5 ms·
I don't think there's much to undermine in the first place, as the opponent argument isn't much of an argument – just an appeal to nature (if I understand their
by eivarv 11y ago
I don't think there's much to undermine in the first place, as the opponent argument isn't much of an argument – just an appeal to nature (if I understand their position correctly).
Whether the modifications are done by nature or by an agent is irrelevant in itself, as nothing is exclusively inherent to either approach.
Any legitimate skepticism would be backed by critique of theory or argument, and/or contributing alternative explanations.
- 13years 11y agoThe argument I have heard is that this is part of the basis for the significant difference. Random mutations - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/
- eivarv 11y agoConsider this hierarchy: Natural/Artificial(whatever these terms mean) -> Genetic Modification(General field) -> Plant Transformation(Specific method) -> Using Agrobacterium tumefaciens(Specific technique) -> The application in practice. Even if one proves that something applies to a step/layer, one cannot generalize downwards (towards the general); only upwards (towards the specific). That's why I find the anti-GMO craze weird: Genetic modification in itself isn't harmful, and also happens in nature all the time (as if this makes a difference). It's specific outcomes of certain modifications, or side-effects of specific applied techniques (as noted in the article you linked to). So, whether a genetic modification is performed by "chance" (as in by nature), or deliberately (as in by humans) is irrelevant in and of itself. Weakness or risk is inherent not in the performing agent (or lack thereof), but in the the technique or its application – which is clear from the article.