Truth about GMO

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Locust, Aug 23, 2014.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    ?? Uh - that statement is correct. It would just take a long time.
    It has been happening for millennia.
    ====================
    Visual Evidence of Horizontal Gene Transfer between Plants and Bacteria in the Phytosphere of Transplastomic Tobacco
    Appl Environ Microbiol. May 2009

    Alessandra Pontiroli
    Abstract

    Plant surfaces, colonized by numerous and diverse bacterial species, are often considered hot spots for horizontal gene transfer (HGT) between plants and bacteria. Plant DNA released during the degradation of plant tissues can persist and remain biologically active for significant periods of time, suggesting that soil or plant-associated bacteria could be in direct contact with plant DNA. In addition, nutrients released during the decaying process may provide a copiotrophic environment conducive for opportunistic microbial growth. . . .Microcosm-based experiments revealed that bacterial growth and competence development occur in different compartments of the plant. Isolation and direct visualization of transformants in situ suggest that some compartments of the phytosphere can be regarded as environmental hot spots for HGT.
    ====================
    Agreed. Random mutation (i.e. what we've used for centuries) and selective breeding is even less precise.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Study from 2012 found that rats fed Monsanto’s patented NK603 gmo corn were more likely to develop tumours and suffer severe liver and kidney damage. The study followed 200 rats over two years, divided into 10 groups of 10 males and 10 females. Three groups were fed the NK603 corn alone, three groups were fed the corn treated with Roundup herbicide, three groups were not fed the corn but their water was treated with Roundup, and a control group was fed non-GM corn and plain drinking water. The researchers found that the rats that consumed the GM corn or the Roundup, separately or combined, were prone to serious health problems that typically did not manifest until the fourth month of the trial.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,640
    You really should check what you're linking to.
    That study has been retracted.
    Why?
    Let's look at the Retraction Notice:
    The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,”
    no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence
    Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
  8. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Awww. Thats sweet. Poor Monsanto. Small sample size. Found me ANY recent peer reviewed paper and I can insert a doubt in their findings. Just question one variable or even peer review process.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    But what you can't do is actually retract it. You're trying to sell spoiled food!
     
  10. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Seriously? I have different views. Thats again lysenkosim or in common language BS.
     
  11. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    So we went to unintended mutations. I see.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    So to be clear - you believe that whales CANNOT evolve from land animals, given enough time?
     
  13. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    No. I believe polar bear can not become whale. In any given time. Darwin was wrong there. Which is normal considering that Lamarck was wrong before him and that science is self correcting.
     
  14. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    GMO is young technology. We go with "what could possibly go wrong?" We have many ideas in history which are now bad idea. Such as DDT, Agent Orange, fleecing, blood letting and atomic power.
    Lets say that after 50 years we have consensus that GMO was bad idea. Problem is that they have put it out there and it will not go away. Contamination was already done.
     
  15. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    So what you are saying is that you understand that as of today GMOs are unquestionably beneficial and your only real basis for opposing them is the possibility that they may be discovered 50 years from now to be bad? (Well -- that and your anti-corporate politics, of course).
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    Of course it could; given enough time, and enough selective pressure, polar bears would lose their terrestrial adaptations (legs, fur, forward facing nostrils etc) and become adapted to a purely aquatic environment, like cetaceans did.

    Indeed, that's close to what happened. A land based animal (Indohyus) evolved into modern whales. It took about 50 million years.
     
  17. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    No I want to draw paralel with DDT, Agent Orange, atomic power. Also to rise awareness of common people who doubt that GMO is bad (I dont doubt) what would happend if we found out in 50 years that is bad. I hope you have imagination and knowledge to realize what would happened.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,804
    If we didn't have DDT millions more people would have died from malaria. Now we have better insecticides, fortunately.
    If we didn't have nuclear power we would now have put billions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and released millions more tons of nuclear waste into our water and air. Fortunately we had nuclear power so that didn't happen.

    So both of those are bad examples. If GMO's are "only" as successful as DDT and nuclear power, they will be quite successful in the long run.
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    So your only defense of your lie is non sequitur? Makes sense -- your lie is indefensible and obvious, so unless you want to retract it, there is nothing more you can say about it except to agree with the truth, while still trying to wiggle-out of it.
     
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Setting aside that atomic power doesn't belong in the "negative" category at all, what you are saying could be used as an argument against any new technology. If you want to go down that road, you need to stop using your computer this instant because you can't be sure it isn't giving you cancer right now!
     
  21. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    It would not become whale. Your logic have gap which you fullfill with some magic process.
     
  22. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Oh, wait - are you a young-earth creationist too?
     
  23. Locust Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Drawing paralel with computer and DDT isnt same. Also we assume that computers are not bad for human health while for GMO we suspect that are bad for us and enivronment.
    I see atomic power as negative. Did you hear for Fukushima? Im for geothermal energy, wave energy, solar energy, wind energy and perhaps Thorium nuclear energy and biomass. In future I hope that we will cathch "sun in the box."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
     

Share This Page