[_ Old Earth _] Mixing kinds

[Barbarian]

We still see a few attacks from time to time, but they are getting fewer, as the bees breed with domesticated bees. The problem is that there's mite that infests and kills honeybees, and fewer bees are around now. And we need them to pollinate.

 

[jasoncran]

Do you have any killer bees near you? Is there a way to undo the population, or minimize the effects?

I do, they aren't that much of a concern. they aren't flying around killing people just when YOU disturb them and don't back away they will then go on the attack. they do also produce honey.i have been in an area where they were before, and just missed them.

 

[jasoncran]

round up? I love that stuff. I guess we shouldn't go into the modified bacteria that eats oil and grease and is sold to the public and gets washed into the lagoon here.

 

[Claudya]

Your enthusiasm for meat from a petry dish made me smile. I'm sure it wouldn't be poison and would taste just great, but I would striggle with the idea of eating something made in a lab. Snap, I must be getting older since I don't like trying new things as much as I used to.
I read where in China they have a herd (~200) cows, mixed with human genes to make human like milk. This milk may hit the market in a few years as an alternative to formula.
I'd prefer formula for my kids. What do you think?

Well the "enthusiams" isn't really about lab grown meat. Normally I'd be as sceptical about that kind of stuff as you are...
I've been a vegetarian for almost 10 years, altough I used to love eating meat and fish. Really, I miss the taste of salmon.
But the way animals are treated and abused in order to satisfy our decadent and absolutely unhealthy need for cheap meat while we western urban people are completely detached from our food, and the animal suffering caused by the inhumane methods is disgusting. I doubt that's what God intended when He gave us stewardship over His creation. I don't wanna have any part in that. I keep trying to adopt a completely vegan diet, but I fail on many days, usually because of milk or cheese. :-(
But imagine they could grow meat in a lab. No animal suffering. No farmland "wasted" to grow feed crops, instead more land to feed humans. No more trouble for oceanic fish populations. No more additional CO² emission and water pollution from animal factory farming. All the ethical reason for vegetarianism/veganism would be gone. And some sorts of meat (especially fish) is rather healthy. So I could eat fish and meat again, at least on occasion. That's why the petri dish meat would be awesome despite being somewhat creepy due to the unnatural origin. They wouldn't even have to gm it, just find a stem cell (now that might be an ethical issue) and the technology for growing body tissue in a lab already exists and artificial meat has already been produced. As far as I heard it's just still way too expensive for commercial production. But the day will come and I hope there'll be salmon for me.

The cow milk story sounds like more animal cruelty to me. If those cows produce human milk, can they still feed their calves? Will they have to be impregnated once a year like all dairy cows and then have their new born calves taken away (and slaughtered) so humans can take the milk instead? If it was for my own kids I'd rather breast feed them myself until they reach an age where they can stomach vegan milk substitutes, or try to get some organic farming formula to at least reduce to animal cruelty involved.

 

[jasoncran]

cows still milk their calves. sheesh. my wife was raised to slaughter cows, chickens and milked her dad's cows.the heffers will line up and milking time to be milked and will moo if you are late.

 

[PossibilitiesAbound]

I'm not sure that I understand the meaning of 'mixing of kinds' as it was stated. In my point of view, there are a couple different options;

There is the possibility that it meant don't mix any two breeds of organisms of the same species together to produce young, or mix them in a herd/field at all.
If someone else has an argument of why this would be the case, please argue it because I currently don't have any evidence for it.

Another possibility is that it meant do not mix two species together to produce young, or in a herd/field.
This may seem impossible at first, but there are many instances where two organisms of two distinct species can produce viable young. It is very rare, but it happens. There is also the possibility that God knew we as humans would become as interested as we are currently in changing the genetic makeup of organisms.

There is a huge difference between a plant that was selected over time for desirable traits, and a plant that was instantaneously (in reproductive view) made to have specific genetic variants. The key here is time. It would take hundreds of thousands of generations to produce a plant that in labs, scientists can create instantly. Over those hundreds of thousands of generations, those plants would first have to survive with their new phenotype to a reproductive stage in development. In this way, nature 'takes care of' those plants that for whatever reason cannot survive or that are a threat to the other members of the species, or environment. (because in reality, even plants live in communities, which makes things difficult when they aren't symbiotic). You can see here that a plant genetically modified to produce pesticides would find it very difficult in nature to reproduce- since it kills all of its pollinators! It would necessarily harm any other plant in it's vicinity, having reduced the number of pollinators.

Secondly, what GMO's are is not simply a selection of traits that already existed. They are a 'brand new' organism, in no way the same thing as the regular type. In traditional selection, the only thing that people can select for is phenotype. So the genotype may or may not have been changed through time, but it is without doubt a variation that the organism itself was inherently capable of. Geneticists have yet to determine what exactly every gene affects even in the organism that they naturally occur. To say that they know what phenotypic changes will occur given any genotypic variation is beyond absurd.

Well, I think that my point here is that true genetic manipulation is what I believe to be absolutely wrong, and in no way comparable to traditional methods of artificial selection.

I think my point has been stated before by Mystic Journey and Claudia.

 

[Barbarian]

There is a huge difference between a plant that was selected over time for desirable traits, and a plant that was instantaneously (in reproductive view) made to have specific genetic variants.

I don't see how. After all, it's the same genetic change.

The key here is time. It would take hundreds of thousands of generations to produce a plant that in labs, scientists can create instantly.

That argument could be applied to any new technology. Print media, compared to electronic media, for example.

Over those hundreds of thousands of generations, those plants would first have to survive with their new phenotype to a reproductive stage in development. In this way, nature 'takes care of' those plants that for whatever reason cannot survive or that are a threat to the other members of the species, or environment.

Natural selection isn't the beneficial force some people imagine it to be. It can produce monsterous things, dramatically alter ecosystems, and even lead species down the path to extinction. So "natural" isn't the equivalent of "good."

(because in reality, even plants live in communities, which makes things difficult when they aren't symbiotic). You can see here that a plant genetically modified to produce pesticides would find it very difficult in nature to reproduce- since it kills all of its pollinators! It would necessarily harm any other plant in it's vicinity, having reduced the number of pollinators.

Not so. For example the BT variant in corn (which I studied as an undergraduate) affects moth and butterfly larvae, but not other insects. The corn borer, is a major pest of corn, and is the larva of a moth, so a BT variant of corn works really well. The issue is whether horizontal spread of the gene is possible. If it were to get into milkweed plants, monarch butterflies would be in big trouble. There is some evidence that BT corn pollen, drifting to milkweed plants near cornfields, could kill some monarch caterpillars.
http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/1999/6-14-1999/monarchbt.html

However, lateral gene transfer seems not to occur.

Secondly, what GMO's are is not simply a selection of traits that already existed. They are a 'brand new' organism, in no way the same thing as the regular type.

No more than any other mutation would produce. There's nothing magical about inserting a gene that makes it different than other mutations.

In traditional selection, the only thing that people can select for is phenotype.

Not so. We can target a specific gene in breeding, just as well.

So the genotype may or may not have been changed through time, but it is without doubt a variation that the organism itself was inherently capable of. Geneticists have yet to determine what exactly every gene affects even in the organism that they naturally occur. To say that they know what phenotypic changes will occur given any genotypic variation is beyond absurd.

This is true of traditional breeding practices, as well. No magic.

Well, I think that my point here is that true genetic manipulation is what I believe to be absolutely wrong, and in no way comparable to traditional methods of artificial selection.

Beliefs are what they are. Evidence is another matter entirely.

 

[PossibilitiesAbound]

There is a huge difference between a plant that was selected over time for desirable traits, and a plant that was instantaneously (in reproductive view) made to have specific genetic variants.
I don't see how. After all, it's the same genetic change.

It is not the same genetic change. Changes in a plant occurring through traditional selection were variations that already existed within the genotype of the plant. In other words, it is inherently capable of producing those specific phenotypic variants.
Genetic manipulation creates a totally new genotype. It is not widdling down the different variants that are possible through selection- it is inserting an alien piece of information that was never meant to be there- or at least, would never have gotten there without help.

The key here is time. It would take hundreds of thousands of generations to produce a plant that in labs, scientists can create instantly.
That argument could be applied to any new technology. Print media, compared to electronic media, for example.

I'm not comparing the techniques, only their products.

Over those hundreds of thousands of generations, those plants would first have to survive with their new phenotype to a reproductive stage in development. In this way, nature 'takes care of' those plants that for whatever reason cannot survive or that are a threat to the other members of the species, or environment.
Natural selection isn't the beneficial force some people imagine it to be. It can produce monsterous things, dramatically alter ecosystems, and even lead species down the path to extinction. So "natural" isn't the equivalent of "good."

I never said it was 'good'. It is merely how things are. That was your own inference.

(because in reality, even plants live in communities, which makes things difficult when they aren't symbiotic). You can see here that a plant genetically modified to produce pesticides would find it very difficult in nature to reproduce- since it kills all of its pollinators! It would necessarily harm any other plant in it's vicinity, having reduced the number of pollinators.
Not so. For example the BT variant in corn (which I studied as an undergraduate) affects moth and butterfly larvae, but not other insects. The corn borer, is a major pest of corn, and is the larva of a moth, so a BT variant of corn works really well. The issue is whether horizontal spread of the gene is possible. If it were to get into milkweed plants, monarch butterflies would be in big trouble. There is some evidence that BT corn pollen, drifting to milkweed plants near cornfields, could kill some monarch caterpillars.

Thank you for pointing this out, as I actually did not know that. I was using the pesticide gene as an example of how change in one organism rarely affects only that organism, and would have consequences within the environment.

Secondly, what GMO's are is not simply a selection of traits that already existed. They are a 'brand new' organism, in no way the same thing as the regular type.
No more than any other mutation would produce. There's nothing magical about inserting a gene that makes it different than other mutations.

I'm not sure how you can assert this, or rather, support it. A mutation is random change- the chances of a complete gene sequence 'falling out of the sky' and then being in an area that is usable, not to mention ends up being profitable to the organism, are so low as to be impossible.
As I said earlier, these changes are not the same as we find in a variety that is selected by traditional methods. However I leave it to you to defend that a genetically modified organism is no different than the traditionally selected.

In traditional selection, the only thing that people can select for is phenotype.
Not so. We can target a specific gene in breeding, just as well.

You can target a specific gene in breeding if you know the phenotype that it produces. Otherwise you're back to fiddling with genetics again.

So the genotype may or may not have been changed through time, but it is without doubt a variation that the organism itself was inherently capable of. Geneticists have yet to determine what exactly every gene affects even in the organism that they naturally occur. To say that they know what phenotypic changes will occur given any genotypic variation is beyond absurd.
This is true of traditional breeding practices, as well. No magic.

I may not have been quite clear here, but it was traditional selection that I was talking about. A GMO is not something that its parental organism(s) would be inherently capable of producing.

Well, I think that my point here is that true genetic manipulation is what I believe to be absolutely wrong, and in no way comparable to traditional methods of artificial selection.
Beliefs are what they are. Evidence is another matter entirely.

My thesis, perhaps wrongly placed, is based on the evidence presented.

 

[Barbarian]

It is not the same genetic change. Changes in a plant occurring through traditional selection were variations that already existed within the genotype of the plant.

Usually not. Most often, a new mutation that happened to be desirable from the viewpoint of humans.

Genetic manipulation creates a totally new genotype.

Nope. Just a slight modification of the old one. Like a mutation. In fact, it is a mutation. It's just (as in traditional methods) we substitute our intentions in place of natural selection to get something unnatural that we want.

The key here is time. It would take hundreds of thousands of generations to produce a plant that in labs, scientists can create instantly.

Usually not. One mutation can do it.

Over those hundreds of thousands of generations, those plants would first have to survive with their new phenotype to a reproductive stage in development.

But humans, ten thousand years ago or thereabouts, discovered that they could speed up the process considerably. Wheat that did not shatter (and thus could be harvested all at once) happened in a generation or two; the mutation was very desirable,and humans rapidly bred strains that had the best results of this new mutation. Thousands of years ago. In nature, this would be a bad thing. But for us, a good result. Unnatural, but useful.

Natural selection isn't the beneficial force some people imagine it to be. It can produce monsterous things, dramatically alter ecosystems, and even lead species down the path to extinction. So "natural" isn't the equivalent of "good."

I never said it was 'good'.

You were comparing it favorably to human-managed evolution. So what was your point?

It would necessarily harm any other plant in it's vicinity, having reduced the number of pollinators.

Not so. For example the BT variant in corn (which I studied as an undergraduate) affects moth and butterfly larvae, but not other insects. The corn borer, is a major pest of corn, and is the larva of a moth, so a BT variant of corn works really well. The issue is whether horizontal spread of the gene is possible. If it were to get into milkweed plants, monarch butterflies would be in big trouble. There is some evidence that BT corn pollen, drifting to milkweed plants near cornfields, could kill some monarch caterpillars.

Thank you for pointing this out, as I actually did not know that. I was using the pesticide gene as an example of how change in one organism rarely affects only that organism, and would have consequences within the environment.

There was initially some concern, but it quickly became clear that since corn pollen doesn't travel in significant amounts, the danger seems to be insignificant.

Secondly, what GMO's are is not simply a selection of traits that already existed. They are a 'brand new' organism, in no way the same thing as the regular type.

No more than any other mutation would produce. There's nothing magical about inserting a gene that makes it different than other mutations.

I'm not sure how you can assert this, or rather, support it.

I've had considerable training in genetics. So, it's pretty obvious.

A mutation is random change-

Actually, we can induce mutations, even pick them, under some circumstances. More to the point, we can preserve the ones we like, and make drastically changed organisms by selection or direct genetic modification.

the chances of a complete gene sequence 'falling out of the sky' and then being in an area that is usable, not to mention ends up being profitable to the organism, are so low as to be impossible.

We have observed and used a huge number of such mutations. I mentioned one of the earliest known ones, non-shattering wheat.

As I said earlier, these changes are not the same as we find in a variety that is selected by traditional methods.

They are. You can't tell (for example) the difference between a bacterium that naturally obtained the ability to decompose spilled hydrocarbons, and one that has had the gene inserted. No way to know, unless you could document that it happened in a lab.

However I leave it to you to defend that a genetically modified organism is no different than the traditionally selected.

So far, you haven't given us any reason to defend anything. A bald assertion is just a bald assertion.

In traditional selection, the only thing that people can select for is phenotype.

Not so. We can target a specific gene in breeding, just as well.​

You can target a specific gene in breeding if you know the phenotype that it produces. Otherwise you're back to fiddling with genetics again.

No, we can often predict what the gene will do.

So the genotype may or may not have been changed through time, but it is without doubt a variation that the organism itself was inherently capable of.

What have breeders or geneticist produced that a genome was not capable of producing?

Geneticists have yet to determine what exactly every gene affects even in the organism that they naturally occur. To say that they know what phenotypic changes will occur given any genotypic variation is beyond absurd.

They often have some idea; otherwise, genetic modification would not be practical.

This is true of traditional breeding practices, as well. No magic.

I may not have been quite clear here, but it was traditional selection that I was talking about. A GMO is not something that its parental organism(s) would be inherently capable of producing.

For example, maize (corn) would die out in a generation if humans did not cultivate it. So maize is not something that teosinte (the evolutionary ancestor of maize) is capable of producing, without our interference with natural selection. But of course, this was done without us inserting any genes. No magic difference.

Well, I think that my point here is that true genetic manipulation is what I believe to be absolutely wrong, and in no way comparable to traditional methods of artificial selection.

Beliefs are what they are. Evidence is another matter entirely.​

My thesis, perhaps wrongly placed, is based on the evidence presented.

Now would be the time to show us.