2 ms·

But what makes the alternative methods like mutagenesis safer? People always speak of GMO as if the alternative is purely natural and created alone by nature.

But what makes the alternative methods like mutagenesis safer? People always speak of GMO as if the alternative is purely natural and created alone by nature. They also act as if nature is static. More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods. This idea that getting genes from frogs and putting them in wheat is somehow dangerous deceives people by playing on their ignorance of how closely related living things are. I share 50% of my genes with a banana. An anti-GMO person might spin this has me being filled with unnatural banana genes which should never have been in a human.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Erm, didn't you just perform the exact sort of spin you're arguing against? >More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods. // Which is to pretend that the potency of any genetic alteration is simply down to the number of genes altered. So, ADA deficiency (a disease caused by a single mutated gene) is less troubling than having red hair (due to [possibly] 4 pairs of genes, AFAIK). We're making alterations that it would be mathematically impossible to occur by natural mutation, to pretend that direct gene manipulation is only an evolution (eh!) of normal farming methods is exceedingly disingenuous IMO.
- jernfrost 10y ago
  What exactly do you consider NORMAL farming methods!!!??? How on earth is mutagenesis normal? How is nuking seeds causing massive amounts of mutations "normal"? This is the alternative to GMO. We are already unnaturally altering the DNA of plants. And you seem to suggest that doing deliberate and controlled altering of specific genes is somehow MORE dangerous than doing RANDOM changes or any number of genes. How does that even compute? Would you drive a car at 100 mph where the car mechanics had just made massive amounts of random changes hoping it made the car better, or would you drive the car where they carefully studied the engine and made selected changes? There are no laws in physics which prevent the DNA from getting altered at exactly the same spots through deliberate random mutations than through GMO methods. Speaking of your ADA deficiency example. If you wanted to avoid accidentally mutating a gene to cause ADA, you would be most certain to avoid that using a the GMO method of specifically altering specific genes than if you just nuked the seed.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >'How on earth is mutagenesis normal? How is nuking seeds causing massive amounts of mutations "normal"?' Do you mean laboratory mutagenesis initiated by human action or other types? You know humans don't have to do mutagenesis to do farming?? It sounds like you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not my field, can you explain why these are the only options? >'There are no laws in physics which prevent the DNA from getting altered at exactly the same spots through deliberate random mutations than through GMO methods.' // And a seed could spontaneously form from a confluence of cosmic rays. but it doesn't. Which is why I invoked the mathematical impossibility. And just because mutagenesis can occur without human action doesn't mean we should run in slipshod. Stabbing can occur by accident, doesn't make purposeful stabbings a good idea. Your car analogy needs a small adjustment, the mechanic thinks they know everything and has already written off several cars by modifying them; oh, and their alterations could spread to other cars, houses, tables, and make the entirety of manufactured products fail. But hey, nitroglycerine explodes well, let's try filling fuel tanks with that, and liquid oxygen in the air-conditioning.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

Erm, didn't you just perform the exact sort of spin you're arguing against? >More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods. // Which is to pretend that the potency of any genetic alteration is simply down to the number of genes altered. So, ADA deficiency (a disease caused by a single mutated gene) is less troubling than having red hair (due to [possibly] 4 pairs of genes, AFAIK). We're making alterations that it would be mathematically impossible to occur by natural mutation, to pretend that direct gene manipulation is only an evolution (eh!) of normal farming methods is exceedingly disingenuous IMO.

jernfrost 10y ago
What exactly do you consider NORMAL farming methods!!!??? How on earth is mutagenesis normal? How is nuking seeds causing massive amounts of mutations "normal"? This is the alternative to GMO. We are already unnaturally altering the DNA of plants. And you seem to suggest that doing deliberate and controlled altering of specific genes is somehow MORE dangerous than doing RANDOM changes or any number of genes. How does that even compute? Would you drive a car at 100 mph where the car mechanics had just made massive amounts of random changes hoping it made the car better, or would you drive the car where they carefully studied the engine and made selected changes? There are no laws in physics which prevent the DNA from getting altered at exactly the same spots through deliberate random mutations than through GMO methods. Speaking of your ADA deficiency example. If you wanted to avoid accidentally mutating a gene to cause ADA, you would be most certain to avoid that using a the GMO method of specifically altering specific genes than if you just nuked the seed.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >'How on earth is mutagenesis normal? How is nuking seeds causing massive amounts of mutations "normal"?' Do you mean laboratory mutagenesis initiated by human action or other types? You know humans don't have to do mutagenesis to do farming?? It sounds like you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not my field, can you explain why these are the only options? >'There are no laws in physics which prevent the DNA from getting altered at exactly the same spots through deliberate random mutations than through GMO methods.' // And a seed could spontaneously form from a confluence of cosmic rays. but it doesn't. Which is why I invoked the mathematical impossibility. And just because mutagenesis can occur without human action doesn't mean we should run in slipshod. Stabbing can occur by accident, doesn't make purposeful stabbings a good idea. Your car analogy needs a small adjustment, the mechanic thinks they know everything and has already written off several cars by modifying them; oh, and their alterations could spread to other cars, houses, tables, and make the entirety of manufactured products fail. But hey, nitroglycerine explodes well, let's try filling fuel tanks with that, and liquid oxygen in the air-conditioning.