I have no issue with them. I can't really understand why people are against them. There has been some evidence that GMO's might lead to cancer, but these pieces of evidence seem to change to benefit some corporations, so I'm questioning the validity of those statements.
When you look at the information available on both sides of the issue, you find one side that is constantly lying, changing results, misrepresenting data and people, financially motivated, and massively corrupt, with the vast majority of "scientists" on the payroll of companies that benefit from the lies. On the other side you have accredited scientists finding ways to safely increase crop yields and address disease resistance in crops through a strong understanding of hereditary, genetics, and DNA.
To me, the idea og genetically modifying organisms seems rather creepy to me. If this gets more accepted worldwide, wouldn't that mean that there would be some 'experiments' involving implementing DNA from one animal into the embryon of another? I believe that this is already happening with some bacteria.
Not quite sure how that would work though. I'm not educated about DNA yet.
well it already some what happens in the wild such as the polar bear/grizzly bear, and we have done it in fish such as splake (brook trout/lake trout) and tiger trout (brown trout/brook trout) the only down side of these two species is for the fact they can not breed. but look at the glowing cats that are mixed with jelly fish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"good night, good luck" -dying light
i think we should all use common sense and logic when we answer and ask a question but always stay open minded
just cause science fails to explain something does not mean its real (afterlife,big foot, ghosts etc..) does not mean its fake try to stay opened mined instead of closed
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
5/15/2014
Posts:
351
Member Details
There are many benefits to using GMO's. Take crops for example. You can genetically modify a crop such as corn to taste better, to grow bigger, faster, withstand harsh weather conditions, and to produce nutrients necessary for human health. One major benefit is that you can also genetically modify them to be resistant to certain pests that would otherwise destroy the crop. Also, crops and even bacteria can be genetically modified to produce important substances that some people need, such as insulin for people who have a genetic defect that prevents them from producing it naturally.
Unfortunately some of these great benefits come with some serious risks for the environment and human health. If we look back at my corn example, a genetically modified corn made to resist a pest such as a fly (I'm making a random pest up.) could result in an important food source for the fly being unavailable. This would result in a huge population decrease in the fly population, which then affects whatever animal may eat the fly, such as a bird. So therefore being careless in doing GMO's can have some serious repercussions in the animal food chain. in regards to human health, it has been suggested that some of the genes from GMO's can transfer over into the human cells and result in diseases such as cancer in human's. However there is currently no concrete evidence to support this idea as far as I am aware.
Another important hazard in regards to genetically modified crops is that if a large portion of farmers began to breed specific crops that have certain genes for whatever issue, then this would seriously impact the biodiversity of the crop in question. Because of this, it would make a large portion of the crop vulnerable to a bacteria or virus that attacks a weakness in the crop. Therefore the entire crop can possibly be wiped out, resulting in serious economic issues and even a food shortage depending on the scale of the damage and the crop in question.
Quote from pefan
well it already some what happens in the wild such as the polar bear/grizzly bear, and we have done it in fish such as splake (brook trout/lake trout) and tiger trout (brown trout/brook trout) the only down side of these two species is for the fact they can not breed. but look at the glowing cats that are mixed with jelly fish. <!-- Attachments -->
<!-- Edited By --> <!-- Notes -->
Private Mod Note ():
<!-- Revisions -->
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
<!-- Signature -->
I think he is talking about actually taking DNA from one organism and putting it into another, but by my top arguments, I trust that he realizes this is actually quite common.
In regards to your paragraph, the animal breeding you describe is simply breeding a hybrid of the two species. There is no actual genetic modification going on here. Also what you don't realize is that the inability for your hybrids to breed is actually a good thing and I will explain why.
Take your polar bear/ grizzly bear example (Which is actually a fantastic example to use for this =p). People seem to get the impression that the combination of the two is a great thing because then it gets the benefits of both species, but that is very untrue. The problem is that as a separate species, the grizzly bear is adapted to surviving in the wilds south of the arctic, while the polar bear is adapted to survive in the Arctic. Once these two species breed, the hybrid in question will naturally be weaker because it will not be as well adapted to survive in either the forest region or the Arctic. So therefore this new species will be unable to compete with either the grizzly or polar bear and will therefore die off. In fact this is the exact reason the fish you mentioned cannot naturally breed because nature has determined that the hybrid is inferior and will be unable to compete, so the biology puts up a barrier that prevents viable breeding.
Oh yes, I am aware of genetically modifying plants and bacteria, but I was referring to implementing DNA to an animal embryon. Does that already happen?
I suppose that would have benefits as well- kind of comparable to genetically modified plants.
There is research being conducted in terms of genetic modification for animals, however it is still in the research phase. Primarily it centers around ensuring hereditary traits such as disease resistance or as a means of producing particular substances such as microbial agents.
There was some earlier research- particularly with pigs- to try to increase the meat production and flavour profile. They were successful, actually- however, it never went into production, since doing so would have been unethical; you see, while they were successful in basically genetically modifying pigs to be super-delicious, one of the side-effects was serious arthritic and joint problems that caused the pigs to live in constant pain.
Of course, with plants, there is less of an ethical consideration since they have no central nervous system, so the concerns there are primarily regarding safety to both the environment and consumption. For crops, Genetic modifications are made to maximize crop yield, disease resistance, shelf-life, and so forth. It's quite fascinating science.
What is very interesting about the "Anti-GMO" Movement is the origins. One of the earliest Genetically Modified foods that was deemed fit for consumption was the "Flavr Savr" Tomato, in the early 90's. which had been modified to not produce a particular enzyme that contributed to the tomato "going bad" when they turn all soft since it broke-down cell walls over time. A researcher working for the research firm that approved the Tomato was on television doing a segment about his work, and he said that he had observed detrimental health effects on rats that were fed genetically modified potatoes. The media latched onto this claim to vilify the Flavr-Savr tomato as a "Frankenfood". This is all despite the researcher's own notes and evidence not matching with that which he claimed to have observed, and that claim being related to a completely different product (A modified Potato that was in the research phase, not the Flavr Savr that had already undergone the rigors of the research phase).
Many individuals, who were rather new to the idea of genetic modification, had their first exposure from media articles with headlines talking about "Frankenfoods". Grocery stores released statements that they would "cease to stock Flavr Savr Tomatoes, in the interest of public safety". It is reasonable, then, for people to surmise that there must be something to the claim, but realistically it was a set of overreactions and even speculation that was based on a televised claim that couldn't even be corroborated by that researchers own evidence or additional peer-review.
The fallout from this has continued to this day, with individuals and companies who have a vested interest in "organic" food crops continuing to stoke the flames from that fire to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the safety and regulation of Genetically Modified crops. For example, one can easily find sites that talk about how those evil GMO producers are patenting seeds, so they can't be trusted. They seem to omit how Organic seeds are also patented by the same companies that they hold up as a bastion of good-faith produce growers.
I'm not sure I'm cool with that, altering DNA seems really creepy and uneasing to me. I think it's something we shouldn't mess with unless we really need to.
We've been modifying DNA for millenia. The modern crop of corn used to be a little weed in Central America but after selective breeding it's become the plant we know now. Dog breeds too, there were never actual dog breeds in nature (they were all mutts), but after tons of selective breeding for the joy of the affluent members of society we now have "breeds" that would never exist without genetic modification. Why would a dog evolve to have hair covering its eyes and getting tangled so that it needs to be brushed daily or why would a dog evolve to have big jowls in the first place? Plus, if we don't modify our food to increase efficiency and output then it will be all the more harder to stop famine and such. I personally think it isn't really that bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
Doesn't really phase me, infact I think they're a great idea. It saves a lot of time and risk when people are trying to breed superior plants. With proper testing, it's relatively safe too. Religious arguments against it are just a setback on something that could have a lot of potential benefits to the human race. Imagine being able to genetically alter a plant to grow easier in harsh climates where food is desperately needed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~Please click these Eggs, you should try out MagiStream~ “When you cut pieces out of the truth to avoid looking like a fool you end up looking like a moron instead.”
― Robin Hobb, Assassin's Apprentice
I was thinking more along the lines of splicing an organism's DNA instead of breeding over time. Doesn't anyone remember the story when some genetically modified crops sprouted and not even a flamethrower could get rid of them? That kind of stuff freaks me out.
It's basically the same thing, you're changing the DNA of the organism except with breeding you're taking advantage of mutations where in modern genetic modification you're choosing what mutation you want and switching it in. The end results are pretty much the same. I've never heard that story but most GMO crops are heavily regulated and go through extensive testing by government agencies and the company itself in order to make sure it's safe for consumption. Personally I'd be more worried about eating bacon than eating a genetically modified crop and people go around eating bacon everyday without worry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
To me, the idea og genetically modifying organisms seems rather creepy to me. If this gets more accepted worldwide, wouldn't that mean that there would be some 'experiments' involving implementing DNA from one animal into the embryon of another? I believe that this is already happening with some bacteria.
Not quite sure how that would work though. I'm not educated about DNA yet.
We have glow in the dark mice already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
They've cloned sheep too, but that isn't really the topic here.
What I was talking about was a GMO.
GMOs are cool, they're perfectly fine, whoever disagrees needs to get with the times because it'll be humans next. And when the doctors genetically modify your child before birth to save them from a crippling mental disorder, you'll be taking back everything bad you ever said about genetic modification. Just my two cents on the matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
Just so long as it doesn't turn into Baby customization.
It probably will, let's be honest. Some countries might stop it, but it'll happen somewhere. Honestly, I don't care about it too much, but I understand that designer babies are a bad thing
But would I put up with designer babies to cure every genetic disease ever discovered? Hell yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
I'm perfectly fine with GMOs. Genetically modifying things is basically what we've been doing for thousands of years, but sciencier,
I have no issue with them. I can't really understand why people are against them. There has been some evidence that GMO's might lead to cancer, but these pieces of evidence seem to change to benefit some corporations, so I'm questioning the validity of those statements.
اكتب الإساءة على الرمل و انحت المعروف على الصخر
"Write the bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble"
When you look at the information available on both sides of the issue, you find one side that is constantly lying, changing results, misrepresenting data and people, financially motivated, and massively corrupt, with the vast majority of "scientists" on the payroll of companies that benefit from the lies. On the other side you have accredited scientists finding ways to safely increase crop yields and address disease resistance in crops through a strong understanding of hereditary, genetics, and DNA.
I have no issues with them, although I understand that some people might disagree with them because or personal or religious beliefs.
I don't really care. Just as long as your not trying to pass of rat meat as pork. That has nothing to do with GMOs, but I don't care.
You can just call me Canary.
How not to look like a total fool in the forum games
Inb4 this thread gets locked for PPNS
OT: I'm fine with most GMOs.
My battle.net is Kirbyintron#1254, if you want to play some Overwatch with me.
well it already some what happens in the wild such as the polar bear/grizzly bear, and we have done it in fish such as splake (brook trout/lake trout) and tiger trout (brown trout/brook trout) the only down side of these two species is for the fact they can not breed. but look at the glowing cats that are mixed with jelly fish.
"good night, good luck" -dying light
i think we should all use common sense and logic when we answer and ask a question but always stay open minded
just cause science fails to explain something does not mean its real (afterlife,big foot, ghosts etc..) does not mean its fake try to stay opened mined instead of closed
There are many benefits to using GMO's. Take crops for example. You can genetically modify a crop such as corn to taste better, to grow bigger, faster, withstand harsh weather conditions, and to produce nutrients necessary for human health. One major benefit is that you can also genetically modify them to be resistant to certain pests that would otherwise destroy the crop. Also, crops and even bacteria can be genetically modified to produce important substances that some people need, such as insulin for people who have a genetic defect that prevents them from producing it naturally.
Unfortunately some of these great benefits come with some serious risks for the environment and human health. If we look back at my corn example, a genetically modified corn made to resist a pest such as a fly (I'm making a random pest up.) could result in an important food source for the fly being unavailable. This would result in a huge population decrease in the fly population, which then affects whatever animal may eat the fly, such as a bird. So therefore being careless in doing GMO's can have some serious repercussions in the animal food chain. in regards to human health, it has been suggested that some of the genes from GMO's can transfer over into the human cells and result in diseases such as cancer in human's. However there is currently no concrete evidence to support this idea as far as I am aware.
Another important hazard in regards to genetically modified crops is that if a large portion of farmers began to breed specific crops that have certain genes for whatever issue, then this would seriously impact the biodiversity of the crop in question. Because of this, it would make a large portion of the crop vulnerable to a bacteria or virus that attacks a weakness in the crop. Therefore the entire crop can possibly be wiped out, resulting in serious economic issues and even a food shortage depending on the scale of the damage and the crop in question.
I think he is talking about actually taking DNA from one organism and putting it into another, but by my top arguments, I trust that he realizes this is actually quite common.
In regards to your paragraph, the animal breeding you describe is simply breeding a hybrid of the two species. There is no actual genetic modification going on here. Also what you don't realize is that the inability for your hybrids to breed is actually a good thing and I will explain why.
Take your polar bear/ grizzly bear example (Which is actually a fantastic example to use for this =p). People seem to get the impression that the combination of the two is a great thing because then it gets the benefits of both species, but that is very untrue. The problem is that as a separate species, the grizzly bear is adapted to surviving in the wilds south of the arctic, while the polar bear is adapted to survive in the Arctic. Once these two species breed, the hybrid in question will naturally be weaker because it will not be as well adapted to survive in either the forest region or the Arctic. So therefore this new species will be unable to compete with either the grizzly or polar bear and will therefore die off. In fact this is the exact reason the fish you mentioned cannot naturally breed because nature has determined that the hybrid is inferior and will be unable to compete, so the biology puts up a barrier that prevents viable breeding.
Hope this clears some things up on the topic. =-)
There is research being conducted in terms of genetic modification for animals, however it is still in the research phase. Primarily it centers around ensuring hereditary traits such as disease resistance or as a means of producing particular substances such as microbial agents.
There was some earlier research- particularly with pigs- to try to increase the meat production and flavour profile. They were successful, actually- however, it never went into production, since doing so would have been unethical; you see, while they were successful in basically genetically modifying pigs to be super-delicious, one of the side-effects was serious arthritic and joint problems that caused the pigs to live in constant pain.
Of course, with plants, there is less of an ethical consideration since they have no central nervous system, so the concerns there are primarily regarding safety to both the environment and consumption. For crops, Genetic modifications are made to maximize crop yield, disease resistance, shelf-life, and so forth. It's quite fascinating science.
What is very interesting about the "Anti-GMO" Movement is the origins. One of the earliest Genetically Modified foods that was deemed fit for consumption was the "Flavr Savr" Tomato, in the early 90's. which had been modified to not produce a particular enzyme that contributed to the tomato "going bad" when they turn all soft since it broke-down cell walls over time. A researcher working for the research firm that approved the Tomato was on television doing a segment about his work, and he said that he had observed detrimental health effects on rats that were fed genetically modified potatoes. The media latched onto this claim to vilify the Flavr-Savr tomato as a "Frankenfood". This is all despite the researcher's own notes and evidence not matching with that which he claimed to have observed, and that claim being related to a completely different product (A modified Potato that was in the research phase, not the Flavr Savr that had already undergone the rigors of the research phase).
Many individuals, who were rather new to the idea of genetic modification, had their first exposure from media articles with headlines talking about "Frankenfoods". Grocery stores released statements that they would "cease to stock Flavr Savr Tomatoes, in the interest of public safety". It is reasonable, then, for people to surmise that there must be something to the claim, but realistically it was a set of overreactions and even speculation that was based on a televised claim that couldn't even be corroborated by that researchers own evidence or additional peer-review.
The fallout from this has continued to this day, with individuals and companies who have a vested interest in "organic" food crops continuing to stoke the flames from that fire to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the safety and regulation of Genetically Modified crops. For example, one can easily find sites that talk about how those evil GMO producers are patenting seeds, so they can't be trusted. They seem to omit how Organic seeds are also patented by the same companies that they hold up as a bastion of good-faith produce growers.
I think people make too big a deal out of it.
We've been modifying DNA for millenia. The modern crop of corn used to be a little weed in Central America but after selective breeding it's become the plant we know now. Dog breeds too, there were never actual dog breeds in nature (they were all mutts), but after tons of selective breeding for the joy of the affluent members of society we now have "breeds" that would never exist without genetic modification. Why would a dog evolve to have hair covering its eyes and getting tangled so that it needs to be brushed daily or why would a dog evolve to have big jowls in the first place? Plus, if we don't modify our food to increase efficiency and output then it will be all the more harder to stop famine and such. I personally think it isn't really that bad.
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
I'm fine with it.
They're very useful. Really, the only reason it's controversial is because it's high-tech. We've been doing this for millennia.
Doesn't really phase me, infact I think they're a great idea. It saves a lot of time and risk when people are trying to breed superior plants. With proper testing, it's relatively safe too. Religious arguments against it are just a setback on something that could have a lot of potential benefits to the human race. Imagine being able to genetically alter a plant to grow easier in harsh climates where food is desperately needed?
“When you cut pieces out of the truth to avoid looking like a fool you end up looking like a moron instead.”
― Robin Hobb, Assassin's Apprentice
It's basically the same thing, you're changing the DNA of the organism except with breeding you're taking advantage of mutations where in modern genetic modification you're choosing what mutation you want and switching it in. The end results are pretty much the same. I've never heard that story but most GMO crops are heavily regulated and go through extensive testing by government agencies and the company itself in order to make sure it's safe for consumption. Personally I'd be more worried about eating bacon than eating a genetically modified crop and people go around eating bacon everyday without worry.
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
We have glow in the dark mice already.
They've cloned sheep too, but that isn't really the topic here.
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be the blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king
What I was talking about was a GMO.
GMOs are cool, they're perfectly fine, whoever disagrees needs to get with the times because it'll be humans next. And when the doctors genetically modify your child before birth to save them from a crippling mental disorder, you'll be taking back everything bad you ever said about genetic modification. Just my two cents on the matter.
Just so long as it doesn't turn into Baby customization.
It probably will, let's be honest. Some countries might stop it, but it'll happen somewhere. Honestly, I don't care about it too much, but I understand that designer babies are a bad thing
But would I put up with designer babies to cure every genetic disease ever discovered? Hell yes.
I grow GMO's, and the benefits are pretty impressive. I use less than 10% of the pesticides on them that I use on standard crops.