3 ms·

We've known about horizontal gene transfer for a long time. We do seem to be learning that it's more common than we thought, making species boundaries much more

by api 9y ago

We've known about horizontal gene transfer for a long time. We do seem to be learning that it's more common than we thought, making species boundaries much more fuzzy and fluid than previously believed. Common ancestry is probably best understood in aggregate. When we look at genetics in aggregate we see a lot of common sequences that are highly conserved across all of nature. Edit: also shows why most anti-GMO hysteria is nonsense. Everything is "transgenic." Species are fuzzy.

pygy_ 9y ago
Monsanto's practices with GMO are problematic, and need to be denounced and made illegal (terminator genes, glyphosate resistant crops, etc...). GMO per se are IMO a net good, we're increasing biodiversity. Also, they are crucial in medicine. Insulin and other peptide-derived treatments are synthesized by GMO bacteria and yeasts (see "recombinant DNA").
- DanCarvajal 9y ago
  Why should Monsanto's work be illegal? What would be the result of change vs. no change in legality?
- mitochondrion 9y ago
  >we're increasing biodiversity Are you sure? Farmers used to have their own subtly different strains of crops at the individual, village, town, and country levels in a kind of expanding concentric ring pattern. Now, at least for cash crops, it's just a few varieties all "manufactured" by one central power.
  - pygy_ 9y ago
    It is artificial biodiversity. Without the current legal framework (where seeds/genes can be patented), farmers could hybridize GMO with their own crops to add interesting traits to their own strains. The current uniformity predates GMOs, it stems from F1 hybrids that are effectively clones, and the legislation that makes it practically illegal to sell or plant non-patented seeds.
    - mitochondrion 9y ago
      >The current uniformity predates GMOs, it stems from F1 hybrids that are effectively clones, and the legislation that makes it practically illegal to sell or plant non-patented seeds. Granted. But in the grand scheme of things, this is as equally an astonishingly new situation as is mechanized agriculture. A hundred years ago, most people lived and worked on farms; now it's like 1% or something like that. I know that Monsanto's shareholders need to make rivers of dosh, boatloads of cash, money hand over fist, but I don't understand how in practice they've managed to get a vice-grip on everybody's family jewels.
- dekhn 9y ago
  Terminator genes are already not used by Monsanto. https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/terminator-seeds-myth/ https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/terminator-see... As for glyphosate resistant crops, beyond the currently insufficient science (lots of invalid studies!), I can't see any reason to denounce it or make it illegal).
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
So how do we know if a particular sequence is from aggregate effects, sounds like "we don't" [in a rigorous scientific manner] from your answer? As a layman, the story I've seen up to now is roughly "these sequences are the same, therefore there is a common ancestry"; but this information shows that argument doesn't work on a wide scale across species in this simplistic form -- so either the basis of common ancestry being inferred from similar DNA is not scientific (or is falsified) or we have results that show whence the particular sequences came from (ie there's a more nuanced result)? In short that answer is unsatisfyingly vague.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mitochondrion 9y ago
The problem with GMO foods is not that they have been manually manipulated by man, but that they have been manually manipulated by men with interests not necessarily congruent with the persons eating them: namely, the emphasis of crop yield, appearance, and appealing ("cheap") taste over soil quality, sustainability, nutrition, and general "goodness" — in short, the pursuit of short-term private profit over long-term social good, at the expense of commons which before modern technology were simply practically inviolable.
- api 9y ago
  That's kind of why I said "hysteria." I was thinking of the blanket suspicion of any and all GMO products because they are GMO, not more nuanced thoughts such as yours. Technologies are just tools. It's all in how they are used.
  - mitochondrion 9y ago
    Well, all GMO products are subject to the same pressures of divergent interests. If you eat things, and if some GMO products you might eat are bad, and if the only genetic-modification-related insight you have into what you eat is "is-GMO" or "not-GMO", then the (entirely rational and reasonable) heuristic to adopt is an "hysterical" avoidance of GMO products. Also, the reason why a person does or does not do such a thing is rather of less importance than what that thing is that he does or does not do. For example, if pigs carry disease, and your religion proscribes you from eating pigs because "God says so", your life is preserved whether or not you or anyone else have any conception of germ theory whatever.

by api 9y ago

pygy_ 9y ago

Monsanto's practices with GMO are problematic, and need to be denounced and made illegal (terminator genes, glyphosate resistant crops, etc...). GMO per se are IMO a net good, we're increasing biodiversity. Also, they are crucial in medicine. Insulin and other peptide-derived treatments are synthesized by GMO bacteria and yeasts (see "recombinant DNA").

DanCarvajal 9y ago
Why should Monsanto's work be illegal? What would be the result of change vs. no change in legality?
mitochondrion 9y ago
>we're increasing biodiversity Are you sure? Farmers used to have their own subtly different strains of crops at the individual, village, town, and country levels in a kind of expanding concentric ring pattern. Now, at least for cash crops, it's just a few varieties all "manufactured" by one central power.
- pygy_ 9y ago
  It is artificial biodiversity. Without the current legal framework (where seeds/genes can be patented), farmers could hybridize GMO with their own crops to add interesting traits to their own strains. The current uniformity predates GMOs, it stems from F1 hybrids that are effectively clones, and the legislation that makes it practically illegal to sell or plant non-patented seeds.
  - mitochondrion 9y ago
    >The current uniformity predates GMOs, it stems from F1 hybrids that are effectively clones, and the legislation that makes it practically illegal to sell or plant non-patented seeds. Granted. But in the grand scheme of things, this is as equally an astonishingly new situation as is mechanized agriculture. A hundred years ago, most people lived and worked on farms; now it's like 1% or something like that. I know that Monsanto's shareholders need to make rivers of dosh, boatloads of cash, money hand over fist, but I don't understand how in practice they've managed to get a vice-grip on everybody's family jewels.
dekhn 9y ago
Terminator genes are already not used by Monsanto. https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/terminator-seeds-myth/ https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/terminator-see... As for glyphosate resistant crops, beyond the currently insufficient science (lots of invalid studies!), I can't see any reason to denounce it or make it illegal).

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

So how do we know if a particular sequence is from aggregate effects, sounds like "we don't" [in a rigorous scientific manner] from your answer? As a layman, the story I've seen up to now is roughly "these sequences are the same, therefore there is a common ancestry"; but this information shows that argument doesn't work on a wide scale across species in this simplistic form -- so either the basis of common ancestry being inferred from similar DNA is not scientific (or is falsified) or we have results that show whence the particular sequences came from (ie there's a more nuanced result)? In short that answer is unsatisfyingly vague.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mitochondrion 9y ago

The problem with GMO foods is not that they have been manually manipulated by man, but that they have been manually manipulated by men with interests not necessarily congruent with the persons eating them: namely, the emphasis of crop yield, appearance, and appealing ("cheap") taste over soil quality, sustainability, nutrition, and general "goodness" — in short, the pursuit of short-term private profit over long-term social good, at the expense of commons which before modern technology were simply practically inviolable.

api 9y ago
That's kind of why I said "hysteria." I was thinking of the blanket suspicion of any and all GMO products because they are GMO, not more nuanced thoughts such as yours. Technologies are just tools. It's all in how they are used.
- mitochondrion 9y ago
  Well, all GMO products are subject to the same pressures of divergent interests. If you eat things, and if some GMO products you might eat are bad, and if the only genetic-modification-related insight you have into what you eat is "is-GMO" or "not-GMO", then the (entirely rational and reasonable) heuristic to adopt is an "hysterical" avoidance of GMO products. Also, the reason why a person does or does not do such a thing is rather of less importance than what that thing is that he does or does not do. For example, if pigs carry disease, and your religion proscribes you from eating pigs because "God says so", your life is preserved whether or not you or anyone else have any conception of germ theory whatever.