of my way to avoid it. I tend to say "chemical preservatives" whenever I hear someone complain about "chemical preservatives".
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:10 am UTC

Belial wrote:
Belial wrote:Plants crossbreed across species a lot more easily than animals.


And therefore we can make anything with crossbreeding as we can with GM?

And good luck crossbreeding a jellyfish with a flower to make a glowing flower.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:15 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
Belial wrote:
Belial wrote:Plants crossbreed across species a lot more easily than animals.


And therefore we can make anything with crossbreeding as we can with GM?

And good luck crossbreeding a jellyfish with a flower to make a glowing flower.


That would be where it would break down: Plant to animal, animal to plant, or animal to animal, you'd need to actually use GM.

Plant to plant, and you *might* be able to swing it with standard breeding
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:17 am UTC

Belial wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:
Belial wrote:
Belial wrote:Plants crossbreed across species a lot more easily than animals.


And therefore we can make anything with crossbreeding as we can with GM?

And good luck crossbreeding a jellyfish with a flower to make a glowing flower.


That would be where it would break down: Plant to animal, animal to plant, or animal to animal, you'd need to actually use GM.

Plant to plant, and you *might* be able to swing it with standard breeding


Exactly, hence "species?". :-)
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:24 am UTC

I don't know where you guys got messed up here, or even if you are, but I feel I need to clarify.

Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Plantae and Animalia are kingdoms. As far as I am aware, plants would have to be of the same genus in order to give a chance of interbreeding and produce a new species. In order to produce a new species, the offspring would have to be able to breed and produce virile offspring. 'S why a mule, for example, isn't classified as its own species (At least, it shouldn't be. As far as I know it isn't.)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:28 am UTC

Yeah, apologies Gelsamel, I thought when you said "Species" you meant, for example, crossbreeding lemon trees and lime trees. Which are different species.

While lemons and octopi are also different species, that isn't the problem. The problem is they're different *kingdoms*.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Anmorata
The Doll's House
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:41 pm UTC
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Contact:

Postby Anmorata » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:44 am UTC

hermaj wrote:I don't know where you guys got messed up here, or even if you are, but I feel I need to clarify.


Yep. "Dead Kings Play Cards On Fine Green Silk." At least, that's how I remember it. :)
Turn your scars into stars.

User avatar
hermaj
Posts: 6139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:37 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby hermaj » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:45 am UTC

"Drunk King Phillip Comes Over For Good Sex" :P

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:46 am UTC

Well.. according to the definition of species; 2 species are different when they cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring, or cannot interbreed at all (which can be due to many reasons). So, If you're cross breeding plants of different species to try and get a specific genetic trait then aren't you wasting your time because you can't get past F1?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Anmorata
The Doll's House
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:41 pm UTC
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Contact:

Postby Anmorata » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:46 am UTC

hermaj wrote:"Drunk King Phillip Comes Over For Good Sex" :P


Hey, that's even better. :)
Turn your scars into stars.

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:39 am UTC
Location: BrisVegas, Land of Oz
Contact:

Postby Messiah » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:04 am UTC

hermaj wrote:"Drunk King Phillip Comes Over For Good Sex" :P

Ours are so boring. (Without Domain) Keep Pots Clean Or Family Gets Sick...

hermaj wrote:As far as I am aware, plants would have to be of the same genus in order to give a chance of interbreeding and produce a new species. In order to produce a new species, the offspring would have to be able to breed and produce virile offspring. 'S why a mule, for example, isn't classified as its own species (At least, it shouldn't be. As far as I know it isn't.)

Same with a Liger. With crops however, you don't need them to be able to produce virile offspring themselves. It's actually a benefit for the producer to have sterile plants, so people don't plant the seeds and make their own orchard. As long as they can clone offspring (e.g. Bananas) they'll stay in business. This, however, leads to all the plants having the same genome, and an increased chance of a particular pathogen or insect wiping out your population.

With genetic splicing, you could create an organism that (potentially) can breed and transfer the new trait to a virile offspring.
"The possession of anything begins in the mind" - Bruce Lee



Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:41 pm UTC

Well.. according to the definition of species; 2 species are different when they cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring, or cannot interbreed at all (which can be due to many reasons).
My understanding of the situation is that biologists are really bad at sticking to the definition of species; they've never accepted another distinction lower than species that would simplify the situation greatly. Thus, a new variety, that technically can breed with another species, gets classified as a species anyway, because it's cooler.
Last edited by Vaniver on Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:43 pm UTC

That, and species are apparently (from my limited knowledge) really *wierd* with plants, because things can demonstrate traits so different that you'd think they'd *have* to be different species, and yet they still interbreed.

So scientists call them species anyway, because it makes life easier.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:01 pm UTC

Strange, what reason could there be for plants acting like that and not animals?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

I was going to post something about grafting..

You know, Lemon branches on orange tress, that sucessfully produce lemons.

But then it occured to me that we grow ears on Mice backs.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Messiah
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:39 am UTC
Location: BrisVegas, Land of Oz
Contact:

Postby Messiah » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:17 pm UTC

VannA wrote:But then it occured to me that we grow ears on Mice backs.

Common mistake, no we don't. We grow ear shaped body material on mice. It was more a test of whether the material they wanted to use to shape skin/muscle/cartilage etc growing a particular way would work. It had no hearing ability whatsoever. So, everything on that mouse was it's own body, except for the synethic guiding material.
"The possession of anything begins in the mind" - Bruce Lee



Image


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests