24 ms·

This terrible argument seems to crop up again and again. Selective Breeding IS NOT Genetic Engineering. Suppose I told you that I wanted a good-looking dog. Th

This terrible argument seems to crop up again and again. Selective Breeding IS NOT Genetic Engineering. Suppose I told you that I wanted a good-looking dog. There are two ways to get that. On one hand, I could get a great male dog and mate it with a great female dog and produce a good-looking dog for you. On the other hand, I could take any dog and perform plastic surgery to make it into the dog you want. Although the final product may be similar, does anyone believe those two processes are the same? It's absolutely a nonsensical assertion. To put this in terms of logic, you're arguing that because Process X and Process Y both lead to Outcome Z, Process X and Process Y are equivalent. We know that the general case of this argument is false (e.g. bribing a police officer or not committing crime both keep you out of jail, but they are not the same processes). If you want to argue that this argument holds in the special case of GMOs, you have to argue for it! You cannot just state it and expect us to believe it because it is false in the general case.

collyw 10y ago
Its targeted gene mutation versus random gene mutation - not very different if you ask me.
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  There's a difference between marker assisted selection ('traditional' breeding aided by the use of genetic analysis to look for desired traits early) and physically editing the genome. I suspect you'd find most GMO critics are fine with the former. Most worrisome there have been several cases where funding for breeding programs has been cut because the 'new hotness' of genetic engineering pulls in more industry funding. An example is the 'Arctic' non-browning GMO apple here in Canada. It's a sad stupid story. Non-browning already exists as a potential trait in the natural Malus genome. Selective breeding had already produced apples here and there that had this trait. Despite this federal funding and regulatory approval was extended to the GMO program and cut from traditional breeding. And an existing non-GMO non-browning apple was ordered destroyed from a research centre. Meanwhile the Arctic apple even after approval for sale has only generated controversy, and now consumers who are suspicious about GMO will be suspicious about _any_ apple that demonstrates non-browning, GMO or not.
  - collyw 10y ago
    "I suspect you'd find most GMO critics are fine with the former" Most GMO critics that I have spoken to don't have a clue about how it actually works. "A fish gene in a plant?!?" being the sort of quote they will come out with, not realizing that we share a huge portion of our genomes with fish.
    - littletimmy 10y ago
      If you want to be taken seriously, take on the best of the GMO skeptics rather than the worst. Going for easy pickings like these is a waste of everyone's time.
      - collyw 10y ago
        I have yet to meet one that knows the basics of biology.
        cmrdporcupine 10y ago
        You just replied to one. I'm trained in horticulture own a small hobby farm, I breed plants, and have a license to spray pesticides. But sure, go on beating up your straw man.
        collyw 10y ago
        I haven't met you you just replied to a comment on this forum. Plus horticulture doesn't imply an understanding of what is going on during cell replication at a molecular level (OK, I said did say biology, can we change that to molecular biology).

collyw 10y ago

Its targeted gene mutation versus random gene mutation - not very different if you ask me.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
There's a difference between marker assisted selection ('traditional' breeding aided by the use of genetic analysis to look for desired traits early) and physically editing the genome. I suspect you'd find most GMO critics are fine with the former. Most worrisome there have been several cases where funding for breeding programs has been cut because the 'new hotness' of genetic engineering pulls in more industry funding. An example is the 'Arctic' non-browning GMO apple here in Canada. It's a sad stupid story. Non-browning already exists as a potential trait in the natural Malus genome. Selective breeding had already produced apples here and there that had this trait. Despite this federal funding and regulatory approval was extended to the GMO program and cut from traditional breeding. And an existing non-GMO non-browning apple was ordered destroyed from a research centre. Meanwhile the Arctic apple even after approval for sale has only generated controversy, and now consumers who are suspicious about GMO will be suspicious about _any_ apple that demonstrates non-browning, GMO or not.
- collyw 10y ago
  "I suspect you'd find most GMO critics are fine with the former" Most GMO critics that I have spoken to don't have a clue about how it actually works. "A fish gene in a plant?!?" being the sort of quote they will come out with, not realizing that we share a huge portion of our genomes with fish.
  - littletimmy 10y ago
    If you want to be taken seriously, take on the best of the GMO skeptics rather than the worst. Going for easy pickings like these is a waste of everyone's time.
    - collyw 10y ago
      I have yet to meet one that knows the basics of biology.
      - cmrdporcupine 10y ago
        You just replied to one. I'm trained in horticulture own a small hobby farm, I breed plants, and have a license to spray pesticides. But sure, go on beating up your straw man.
        collyw 10y ago
        I haven't met you you just replied to a comment on this forum. Plus horticulture doesn't imply an understanding of what is going on during cell replication at a molecular level (OK, I said did say biology, can we change that to molecular biology).