Difference between genetic, India and Chinese

[tjm 0]

I guess I should label my attempts at jokes, no one ever sees the same humor that I do.

Somewhere in the past I have seen a technique called "folded hackle", wouldn't it be neat to buy hackle that is naturally folded?

 

Did you know that all fetuses have epicanthal folds, regardless of ethnicity?

Quite a few Poles and Scandinavians have them as well.

[tjm 0]

Here ya go, Mike. Chickens are the original "round eyes" and coincidentally the round eyed people originate in the Indian subcontinent as well.

Interesting to note that they have a third eyelid that moves horizontally when they blink.

[SilverCreek 0]

Genetic hackles are not GMO = genetically modified organisms = genetic material is either inserted or removed from the organism by laboratory gene splicing.

 

Genetic hackles are the result of selective breeding that farmers have been doing for thousands of years.

 

Compare the earliest form of corn on the far left which is a grass seed to modern non GMO corn on the right. Every plant is the result of selecting the best of the crop and crossbreeding to develop hardier and more productive plants. There is no laboratory genetic manipulation. It is all the result of cross breeding for the desirable characteristics.

 

 

For an in depth discussion by Dr. Thomas Whiting see the "Saddle Up" article in the newsletter below

 

http://whitingfarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/WFI-NEWSLETTER-Q03-2013-WEB.pdf

 

 

 

[mikechell 0]

I think the point tjm is trying to make ... and I AM making, is that selective breeding IS genetic modification. If someone is trying to avoid GMO products, then they have to avoid practically everything.

As you showed with that diagram ... Cross breeding to achieve desirable results is genetic manipulation.

 

On the other hand, laboratory genetic manipulation just leap frogs the decades of cross breeding to achieve the same results.

If it is genetically viable enough to grow without blight or tumors, then it's no different than the cross bred result ... and no worse to eat.

[FIN-ITE 34 0]

"Genetic modification (GM) is the alteration of the genome of a plant or animal by the addition of new genetic material. It underlies the concept of transgenics, in which an organism is modified to incorporate new genes that lead to new characteristics, such as the production of proteins for human health, or the expression of a gene for herbicide resistance in plants, to name just two applications.

GM is a contentious issue. Opponents believe that GM will damage the clean, green image of New Zealand as well as damage the economy, and there are numerous ethical issues to consider. What are the environmental risks of GM crops? Is it ethical to exploit animals for human benefit?

This article will provide an outline of GM, its uses in medicine and agriculture, and will help explain the issues surrounding the GM debate in New Zealand.

What is genetic modification?

GM provides a way of expressing desirable characteristics in an organism that otherwise would not display them. It is the insertion of a gene into an organism, altering the genetic makeup. This produces a transgenic organism, one that expresses a foreign gene. In animals, a gene is inserted into an embryo, modifying the genome to manufacture the product of this new gene. In plants, a gene is injected into a single cell that is grown from a seed into a plant. This plant expresses the new gene in all its cells.

The difference between GM and selective breeding.

Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification which doesn’t involve the addition of any foreign genetic material (DNA) into the organism. Rather, it is the conscious selection for desirable traits. Pro-GM campaigners argue that humans have been ‘genetically modifying’ organisms for thousands of years, albeit without knowledge that the favourable traits they were selecting for were determined by genes. For example, humans have always selected cows with the highest milk yield and bred from these to produce herds with good milk production. A chance mutant grape with no seeds was bred to produce seedless grapes now available in our shops and supermarkets."

[SilverCreek 0]

I think the point tjm is trying to make ... and I AM making, is that selective breeding IS genetic modification. If someone is trying to avoid GMO products, then they have to avoid practically everything.

As you showed with that diagram ... Cross breeding to achieve desirable results is genetic manipulation.

 

On the other hand, laboratory genetic manipulation just leap frogs the decades of cross breeding to achieve the same results.

If it is genetically viable enough to grow without blight or tumors, then it's no different than the cross bred result ... and no worse to eat.

 

We will have to disagree.

 

There is a biologic difference between crossbreeding natural occurring animals vs GMO which is adding genetic material from a different plant/animal to another species of plant/animal that would never crossbreed in nature. For example, creating gow in the dark mice from genetic material in fireflies as was done recently at Stanford. That would never occur naturally because a firefly would never cross breed with a mouse.

 

https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/stanford-scientists-create-glow-in-the-dark-mice-may-advance-gene-therapies-4534717/

 

 

Or glow in the dark sheep created by inserting a gene from a jelly fish.

 

https://www.slashgear.com/uruguay-scientists-genetically-modify-sheeps-to-glow-in-the-dark-27279631/

 

 

Obviously GMO also includes the production of food that could theoretically crossbreed, since a process that can transfer genetic material between different species can alls transfer genetic materials between species. My objection to defining GMO as only crossbreeding is that the definition is incorrect.

 

I am one who does not think GMO food is dangerous. And in some cases it is much healthier than non GMO food. Vitamin A deficiency in children causes blindness. In Uganda the staple food is bananas that have no alpha and beta carotenes, the precursors of Vitamin A.. So a GMO banana with genetically modified to produce alpha and beta carotenes to prevent Vitamin A deficiency was created.

 

https://grist.org/science/these-vitamin-fortified-bananas-might-get-you-thinking-differently-about-gmos/

 

https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-orange-bananas-vitamin-uganda-633136

[mikechell 0]

We're on the same page, Silver, as usual ... just on different paragraphs.

 

You stated, "My objection to defining GMO as only crossbreeding is that the definition is incorrect."

I object to that, too. GMO is much MORE than cross breeding.

Obviously, mice and lightning bugs, although they may adore each other (hey, we don't know ... ) cannot create offspring. So, the lab can do that in one generation.

But to say that we couldn't breed bio-luminescence into mice or sheep, given a few thousand years or so of selective breeding is a bit shortsighted.

It wouldn't surprise me to see that trait somehow cultivated into cats and dogs ... think of how easy it'd be to walk your pet at night !!!

[tjm 0]

Free roaming pets should glow in the dark!! Oughta be a law.

[tjm 0]

Genetically manipulated plants and animals don't often come from cross breeding, usually they are the result of close line-breeding and or inbreeding.

The maize in your example is so far manipulated from the base stock that it can not survive on it's own, modern maize is human dependent.

The hybrids are cross bred, two inbred parents exhibiting the sought after characteristics are carefully crossbred allowing only the male in one line and only the female in the other line to mate; however hybrids often don't reproduce so this manipulation needs constant repeating.

There are differences in the mechanics of manipulation and modifying but the results can be similar. I alluded to this similarity, even mentioning that it was technically not GMO (as in genetically modified organism not as in General Management Office) because it was not done in a test tube. I will continue to consider red mules, hybrid maize, Santa Gertrudis cows and freaky long hackled chickens as genetically manipulated organisms, thank you.

[SilverCreek 0]

We're on the same page, Silver, as usual ... just on different paragraphs.

 

You stated, "My objection to defining GMO as only crossbreeding is that the definition is incorrect."

I object to that, too. GMO is much MORE than cross breeding.

Obviously, mice and lightning bugs, although they may adore each other (hey, we don't know ... ) cannot create offspring. So, the lab can do that in one generation.

But to say that we couldn't breed bio-luminescence into mice or sheep, given a few thousand years or so of selective breeding is a bit shortsighted.

It wouldn't surprise me to see that trait somehow cultivated into cats and dogs ... think of how easy it'd be to walk your pet at night !!!

 

 

I should have said GMO is a version of speeding crossbreeding within a species AND also trading DNA across different species that cannot breed. So the definition is incomplete.