Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't understand what you are saying here. What does this have to do with GM products? Surely this applies equally to all farmed species? Also, for the majority of species we farm there are no wild species to speak of, and we don't really care about them when there are. I know salmon is an exception - but again, the risks apply equally to all farmed salmon not just GM versions.
The stuff about wild species is the second half of the 3rd post on the previous page. In a nutshell if GMO's can reproduce with wild species then the contaminated wild species can lose fitness because the genetic material is not selected against (GM pollen keeps on coming from farms, GM salmon keep spawning) and the trait may require extra nutrients for ...[text shortened]... ess of wild species and potentially cause an extinction. This is why I favour terminator genes.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWith genetically engineered species they genotypic shift is much bigger.
I don't understand what you are saying here. What does this have to do with GM products? Surely this applies equally to all farmed species? Also, for the majority of species we farm there are no wild species to speak of, and we don't really care about them when there are. I know salmon is an exception - but again, the risks apply equally to all farmed salmon not just GM versions.
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtas he just said, no it isn't.
With genetically engineered species they genotypic shift is much bigger.
GM typically involves the artificial addition or deleting or change of just ONE gene although it could involve more.
A difference in natural genotype may involve just one gene difference could also and often does involve a great MANY genes being different -far more than what you would expect from the change a typical GM would do. This is exactly what happens when a natural random mutation consists of increasing the number of chromosomes by creating extra copies of a one or more -never heard of artificial GM ever making this drastic change!
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI have given this some thought, and it is generally a flawed argument even for non-GM crops. Unless there is a significant flood of pollen or escaped salmon into the wild, there would actually be a net benefit to the wild species as a more diverse gene pool is beneficial not detrimental.
The stuff about wild species is the second half of the 3rd post on the previous page. In a nutshell if GMO's can reproduce with wild species then the contaminated wild species can lose fitness because the genetic material is not selected against (GM pollen keeps on coming from farms, GM salmon keep spawning) and the trait may require extra nutrients for ...[text shortened]... The effect could be to reduce the fitness of wild species and potentially cause an extinction.
You say the genetic material is not selected against - this is actually untrue in that it would, in the wild, be selected against if it is detrimental.
In the case of salmon where the wild species is under threat from over fishing, and there is very significant loss of farmed salmon to the wild, there may be a problem - but this problem exists for all farmed salmon, not just GM salmon.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf the phenotype is beneficial to the wild population then what I'm saying doesn't apply. If the phenotype is for more rapid growth it requires food in quantities not available to animals in the wild. So it is selected against in the wild population but not in the domestic population. So further releases of the gene from the domestic population renew the presence of the gene spoiling the natural selection effect.
I have given this some thought, and it is generally a flawed argument even for non-GM crops. Unless there is a significant flood of pollen or escaped salmon into the wild, there would actually be a net benefit to the wild species as a more diverse gene pool is beneficial not detrimental.
You say the genetic material is not selected against - this is actu ...[text shortened]... ild, there may be a problem - but this problem exists for all farmed salmon, not just GM salmon.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOnly if the releases are very significant will this matter - and if the releases are that significant, then the so called 'wild population' will fairly quickly be genetically nearly identical to the domestic population. If this is the case then firstly, we don't really care what happens to the wild population because we can always restock it with the domestic stuff, and more importantly, the effect will be just as strong with non-GM crops.
If the phenotype is beneficial to the wild population then what I'm saying doesn't apply. If the phenotype is for more rapid growth it requires food in quantities not available to animals in the wild. So it is selected against in the wild population but not in the domestic population. So further releases of the gene from the domestic population renew the presence of the gene spoiling the natural selection effect.
The only exception I can think of is Salmon where we are economically dependent on the wild population and we do care about it being maintained - however it still remains the case that non-GM salmon are just as much a problem as GM salmon.
Also, in the case of salmon, we have already been affecting the wild population significantly by essentially doing selective breeding on them via fishing and climate change.
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
If the phenotype is beneficial to the wild population then what I'm saying doesn't apply. If the phenotype is for more rapid growth it requires food in quantities not available to animals in the wild. So it is selected against in the wild population but not in the domestic population. So further releases of the gene from the domestic population renew the presence of the gene spoiling the natural selection effect.
So further releases of the gene from the domestic population renew the presence of the gene spoiling the natural selection effect.
Not true; it wouldn't "spoil" the natural selection effect. If natural selection selected out the disadvantageous gene to the wild individuals the first time it was released then it presumably would selected out the same gene and about just as victoriously the second time and the third time and the forth time and so on. So “further releases” of the gene that “renew the presence of” the gene would NOT “spoil” the natural selection effect.
As twhitehead said, only if the releases are very significant will this matter. I would guess “Significant” in this context would mean the releases and the resulting interbreeding between the two prototypes would have to be so great that a significant proportion (say, >10%? ) of the next generation of the wild population would have to be hybrids between the two prototypes. Even then, the effect would only persist while the releases are regularly continuing because natural selection would still be continually selection against that gene and, as soon as if and when the releases permanently stop occurring, natural selection would gradually finish the job by completely selection out that gene from the wild population. Natural selection doesn't give up just because it is continually presented with the same disadvantageous gene!
Of course, this is true whether the farmed crop or farmed salmon is GM or not. So, even if this was false, that still wouldn't be a reason to be against GM.
Originally posted by humySo [b]furtherreleases of the gene from the domestic population renew the presence of the gene spoiling the natural selection effect.
Not true; it wouldn't "spoil" the natural selection effect. If natural selection selected out the disadvantageous gene to the wild individuals the first time it was released then it presumably wo ...[text shortened]... lmon is GM or not. So, even if this was false, that still wouldn't be a reason to be against GM.[/b]Farmed salmon are killing natural sources because of the manifestation of lice which are literally eating the native salmon alive. You mad scientists shouldn't be allowed near the environment.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat has nothing to do with scientists, it has to do with farmers - and those of you that like to eat salmon.
Farmed salmon are killing natural sources because of the manifestation of lice which are literally eating the native salmon alive. You mad scientists shouldn't be allowed near the environment.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd quite a lot of them will be theists. But it remains irrelevant. The reason we have salmon farming is because people want to eat salmon. If we didn't have the farming, we would either have to eat a lot less salmon, or completely fish out all the wild salmon. The world currently consumes more farmed salmon than fished salmon. You would be thanking those farmers for saving the wild salmon, not blaming them.
some of them might be mad scientists
Originally posted by twhiteheadOr of course, the price of salmon would be much higher.
And quite a lot of them will be theists. But it remains irrelevant. The reason we have salmon farming is because people want to eat salmon. If we didn't have the farming, we would either have to eat a lot less salmon, or completely fish out all the wild salmon. The world currently consumes more farmed salmon than fished salmon. You would be thanking those farmers for saving the wild salmon, not blaming them.
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Farmed salmon are killing natural sources because of the manifestation of lice which are literally eating the native salmon alive. You mad scientists shouldn't be allowed near the environment.
Farmed salmon are killing natural sources because of the manifestation of lice which are literally eating the native salmon alive.
What the hell are you on? Even if this was true, it would have very little to do with what I just said in that post so I don't know why you just said that. Why the sudden total change in topic? I was speaking of salmon farming but not speaking FOR salmon farming in particular but just saying that, because of natural selection effects, the release of genes from farmed salmon would probably not have a significant effect. That has nothing to do with salmon lice releases which is a different topic.
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere aren't many 'mad' scientists around. You are totally delusional. A few black people and a few veterinarians and a few people who like eating cheese and also a few theists might also be 'mad' scientists -so what? The fact remains that the vast majority of scientists are not 'mad' and madness is probably more common amongst non-scientists since you are less likely to be able to become a qualified scientist if you are mentally ill!
some of them might be mad scientists