GMOs should be bann-

that's not true
my mother is afraid of gmos but is perfectly fine with vaccines
she has plenty of other dumb hippie stuff like glutenfree and crystal healing and visiting a 'naturopath' though

It's the same line of reasoning. Vaccines are just advertised better. This "natural=better" mentality is beyond me.

/thread

No, the main problem is that we put something into a plant like wheat that we later find out is actually really bad for us. Then we can't remove it from the gene pool because of how pervasive it is globally. GMOs are fine, but need more unbiased study for every single change made. Unfortunately, there's little to no unbiased studying going on.

If I were to develop a GMO, I'd fucking test that shit for 20+ years before I felt responsible enough to release it to the market. If I didn't do it that way and still released it early, I'd have this constant nagging in the back of my head for the rest of my life. To me, the irresponsibility of other scientists is mind boggling. I guess they just need the money and see no other way of getting it.

Bacteria should be allow-

The main problems with GMOs are that we are putting all our food production into the hands of very few people and Monsanto has shown itself to be assholes on so many levels it's surprising we allow them anywhere near food, a basic necessity of all human life.

That GMOs primary concern is shelf life, transportation of product, and crop yields and NOT human health.

That allergic reactions to GMOs has been ignored and buried in order to market their products worldwide as 'safe'.

That Colony Collapse Disorder has already been linked to GMOs but Monsanto has been burying information, despite the fact that honey bees account for about 1/3 of food for human consumption.

Face it, GMOs need to be much more heavily regulated, stop sucking Monsanto's cock.

>Being this wrong is in fact possible

>this thread again

China & Monsanto sure do like to sow disinformation in the West.

That banana thing isn't true. It isn't done by natural selection.

The bananas we eat basically have Downs Syndrome and aren't fertile. The seeds inside them don't grow to full size. We grow them by grafting.
In many seedless fruit varieties we chemically turn them into retards and then graft them.

The most common banana today is the Cavendish banana, which is almost 200 years old.
But before 1950 the most common banana was the "Gros Michel" Aka Fat Mike. Which was tastier and sweeter than the Cavendish.

However since grafts are pretty much clones there wasn't enough genetic diversity and they all fell pray to a fungus. So they had to switch to the Cavendish.

But today even the Cavendish banana is threatened. GMOs could save them.

I will eat organic non-GMO foods as long as I live and all the """health""" and """food""" cartels can suck my peñor

>promotes GMOs
>not a single occurence of that word in pic
GMO shills should be banned.

GMO is artificial selection but accelerated

>main problem is that we put something into a plant like wheat that we later find out is actually really bad for us

Name one fucking example

Could we get scorpion gene in plants through benis vector?

Like lots of plants and even more scorpion benis? :DDDD

>China & Monsanto sure do like to sow disinformation in the West.
Everyone I don't like is paid by Monsanto.

Colony Collapse Disorder has been linked far more strongly to the use of certain pesticides, I don't think I've ever heard anyone (except you) claim that GMOs had anything to do with it.

I've never understood, what exactly is your actual problem with genetically modifying an organism? Are you just scared because you don't understand the process and assume it involves 'harmful science things'?

Every gene codes for exactly one (1) protein, the effects of which can easily be studied and known about in detail. Furthermore, seeing as all life on Earth shares exactly the same four DNA bases, and every given triplet of those bases always codes for exactly the same amino acid, there's no such thing as a 'human gene' or an 'insect gene' or a 'plant gene', there are just genes which happen to exist in the genomes of those organisms. Hence why you share ~80% of your DNA with cows and around ~60% with fruit flies - all those genes simply code for proteins used by both us and those species, of which there are obviously a very large number because each protein does the same thing in each animal.

Further-furthermore, none of this matters to your stomach anyway because you don't take in entire proteins when you digest things, everything is rendered down into its amino acids anyway. Thus, to your stomach, there's no difference at all between the meat of a 'natural' pig and one that's been genetically modified because it all ends up as a soup of amino acids and isolated DNA bases anyway.

>That allergic reactions to GMOs has been ignored and buried
prove it
> That Colony Collapse Disorder has already been linked to GMOs
prove it

>letting one megacorporation effectively run global agriculture

GMOs could be beneficial but not in a capitalist environment, we've only managed to endanger food security. Things like global monoculture and crops that grow to huge sizes at the cost of being laughably fragile to pests and weather are not successes. What if the company that stores the non-infertile variants fucks up? What if they fuck around with the seed prices? Won't our digestion and native bacteria degrade because of the narrow and sterile diet?

>Map of distribution of corn has the UK in grey
I've walked through many a corn field.

$0.03 cuckbux have been deposited into you wife's son's niggybank

i remeber from the last thread there was an sort of potato and when it was released a farmer tried his potatoes and then he almost died or got sick

look it up

how should the gene be perasive
most hybride plants are now able to reproduce so the company producing it would just stop production

Oh yes very peer reviewed.much wow

both the far right and the far left hate gmos so they must be good

Exactly. This was the best explanation by far.

No it's not. Just because two processes are supposed to have the same outcome, doesn't they are the same process. Inserting genetical material into the gene code of an organism isn't remotely the same as redirecting the evolutionary development of an organism.

who cares about apples never dying when is CRISPR curing cancer

No.

ESPECIALES

there is so much misinformation about monsanto.
All that shit with then suing farmers for accidental contamination is just wrong. They also don't "enslave" them, they simply make an agreement that moet farmers are happy about.
Don't believe all the bullshit you see in clickbait invwstigatory documentaries.

oh wow yea nice source from some fucking guy on Veeky Forums reporing what he read in some shitty article about a story by a redneck farmer.

>genetical
Go back to your shitty blog, mom.

I am not native speaker. Genetic sounds weird.

Someone needs to start selling non-gmo puppies. You could claim they are the only non-gmo puppies in the world and not be lying. Then, when it grows into a full on wolf and murders its owner there will be one less hippy moron impeding human advancement.

Good post.
Kill yourselves anti-GMO niggers.

>viruses
Nice appeal to public panic right there buddy.
Otherwise you're right, they weren't, because it wasn't possible with conventional breeding. That's why GMO crops are intrinsically superior.
>No, the main problem is that we put something into a plant like wheat that we later find out is actually really bad for us
Literal retard detected. Adding an enzyme doesn't magically make the plant give you ebola and AIDS, and you can also say the exact same thing about conventional breeding because you don't even know exactly what the fuck you're getting when you cross two species. In GMO crops, you do know exactly what you change.

>GMO is artificial selection but accelerated
Scientifically illiterate people GTFO of Veeky Forums.

With artificial selection, you have to take the crop along an incremental path of viable single mutations and intraspecies breeding, and because you're applying a selective pressure different from nature, the product is practically guaranteed to be less competitive in the wild than the original plant. Additionally, the graduality of the change is an important safety feature.

With genetic modification, you can abruptly make many dramatic changes in a plant, without worrying about an incremental path. Because you can take useful biochemical features from unrelated species or even (at least potentially) invent things which never evolved at all, there's a risk that they'll be superior competitors in the wild. And because of the freedom to make major changes, it would be as easy, for example, to make a GMO crop extremely poisonous, but otherwise identical to a common crop, as it would to make a change like resistance to a particular pesticide. Nor is our competence in biology sufficient to reliably predict all the consequences of a genetic change.

GMOs are things impossible to create through artificial selection. Each new individual GMO is an artificial thing that needs to be intensely scrutinized before approval for human consumption, like a newly invented drug. As for the risk of a GMO crop having a bad effect on the world by going feral and crossing with wild plants, each new GMO cultivated in the open air poses a risk we are not competent to evaluate.

You had my upvote until you started to talk about stomach acid. You don't know what you're talking about

>you don't take in entire proteins when you digest things, everything is rendered down into its amino acids anyway.
That's good news for everyone with peanut allergy or celiac disease, since they're not affected by isolated amino acids, but only proteins. I'll let them know that a genius on Veeky Forums has discovered that human digestion is a perfect, ideal process, and their alleged "diseases" therefore can have no effect on their health.

I can't stand this kind of idiot, who doesn't understand a thing at all, but takes this pose of a sneering expert looking down on the foolish concerns of ignorant people.

IF U WANT IT?
IT'S 4 SALE OK
IF U NEED 2 ASK
ASK

>it would be as easy, for example, to make a GMO crop extremely poisonous
Wrong. Do you even have any idea how complex organic toxins are produced? You need the whole fucking pathway.
>Nor is our competence in biology sufficient to reliably predict all the consequences of a genetic change.
Define "genetic change" you fucking retard. It's fucking scary how people are being allowed to pretend they know something about these matters on the internet when they've obviously never seen the insides of a university.
>each new GMO cultivated in the open air poses a risk we are not competent to evaluate.
EVERYTHING in the fucking world poses a fucking risk. Get over it. Claiming something has an unquantifiable risk because you're too fucking stupid or uneducated to understand it doesn't make it any actual hazard in reality.

>and because you're applying a selective pressure different from nature, the product is practically guaranteed to be less competitive in the wild than the original plant.
This makes no sense vis a vis GMOs. A plant is only artificially selected after it already exists. A GMO would be selected according to the same criteria, since you wouldn't use one which did not work.

>Additionally, the graduality of the change is an important safety feature.
This also makes no sense. Either the accumulation of mutations is safe or it isn't. This requires testing whether they are gradually accumulated or not. The only relevant difference with GMO s is that we know exactly what's in them.

>there's a risk that they'll be superior competitors in the wild.
Same applies to artificial selection.

>it would be as easy, for example, to make a GMO crop extremely poisonous, but otherwise identical to a common crop, as it would to make a change like resistance to a particular pesticide.
So what?

>Nor is our competence in biology sufficient to reliably predict all the consequences of a genetic change.
Same applies to artificial selection.

>Each new individual GMO is an artificial thing that needs to be intensely scrutinized before approval for human consumption, like a newly invented drug.
Because of your irratiomal fear mongering, not because of any substantive difference.

>As for the risk of a GMO crop having a bad effect on the world by going feral and crossing with wild plants, each new GMO cultivated in the open air poses a risk we are not competent to evaluate
Please stop lying.

>Do you even have any idea how complex organic toxins are produced?
Do you even have any idea of how many simple things are poisonous? Here's a hint: most food plants already produce a variety of poisonous substances, just not in high enough doses in the edible parts to make them inedible.

>Define "genetic change"
You're this moron, aren't you? If you're not, you're the same type: no clue what you're talking about, but eager to pose as if you were.

>>and because you're applying a selective pressure different from nature, the product is practically guaranteed to be less competitive in the wild than the original plant.
>This makes no sense vis a vis GMOs. A plant is only artificially selected after it already exists. A GMO would be selected according to the same criteria, since you wouldn't use one which did not work.
You're not merely "selecting" GMOs, you're designing them. You can't artificially select fitness in the wild into an organism, because nature was already selecting for that, and you've only got the same incremental paths available. With GMOs, you can add defenses that aren't in the incremental path and therefore wouldn't be produced by natural selection (at least, not without taking millions of years), engineering enhanced fitness in the wild into an organism.

Actual "science is my religion" brainlets, or astroturfers working a script?

So, I heard humanity found prehistoric palm seeds and they were still vital to grow into a plant, what if we go look into unexplored dungeons or dig up some prehistoric graves to acquire MOAR ancient plant? Biodiversity is good, rite?

Actually many traits are conferred to plants through other organisms naturally, it's part of the reason why modifying them is so easy.

>Nor is our competence in biology sufficient to reliably predict all the consequences of a genetic change.
It is though. If we know what the results of expressing a certain gene are then we can predict what the result of the modification will be.

>You're not merely "selecting" GMOs, you're designing them.
Idiot, that has no relevance to what I said. Claiming that non-GMOs are safer because they are not selected for fitness makes no sense. GMOs are not selected for fitness either.

>You can't artificially select fitness in the wild into an organism, because nature was already selecting for that, and you've only got the same incremental paths available.
We're not talking about artificially selecting for fitness, we're talking about NOT selecting for fitness. You're spinning yourself around in circles. You claimed that artificially selected plants are less fit in the wild because they are not selected for fitness. The same applies to GMOs.

>With GMOs, you can add defenses that aren't in the incremental path and therefore wouldn't be produced by natural selection (at least, not without taking millions of years), engineering enhanced fitness in the wild into an organism.
Which of course ignores the defenses that ARE in the incremental path. With artificial selection, it is completely possible for a plant to become more fit by chance. You don't need to select for fitness for a plant to become more fit. This can happen with any of the random mutations in the plant. With GMOs on the other hand, the specific change you make must be the source of fitness.

So do you support genetic and field testing of all new cultivars for both safety and fitness? Of course not. It's almost like you are just saying things in order to get to the preconceived conclusion that GMOs are bad, without thinking about the other consequences of your argument.

>If we know what the results of expressing a certain gene are then we can predict what the result of the modification will be.
>If we know ... the results ... then we can predict ... the result
This is just circular reasoning.

Adding a gene is like administering a drug: it (hopefully) has the desired effect, then it has the known side-effects, then it has unknown side-effects.

Because we don't have full understanding of any single cell, we can't have full understanding of the effects of any change to how it works.

The reality is that we observe and theoretically model *part* of the effect of a gene, and that's often enough to get a useful result.

Genetic engineering isn't an exact science. You try things out, you see what happens. The results are disappointing more often than not. If it looks pretty good, you try to sell it. That's the real level they're working on.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape_(potato)

Exactly, I'm so glad you agree EVERY cultivar should be tested to the same level as GMOs since they have new genes which might have unintended effects.

>cultivar
You just destroyed your own argument buddy.

When are you anti-GMO faggots going to demand the same safety testing for all non-GMO cultivars?

>Claiming that non-GMOs are safer because they are not selected for fitness makes no sense. GMOs are not selected for fitness either.
>ou claimed that artificially selected plants are less fit in the wild because they are not selected for fitness. The same applies to GMOs.
GMOs are not selected, they're designed. Outcomes are possible which can't be achieved through selection, artificial or natural.

When you're choosing between options which couldn't have occured in nature, it's a different game. Very often the goal of genetic modification is to make it possible for a plant to survive in circumstances where the unmodified plant wouldn't.

>With artificial selection, it is completely possible for a plant to become more fit by chance.
In the same way that it's "completely possible" for all the oxygen molecules in a room to happen to avoid your lungs until you die.

With artificial selection, you're selecting for something other than fitness in the wild, while the natural plant is being naturally selected for fitness in the wild. You're actively making your plant less likely to gain or retain fitness in the wild than the plant would have living in the wild. The risks of artificial selection are far lower than the risks of plant evolution happening in nature, and therefore obviously negligible.

If you honestly can't see the difference, you lack the inborn intelligence to discuss the matter productively. If you can see it, but are continuing to argue the point, you're garbage.

>Do you even have any idea of how many simple things are poisonous?
Oh my fucking god are you serious? Of course everything is "poisonous" in high enough concentrations. What a trivial fucking observation. Your argument is literally that by adding glyphosate resistance to an apple tree it's going to start gassing jews. Based on zero facts, but a lot of ignorance and idiocy.
>You're this moron, aren't you?
No I'm not. I'm asking you because "genetic change" is such a vague fucking thing that I immediately discerned you've had no training in biology beside blogs and the occasional wikipedia article.
Here, let me hold your hand even more by providing an example:
Removing a chromosome pair would be a genetic change. Do we know and understand in absolute detail all the myriad of connections that would be disrupted by this? No. The organism would probably just die or something.

Here's another example of genetic change: adding a single enzyme that does something nice. Do we know in detail what adding this enzyme will do? Absolutely.

What would be wrong with just growing a wide variety of bananas? Are the majority just economically unfeasible, or is it just that the effect of making 5%-10% more profit inevitably leads to a monoculture? Why are there so many varieties of apples and tomatos when other fruits seem to only come in a single variety?

Pretty funny, but it's not the first time I remember seeing anti-GMOs destroy themselves by simply not understanding/having read the articles they cited as proof for "muh GMO bad!".

>GMOs are not selected, they're designed.
Are you incapable of reading? I said NOT SELECTED. Don't reply until you've read this and understood it:

You claimed that artificially selected plants are less fit in the wild because they are not selected for fitness. The same applies to GMOs.

>Outcomes are possible which can't be achieved through selection, artificial or natural.
Yes, and outcomes are possible for artificial selection which would never occur in GMOs, since GMOs are not derived randomly. Can you make a coherent point for once?

>When you're choosing between options which couldn't have occured in nature, it's a different game. Very often the goal of genetic modification is to make it possible for a plant to survive in circumstances where the unmodified plant wouldn't.
Again, the same is true for artificially selected plants. Do you not think plants have not been artificially selected for thousands of years to be more hardy? Stop repeating the same thing over and over and respond to what I'm actually saying.

>In the same way that it's "completely possible" for all the oxygen molecules in a room to happen to avoid your lungs until you die.
You are such a hypocrite.

>With artificial selection, you're selecting for something other than fitness in the wild, while the natural plant is being naturally selected for fitness in the wild.
Are GMOs selected for fitness in the wild? No? Then how does this argument work against them?

>You're actively making your plant less likely to gain or retain fitness in the wild than the plant would have living in the wild.
Completely wrong. A large part of artificial selection is making the plant hardier. This can very often lead to better fitness in the wild. Not to mention that artificial selection can be much faster than natural selection, depending on the method. How many times are you going to lie like this?

Let's look at the context:
>>>>it would be as easy, for example, to make a GMO crop extremely poisonous, but otherwise identical to a common crop, as it would to make a change like resistance to a particular pesticide.
>>>Do you even have any idea how complex organic toxins are produced? You need the whole fucking pathway.
>>Do you even have any idea of how many simple things are poisonous? Here's a hint: most food plants already produce a variety of poisonous substances, just not in high enough doses in the edible parts to make them inedible.
...and your idiotic freak-out response:
>Oh my fucking god are you serious? Of course everything is "poisonous" in high enough concentrations. What a trivial fucking observation.
A "trivial observation" that you apparently had no knowledge of two posts ago, when you were insisting that it would be extremely difficult to genetically modify a crop into a poisonous version because "you need the whole fucking pathway" to produce "complex organic toxins".

Please stop posing as an informed person. You're not only ignorant, you're fundamentally too stupid to understand this stuff, and it's obvious to everyone.

>You claimed that artificially selected plants are less fit in the wild because they are not selected for fitness.
No, because they're selected for something other than fitness. Because the same process of selection over natural variation is used, but with a different value function applied.

>The same applies to GMOs.
Obviously it does not.

>outcomes are possible for artificial selection which would never occur in GMOs, since GMOs are not derived randomly.
I'm getting past being disgusted and starting to be entertained by your stupidity. It's like the dog jumped up on a chair at the dinner table. You can't help what you are. You think you're people. I get it.

This is like thinking that in a game with a whole bucked of dice, a person who is allowed to pick up dice, turn them, and set them down, or add new dice, can't get the results that can be produced by a person who only rolls dice, so it's a symmetrical situation and one is like the other. After all, whatever the dice-roller produces is a random number, and you can't get a random number by choosing and setting dice, therefore the dice-setter and dice-roller are equally unable to achieve each others' results.

It's like talking to a small child, here. Hilarious.

>or is it just that the effect of making 5%-10% more profit inevitably leads to a monoculture
Pretty much.

There is also a sort of brand recognition to it. The Cavendish banana was chosen not because it was the best tasting alternative but because it was to closest in taste to a Gros Michel.
Monoculture and especially grafting leads to a better control of taste and look. You want your "pink lady" apples to taste like "pink lady" apples.

I've had lots of tomato plants myself. Even though some of them are better in taste, they often don't look as appealing as the nice red round tomatoes you find in a shop.
Some cultivars are just inherently more profitable then others.

That's not even getting into the fact that GMOs also continue to get mutations like any other living thing..

The amount of backpedalling here is truly spectacular.
You specifically say it would be easy to make GMOs "extremely toxic" which is factually wrong. Then you say "b-but everything is le toxic".
Yes, I will concede that if you wanted to, you could probably make a potato produce a lot of glycoalkanoids by upregulating some of the proteins involved in the biosynthesis pathway or something.
The fact that you think it's "easy" or in any way interesting from an edible crop perspective just shows how desperate and delusional you are.

>No, because they're selected for something other than fitness.
So are GMOs selected for fitness? You're not making any sense. Remember, you are comparing artificially selected plants to GMOs. How does this make them safer than GMOs if GMOs are also not selected for fitness in the wild?

>This is like thinking that in a game with a whole bucked of dice, a person who is allowed to pick up dice, turn them, and set them down, or add new dice, can't get the results that can be produced by a person who only rolls dice
This ignores that there is an actual goal in mind. If getting a 1 is useless towards winning the game, the person who chooses dice would never choose to get a 1. Almost all mutations that are produced randomly would never occur in a GMO organism, since there would be no point to it.

You haven't responded accurately to a single argument I've made. You've proven yourself to be incompetent and hypocritical. You lose.

There are a few problems with GMOs though.

1) Horizontal gene transfer between species. The assertion that GMOs can only crossbreed with their own species has been proven false. Horizontal gene transfer between species has been proven to exist and is a major point of concern as it invalidates all forms of testing currently done on GMOs. The problem being that we only test the substantial equivalency of GMOs to normal variants of the same plant. We have absolutely no idea how the same genes will be expressed in a different plant. Normally only plant DNA gets intermixed with other plants, and that has resulted in the biosphere we know and live in today. However, the results of transgenic material from other species being put into plant species for which the sequences were not originally intended by the researchers are not predictable. We might be able to engineer bacteria to suit our own needs base pair by base pair, but even that is not a proven technology yet, and plants are vastly more complex organisms.

2) Biosphere protection. No matter how much you try to protect non-GMO crops from intermingling with GMO crops the fact is that plant species have spread over the entire planet and without them artificially being separated will continue to do so. In other words, something that has entered a biosphere is nigh impossible to remove from it. Genetic transfer is much less clean cut than the Mendelian reproduction everyone learns in school, or we wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of exogenic elements (mostly from ancient retroviruses) in our very own DNA. One slip up is sufficient and we won't be able to undo it. The argument about safety is a bit like arguments about the safety of nuclear devices. Not nuclear reactors, because currently a lot of the benefits of GMOs you listed are only hypothetical.

finally a sensible post raising actual concerns about GMOs instead of woo
the biggest issue with horizontal gene transfer is the hybridization of pesticide-tolerant crops with wild cousins to produce resistant weeds

wow lol look at that objective comparison

natural peach
>boring
>cucked
>meh

artificial peach
>delicious
>refreshing!
>lifechanging!

much science wow.

I thought the main two concerns was epi-genetic side effects and sickness from the "round up" used to protect the crops?

It such a hot topic with both sides presenting a lot of evidence, wouldn't the best decision from a game theory perspective be to try not to eat GMO's? What harm is it? So what if I pay 25 cents more for USDA organic?

>selective breeding
>gmo

>The amount of backpedalling here is truly spectacular.
Any backpeddling is purely in your own imagination.

>You specifically say it would be easy to make GMOs "extremely toxic" which is factually wrong.
Why do you have quotation marks around something that isn't a quote? I said "extremely poisonous". I also didn't say it would be "easy", but AS easy as adding a pesticide resistance. Genetic engineering isn't easy.

When you say that it's "factually wrong", you're revealing your ignorance.

>Then you say "b-but everything is le toxic".
I responded to the specific implication that the only way to make a food crop extremely poisonous through genetic engineering was to add a complete new synthesis pathway for "complex organic toxins", by pointing out that:
a) many simple molecules, which are not "complex organic toxins" are poisonous, and
b) most food plants already produce various poisons, so you only need to increase the production of one, not insert a whole other synthesis pathway.

Anyway, the claim that "complex organic toxins" necessarily have some special pathway is absurd. Some of them are simply proteins, encoded in a single gene, produced by ribosomes in the ordinary way and relatively simple to add to any organism which is not itself vulnerable to it.

>How does this make them safer than GMOs if GMOs are also not selected for fitness in the wild?
GMOs are not produced by selecting for something other than fitness, and therefore are not inherently biased to become less fit than wild plants. GMOs are often altered, by methods which have potential to surpass natural selection, toward goals which are likely to have a side effect of greater fitness in the wild.

You really struggle with basic distinctions, don't you?

>The problem being that we only test the substantial equivalency of GMOs to normal variants of the same plant. We have absolutely no idea how the same genes will be expressed in a different plant.
That's wrong. The assessment of risk and effects of gene flow is a large part of the regulatory system currently in place. Additionally, claiming that scientists have no idea what such genes will do in other plants is a gross exaggeration.

>No matter how much you try to protect non-GMO crops from intermingling with GMO crops the fact is that plant species have spread over the entire planet and without them artificially being separated will continue to do so.
That's just how agriculture works. Not a problem specific to GMOs.

>The argument about safety is a bit like arguments about the safety of nuclear devices. Not nuclear reactors, because currently a lot of the benefits of GMOs you listed are only hypothetical.
No it really is very similar to nuclear reactors, since people like you greatly exaggerate the speculative consequences and ignore the benefits.

>GMOs are not produced by selecting for something other than fitness, and therefore are not inherently biased to become less fit than wild plants.
That doesn't logically follow. Artificially selected plants are not hypothetically less likely to be fit because they are selected for something, they are less likely to be fit because they are NOT selected for fitness. Neither are GMOs, so they have that "inherent bias."

In reality this does not mean that they will be less fit in the wild, because an artificially selected trait can coincide with fitness in the wild. The same is true for a GMO. I have explained this to you several times and every time you have ignored it.

Weren't we talking about plant toxins, which are usually complex organic metabolites?
I guess you could try to produce fucking botulinum in a plant, but even that would require correct disulfide bridges, peptide cleavage, post-translational modifications etc.
Don't bother googling these terms which you obviously don't know, I think I'm done chatting with mentally ill people for the day.

>Artificially selected plants are not hypothetically less likely to be fit because they are selected for something, they are less likely to be fit because they are NOT selected for fitness.
You are deeply confused on this point. Selecting for a purpose other than fitness is selecting AWAY FROM fitness. When you breed trees to grow bigger, sweeter apples, you make them less able to survive in the wild. If bigger, sweeter apples were something that enhanced fitness, they'd evolve that in the wild.

Artificially-selected crops don't compete effectively in the wild against their wild originals. There's a reason for that. Nor do they spread fitness-enhancing genes to wild plants (although their pollen can be a hazard to their own wild versions, causing them to produce seeds of low fitness).

Artificial selection is strongly biased away from fitness, by taking it by the same mechanism in a different direction.

The difference with GMOs is that you're making changes that the plant COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness, due to lack of an incremental path from its current genetics toward these changes.

>The assessment of risk and effects of gene flow is a large part of the regulatory system currently in place.
So, now you're admitting that there are risks, and arguing that the current regulatory system is adequate to defend against them?

That's not an argument about the science. That's an argument about how we should love and trust government bureaucracy. You know what? They fuck things up. A lot.

How much do you actually know about the regulatory system for GMOs?

>That's just how agriculture works. Not a problem specific to GMOs.
It's amazing that no matter how well it's spelled out for you, you can't understand why artificially-selected crops don't become noxious weeds or invasive species (in the areas their original wild forms are native), but GMOs are likely to.

>That's not an argument about the science. That's an argument about how we should love and trust government bureaucracy. You know what? They fuck things up. A lot.
>hurr gummint can't do anything right
ancap pls go

>Weren't we talking about plant toxins
We were talking about making a crop poisonous through genetic engineering.

>which are usually complex organic metabolites?
I don't know if it's true that they usually are, but it's totally irrelevant. Because we're not talking about evolved defenses, we're talking about genetic engineering. There are many toxic plant proteins, there are simple molecules like cyanide, there are options from non-plants.

>I guess you could try to produce fucking botulinum in a plant
At least say "botulinum toxin" or "botox" to try and sound like you know what you're talking about. Just "botulinum" is the species of bacteria.

>Don't bother googling these terms which I obviously don't understand, but just sprinkled around to try and look like I just happened to be an expert in this thing which I've been arguing incompetently about.
See you around, monkey boy.

Now your argument is either "actually, the government always does everything right" or "when the government inevitably fucks up, GMOs will cause serious harm, but I'm okay with that".

It's completely unnecessary to ever have any open-air cultivation of GMOs in the one and only natural biosphere we'll ever get. It's being pushed by selfish people for commercial advantage and career advantage, to the general disadvantage of the natural world and the rest of humanity. They will not think seriously about or acknowledge the risks.

There are other routes to higher food production, and food scarcity is not even the main problem of an overpopulated world.

>Selecting for a purpose other than fitness is selecting AWAY FROM fitness.
No that's just plain wrong. The traits selected for may have no effect one way or the other on fitness, or may increase fitness. As I already said, much selection is focused on making the plant hardier, which can increase fitness in the wild. You are simply spouting nonsense.

>When you breed trees to grow bigger, sweeter apples, you make them less able to survive in the wild. If bigger, sweeter apples were something that enhanced fitness, they'd evolve that in the wild.
Totally wrong. Within a fitness landscape, natural selection can only lead to a local optimum, not necessarily maximum fitness. This is because in order to reach a higher peak, the population would have to go downhill, which natural selection prevents. Artificial selection on the the other hand has no issue with this, since it does not demand an increase in fitness with each change. You're like the creationist that says if evolution was real, humans would have the ability to fly. You don't understand basic evolutionary theory.

>The difference with GMOs is that you're making changes that the plant COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness, due to lack of an incremental path from its current genetics toward these changes.
This is hilarious. Of course the exact same is true of artificial selection. Artificial selection creates changes that couldn't evolve naturally, even if they enhance fitness, due to lack of an incremental path of increasing fitness.

Once again, you have utterly failed to create a distinction in your criticism between GMOs and artificial selection. Again, what is it that makes GMOs more biased to increasing fitness than artificial selection? Are GMOs selected to increase fitness? Are they designed to increase fitness?

>So, now you're admitting that there are risks, and arguing that the current regulatory system is adequate to defend against them?
I never said there weren't risks. I simply said that it is no more risky than any other agricultural product. Yes, the current regulatory system is more than adequate to defend against them.

According to your own arguments, artificially selected cultivars should also be regulated since they contain unknown genes with unknown side effects. You're a hypocrite.

>That's not an argument about the science.
So when you falsely claimed that "we only test the substantial equivalency of GMOs to normal variants of the same plant" and we "have absolutely no idea how the same genes will be expressed in a different plant," that is not an argument about the science?

>How much do you actually know about the regulatory system for GMOs?
Evidently much more than you, since you didn't know that we already test for gene flow.

>It's amazing that no matter how well it's spelled out for you, you can't understand why artificially-selected crops don't become noxious weeds or invasive species (in the areas their original wild forms are native), but GMOs are likely to.
It's really funny how easy it is to show you're just making shit up. The literature is filled with research about that very thing happening:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352370/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17040322
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869411/

Artificial selection and genetic modification take evolution into a direction which nature could not. This sometimes results in traits which increase fitness in the wild. It is the trait, and not the method by which that trait is reached, which determines the invasiveness of the crop. You avoided this fact because your goal is to fearmonger against GMOs specifically. But you failed.

>GMOs are impossible to create with artificial selection
no they're not, it would just take forever

Even if there's gene flow, does it really matter?In my first course at university, a plant geneticist told us this:
"If a guy from Africa comes to Europe and shits in a field, he could also carry with him an invasive plant species, but nobody gives a shit about that".
Again, GMOs are held to extremely high standards due to ideological opposition.

>Artificial selection and genetic modification take evolution into a direction which nature could not. This sometimes results in traits which increase fitness in the wild. It is the trait, and not the method by which that trait is reached, which determines the invasiveness of the crop. You avoided this fact because your goal is to fearmonger against GMOs specifically. But you failed.

No, it really doesn't matter. Biologists aren't worried about it only, quacks are.

>The traits selected for may have no effect one way or the other on fitness, or may increase fitness.
If they increased fitness, they'd have been selected for in the wild, on the scale of millions of years, and it would be pointless trying to select for them artificially, on the scale of years or decades. You have to go against fitness for artificial selection to have any power.

>>The difference with GMOs is that you're making changes that the plant COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness,
>the exact same is true of artificial selection. Artificial selection creates changes that couldn't evolve naturally, even if they enhance fitness, due to lack of an incremental path of increasing fitness.
So in one case, it's an incremental path of mutations allowing survival even under optimal conditions, and in the other case, it's an incremental path of mutations each creating enhanced fitness, and yet, you somehow conclude these are *exactly* the same?

Anyway, you're dead wrong when you claim that in natural selection, every mutation has to incrementally create enhanced fitness. That's so fucking stupid I can't even imagine how you thought it was right.

>Once again, you have utterly failed to create a distinction in your criticism between GMOs and artificial selection.
No, you've simply failed to comprehend it. Again. Even though I've made it very easy. Because you're a funny dog at the dinner table who thinks he's people.

>what is it that makes GMOs more biased to increasing fitness than artificial selection?
Genetic modification is not inherently biased toward increasing fitness, but artificial selection is inherently biased toward reducing fitness. Genetic modification is also more powerful and far, far faster. Artificial selection is a lot of little steps away from fitness, while genetic modification is a great leap in an unpredictable direction.

>If they increased fitness, they'd have been selected for in the wild, on the scale of millions of years, and it would be pointless trying to select for them artificially, on the scale of years or decades.
Look, this is getting pretty pathetic. You have no idea what you're talking about. Go look up fitness landscape. No amount of time will move a population off of its local optimum, since that requires a lot of losses in fitness before you get gains in fitness. This is not a problem for artificial selection, since artificial selection doesn't need fitness to increase with each change. You have not responded to my argument, probably because you're too ignorant to understand it.

>So in one case, it's an incremental path of mutations allowing survival even under optimal conditions, and in the other case, it's an incremental path of mutations each creating enhanced fitness, and yet, you somehow conclude these are *exactly* the same?
What are you talking about moron? I didn't say anything is exactly the same as, or even similar to, natural selection. Where are you getting this? If you can't even accurately describe what I'm saying, don't respond. What I said was that everything you said in these sentences

"The difference with GMOs is that you're making changes that the plant COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness, due to lack of an incremental path from its current genetics toward these changes."

applies also to artificial selection. Thus it is not a difference with GMOs at all.

>Anyway, you're dead wrong when you claim that in natural selection, every mutation has to incrementally create enhanced fitness.
I said every mutation which is naturally selected has to increase fitness. That is the definition of natural selection. Again, you display your utter ignorance.

>No, you've simply failed to comprehend it.
You're clearly projecting.

>but artificial selection is inherently biased toward reducing fitness

The sad part is, you seem to be able to argue and spell etc, you're not inherently STUPID, you're just so severely fucking delusional that you can't even comprehend what you are typing. It's painfully obvious you have an at best incredibly flawed understanding of evolutionary theory, yet you persist in the face of online humiliation.
Truly remarkable.

>Genetic modification is not inherently biased toward increasing fitness, but artificial selection is inherently biased toward reducing fitness
It's not. Whether it reduces fitness is dependent on the trait and not the method for reaching that trait. I already explained this and you ignored it.

>Artificial selection is a lot of little steps away from fitness, while genetic modification is a great leap in an unpredictable direction.
Completely ass backwards. It's far more predictable than artificial selection. A perfect example of this is the Lenape potato. The Lenape was hybridized and artificially selected for resistance to virus and blight. But it turns out that it had high levels of toxic glycoalkaloid, which caused nausea and vomiting in those who ate it. The only thing predictable about an artificially selected organism is what it's selected for. Everything else is unknown. If we made a GM potato created for the same purpose, we would never put a gene in which increases glycoalkaloid.

>I simply said that it is no more risky than any other agricultural product.
But that's wrong, you unbelievable moron. I've explained how in some detail.

>According to your own arguments, artificially selected cultivars should also be regulated since they contain unknown genes with unknown side effects.
Those aren't my arguments at all, though.

>So when you falsely claimed that ...
That's not me.

>>It's amazing that no matter how well it's spelled out for you, you can't understand why artificially-selected crops don't become noxious weeds or invasive species (in the areas their original wild forms are native), but GMOs are likely to.
>It's really funny how easy it is to show you're just making shit up. The literature is filled with research about that very thing happening:
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352370/
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17040322
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869411/
The literature is so filled with that very thing happening, you could only produce three papers by one author (Lesley G. Campbell) about something else happening. Truly, you are a chimp.

First of all, he's talking about hybridizing Old World crop radishes with New World wild radishes in America, not hybridizing Old World crop radishes with Old World wild radishes in Europe. So the danger here is the familiar old problem of invasive species/subspecies. It's well established that domesticated plants, be they ever so care dependent and garden bound in the land their wild original came from, can become serious pests in a foreign setting.

Secondly, he's fairly clear that the wild ones outperform the hybrids in their own native locality (Michigan, and note that people have been growing radishes there for hundreds of years), but only claims the hybrids do better when taken to a third environment (California).

You clearly didn't even read the abstracts, you damn monkey.

>>>>The difference with GMOs is that you're making changes that the plant COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness,
>>>the exact same is true of artificial selection. Artificial selection creates changes that couldn't evolve naturally, even if they enhance fitness, due to lack of an incremental path of increasing fitness.
>>So in one case, it's an incremental path of mutations allowing survival even under optimal conditions, and in the other case, it's an incremental path of mutations each creating enhanced fitness, and yet, you somehow conclude these are *exactly* the same?
>What are you talking about moron? I didn't say anything is exactly the same as, or even similar to, natural selection. Where are you getting this?
Why do you do this? Why do you trim out the part I quoted showing exactly what I'm responding to, and then act like you're baffled about what I could possibly be referring to? How fucking pathetic do you have to be to try that?

Look at this line. Read it, you fucking stupid monkey:
>>>>The difference with GMOs is that you're making changes that the plant COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness,

And you say this incredibly stupid, wrong thing in response:
>>>the exact same is true of artificial selection.

You elaborate:
>>>Artificial selection creates changes that couldn't evolve naturally, even if they enhance fitness, due to lack of an incremental path of increasing fitness.

But this is, of course, not exactly the same. It's very different. Let's look at the instant replay:
>>>>making changes that the plant COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness,
>>>creates changes that couldn't evolve naturally, even if they enhance fitness, due to lack of an incremental path of increasing fitness.

>>COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness
>couldn't evolve naturally... due to lack of an incremental path of increasing fitness.
Anyone who's not fucking mentally retarded can see the difference.

But not you. Dog. Dinner. Table.

>I've explained how in some detail.
Oh really? Where is that exactly?

>Those aren't my arguments at all, though.
You: "Adding a gene is like administering a drug: it (hopefully) has the desired effect, then it has the known side-effects, then it has unknown side-effects. Because we don't have full understanding of any single cell, we can't have full understanding of the effects of any change to how it works."

>That's not me.
That's the person I was responding to, and then you jumped into the convo and defended, so it really doesn't matter.

>The literature is so filled with that very thing happening, you could only produce three papers by one author (Lesley G. Campbell) about something else happening.
So now you have moved the goalposts from "artificially-selected crops don't become noxious weeds or invasive species" to "you could only produce three papers proving me wrong." How many papers and authors do you need to admit you're wrong? Tell me and I'll give you them.

>First of all, he's talking about hybridizing Old World crop radishes with New World wild radishes in America, not hybridizing Old World crop radishes with Old World wild radishes in Europe.
The problem discussed in the paper has nothing to do with old world and new world. It shows that if you select for certain traits like leaf size and flowering time, you can create a crop which is more fit and potentially invasive. The point flew completely over your head. Pointing out that crops as they are today can be invasive does not even support your argument.

>Secondly, he's fairly clear that the wild ones outperform the hybrids in their own native locality (Michigan, and note that people have been growing radishes there for hundreds of years), but only claims the hybrids do better when taken to a third environment (California).
Artificially selected crops are very often grown outside of their native habitat. Look at the images at the top of this thread.

>Why do you do this? Why do you trim out the part I quoted showing exactly what I'm responding to, and then act like you're baffled about what I could possibly be referring to?
I didn't trim out anything, idiot. You just failed to respond to my point and instead chimped out because I don't have a paragraph of self quotes.

Again, "an incremental path of mutations each creating enhanced fitness" is natural selection. I never said anything is exactly the same as natural selection, so your contention that I said anything is exactly the same as "an incremental path of mutations each creating enhanced fitness" is pure nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.

>The difference with GMOs is that you're making changes that the plant COULDN'T evolve, even if it enhanced fitness, due to lack of an incremental path from its current genetics toward these changes.
>Artificial selection creates changes that couldn't evolve naturally, even if they enhance fitness, due to lack of an incremental path of increasing fitness.

It seems in your blind rage you forgot to turn on your brain. Are these sentences identical? No. Do they mean the same thing? Yes.

Again: artificial selection produces changes that the plant couldn't evolve (because natural selection can only increase fitness while artificial selection can decrease fitness), even if it enhanced fitness, due to lack of an incremental path from its current genetics toward these changes (because it can take a downhill path in the fitness landscape to reach a higher fitness optimum, a path which is impossible in natural selection).

Again, look up fitness landscape and educate yourself. Making shit up impresses no one.

>GMO by breeding is limited to safe, sublte changes
>GMO by more directly altering genomes is limited to doing crazy shit like splicing species together randomly

You're fucking retarded. We can't even do "we put something into a plant like wheat" that, at least not properly. Direct is far more subtle and beneficial. There is no fundamental difference either.

>a path which is impossible in natural selection
I don't think this is really true...
Anyway, the discussion is kinda retarded. Artificial selection is intrinsically the same thing as entering a symbiotic relationship with another organism. Humans protect the plant while selecting traits that produce bigger fruits. Plants that don't produce big fruits aren't protected to the same degree and die.
A similar thing probably happens with for example ants farming different fruits.
Artificial selection is just another facet of natural selection through the lens of an anthropic world view.
The main argument in GMOs vs artificial selection is that you can add something to GMOs, say an enzyme from a deep sea jelly-fish to a plant, that could never happen with artificial selection, and that somehow makes it "unnatural" and "dangerous".