I have been reading some interesting material recently on selective breeding and how it appears to undermine many of the theories put forward by Darwin. I should point out that these theories don't come from Creationists, but rather from people who see shortcomings in Darwin's theories.
The argument goes something like this: take an animal and breed it with similar animals to produce fatter, bigger, longer, shorter, tougher, etc variants of the same species. So far so good: it works? Now, try and breed a cow with the aim of turning it into a "non-cow". You can't. No matter how many times you try, you just end up with a distorted cow, but it nevertheless remains a cow? So how do cows turn into horses or chimps into homo sapiens? One of the ideas now currently being explored is that this can only really happen by introducing genetic material from another species. In other words, fusing genetic material of two species to create a third. The suggested way this happens is by virus transfer. If you think that doesn't take place, you would be wrong! About 60% of the material in each of our genes is "not of our bodies", but lives there quite happily, apparently! Darwin didn't appreciate the role of viruses. If he had, he might well have wanted to modify his theories a little bit.
How does this relate to gardening? GM Crops! I must confess, I am not a fan of this approach to selective breeding, because we don't really appreciate 100% what the impact might be. On the other hand, nature appears to do this naturally. Isn't the problem with HIV that extraneous material from the outside fuses with cells in the human body and damages the host? So, maybe our friends at Monsanto etc may have it right, after all. In my case, the jury is still out, but the argument, when you take the above into account, is interesting!
What would Darwin have made of GM Crops?
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
Hi Barry,
Very interesting in deed!
I read a report that says we, as humans, share god knows how many genes with the House Fly and give or take the odd gene we would be flying around annoying
everybody.
This is where those who are against GM get it all wrong and certainly Monsanto are not the villains they are portrayed to be.
The transference of a gene from one organism to another is what has been happening in nature since the beginning of time.
JB.
Very interesting in deed!
I read a report that says we, as humans, share god knows how many genes with the House Fly and give or take the odd gene we would be flying around annoying
everybody.
This is where those who are against GM get it all wrong and certainly Monsanto are not the villains they are portrayed to be.
The transference of a gene from one organism to another is what has been happening in nature since the beginning of time.
JB.
Hi Rooster,
To a degree I must agree with you BUT is it right that those who are at least trying to understand the whole scenario should be castigated by those who have probably never seem a gene and probably who have never so much as sown a seed in their life.
JB.
To a degree I must agree with you BUT is it right that those who are at least trying to understand the whole scenario should be castigated by those who have probably never seem a gene and probably who have never so much as sown a seed in their life.
JB.
-
Geoff
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5784
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:33 pm
- Location: Forest of Bowland
- Been thanked: 319 times
The reason you can't prove Darwinism is because you haven't got time and man would now interfere along the way.
There is nothing wrong with GM just the way it has been used. I'm not with JB that Monsanto aren't at fault. Breeding for herbicide resistance should not have been allowed to become such a focus. If the first result had been a nitrogen fixing wheat or a blight resistant tomato would there have been so much fuss?
There is nothing wrong with GM just the way it has been used. I'm not with JB that Monsanto aren't at fault. Breeding for herbicide resistance should not have been allowed to become such a focus. If the first result had been a nitrogen fixing wheat or a blight resistant tomato would there have been so much fuss?
H Geoff,
It is not Monsanto who have made their Roundup-ready crops a focus but those who are against herbicides irrespective whether they are coupled with a GM crop
or not who are responsible.
Monsanto produce plenty of non Roundup-ready GM crops as well. But as far as growing crops to feed nations, weeds take a very large toll on overall harvests and weeds are expensive to get rid of.
Everybody imagines that Monsanto are the only producers of GM seeds which is far from the case.
There is a second generation of GM coming and there will be improvements but the anti lobbyists we still be harping on about how evil they are.
I detest those who trash crops and feel that if caught should be given a custodial sentence.
I also feel that nobody has the right to stand in the way of science, albeit a science they may dislike.
So far billions of GM meals have been eaten and to date I have yet to hear of anybody having the slightest ill effect yet the anti campaigners are still saying that GM produce is unfit for human consumption.
Very soon the British public will wake up the the fact that they have been hoodwinked over GM by some people who know that once GM takes over their days are numbered.
JB.
It is not Monsanto who have made their Roundup-ready crops a focus but those who are against herbicides irrespective whether they are coupled with a GM crop
or not who are responsible.
Monsanto produce plenty of non Roundup-ready GM crops as well. But as far as growing crops to feed nations, weeds take a very large toll on overall harvests and weeds are expensive to get rid of.
Everybody imagines that Monsanto are the only producers of GM seeds which is far from the case.
There is a second generation of GM coming and there will be improvements but the anti lobbyists we still be harping on about how evil they are.
I detest those who trash crops and feel that if caught should be given a custodial sentence.
I also feel that nobody has the right to stand in the way of science, albeit a science they may dislike.
So far billions of GM meals have been eaten and to date I have yet to hear of anybody having the slightest ill effect yet the anti campaigners are still saying that GM produce is unfit for human consumption.
Very soon the British public will wake up the the fact that they have been hoodwinked over GM by some people who know that once GM takes over their days are numbered.
JB.
can we at least agree the argument is not is gm good or is gm bad, it is more like ,are the expected benefits from the commercial implementation of a particular avenue of research worth the possible hazards. If all the research is done by the companies trying to promote the product are the scientists even looking for the downsides and will the accountants take any notice if any are found?.
Scientists and big business dont allways get it right. 20 year hindsight is a wonderful thing,,,,
thalidomide, lead in petrol, cfc refrigerants were all the latest scientific breakthrough at one time.(and there are many others) should we not be urging a little caution, if something appears to be too good to be true it probably is!!!
I find the simplistic pro gm "the wonderful clever scientists have invented it so it must be good" mantra rather frightning really.
i cannot agree with jb's view
"I also feel that nobody has the right to stand in the way of science, albeit a science they may dislike"
that surely is giving the green light to anyone with any sort of qualification to experement on anything they like....
we should be also very aware that in the last 50 or 60 years we have seen a complete transformation in the way our food has been produced, there is far more science in food production than at anytime previously, but arguably the general health of the population is steadily declining with more chronic disease and general ill health. Many thinking people are claiming one factor in this general decline is the quality of our food (lack of nutrients, trace elements and contaminants), allong with environmental pollution, lack of exercise etc
All we can really say for sure is that nobody knows all the answeres, but can we please proceed with a bit of caution , looking for the risks as we go rather than running full tilt over the cliff with no hangglider, just to make mega bucks for some corperate giant in the short term.
Scientists and big business dont allways get it right. 20 year hindsight is a wonderful thing,,,,
thalidomide, lead in petrol, cfc refrigerants were all the latest scientific breakthrough at one time.(and there are many others) should we not be urging a little caution, if something appears to be too good to be true it probably is!!!
I find the simplistic pro gm "the wonderful clever scientists have invented it so it must be good" mantra rather frightning really.
i cannot agree with jb's view
"I also feel that nobody has the right to stand in the way of science, albeit a science they may dislike"
that surely is giving the green light to anyone with any sort of qualification to experement on anything they like....
we should be also very aware that in the last 50 or 60 years we have seen a complete transformation in the way our food has been produced, there is far more science in food production than at anytime previously, but arguably the general health of the population is steadily declining with more chronic disease and general ill health. Many thinking people are claiming one factor in this general decline is the quality of our food (lack of nutrients, trace elements and contaminants), allong with environmental pollution, lack of exercise etc
All we can really say for sure is that nobody knows all the answeres, but can we please proceed with a bit of caution , looking for the risks as we go rather than running full tilt over the cliff with no hangglider, just to make mega bucks for some corperate giant in the short term.
-
Colin Miles
- KG Regular
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:18 pm
- Location: Llannon, Llanelli
The health of the population declining but life expectancy constantly increasing, including healthy life expectancy - hmmm!
-
oldherbaceous
- KG Regular
- Posts: 14432
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: Beautiful Bedfordshire
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 709 times
The Human race has managed to do a pretty good job of keeping the numbers down of themselves since we have been on this earth, i don't suppose it will stop now.
Kind Regards, Old Herbaceous.
There's no fool like an old fool.
There's no fool like an old fool.
Hi Old Herbaceous!
Violence seems to be engineered into our genome. Hunter gatherer groups, which used to number around 150 individuals, were constantly at war with one another, not only in the deep past, but also in comparatively recent times. The result was that 30% of any group would die violently. Apparently, that helped ensure that only the very fittest survived and that available food supplies were never exhausted.
Violence seems to be engineered into our genome. Hunter gatherer groups, which used to number around 150 individuals, were constantly at war with one another, not only in the deep past, but also in comparatively recent times. The result was that 30% of any group would die violently. Apparently, that helped ensure that only the very fittest survived and that available food supplies were never exhausted.
-
oldherbaceous
- KG Regular
- Posts: 14432
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: Beautiful Bedfordshire
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 709 times
Thanks for that Barry, but now it seems to have gone from the fittest to the greediest who survive. 
Kind Regards, Old Herbaceous.
There's no fool like an old fool.
There's no fool like an old fool.