I think my dog is GMO
SirBonerFart
Posts: 1,185 Member
His breed was a product of humans selecting genetic traits and passing those on for generations
Now I realise he is a GMO product and therefore unclean. Should I have him put down?
Now I realise he is a GMO product and therefore unclean. Should I have him put down?
0
Replies
-
he was probably bred by monsanto.
have him put down immediately, and do NOT eat him.0 -
There is nothing wrong with your dog...just play with him in moderation and you'll and he will be fine.0
-
I think it's the right thing to do! Just don't pay some "doctor" to do it, a hammer will do!0
-
Based on the scenario as you have described it the dog gets to live. The only critics of GMO that I am aware of are always opposed to the direct manipulation the genome itself through genetic engineering. When humans breed creatures together based on their traits you have indirect manipulation. I do not personally know anyone who actually has a problem with that. I get what your trying to say but I think the analogy fails to reach the point you are shooting for.0
-
Artificial selection or selective breeding isn't usually included in the definition of genetic engineering techniques that produce genetically modified organisms. But you knew that!0
-
Start point dog. Add some tools (selective breeding) and some time (100 generations) and you get 2 different dogs with very very similar genes, but subtly different producing 2 distinctive looking dogs with different traits.
Stat point wheat. Add some tools (scalpels and the like) and some time (1 to 2 generations) and you get 2 different strains of wheat with very similar genes, but subtly different producing 2 distinctive stalks with different traits.
So aside from the couple of hundred years how are the 2 different?
And would it be ok if we took a bunch of wheat and sprayed a low dose of Round Up on it. Then selected the most alive plants and breed them together. Repeat 100 generations worth until we had some wheat that couldn't be killed by Round Up.
Selective breeding is genetic engineering that just takes a really long time.0 -
I am a bit skeptical about the 1-2 generations part but I am no expert on wheat. Suffice it to say you are telling me it takes wheat fewer generations than dogs.
In the two examples you have described there really isn't much of a difference but both are examples of indirect manipulation. People don't really start getting riled up until you get a full blown lab involved and you start to directly manipulate the genome.
As for my personal opinion, I am in favor of genetic manipulation in general.0 -
Actually by "scalpels and the like" as the tools in the 1 to 2 generation wheat example I meant for that to be the standard GMO that makes people so fearful and therefore direct manipulation.
The GMO wheat versus the selective breeding of the wheat after being sprayed with Round Up though could in theory produce genetically identical wheat, but the one that takes a hundred years is good and the one that takes a weekend is bad.0 -
Personally I think we should accept any benefit that science has to offer us. There isn't anything magical about corn and wheat growing out of the ground. People actually vilify scientists and say things like.
"I don't want eat food from a lab."
"I don't want any chemicals to be in my food."
I don't see how the words "lab", "chemical" and "scientist" started meaning "EVIL" but it will tick people off in a hurry if you say that you like them.0 -
So aside from the couple of hundred years how are the 2 different?
The most obvious difference is the couple hundred years! If the argument is that genetic engineering happens so fast that we can't foresee the unforeseen consequences, then you can't ignore the time factor.
But aside from the couple hundred years, the difference that wigs people out is the cross-species element of GMOs that gets bumper-stickered as "frankenfoods."
Artificial selection of dog breeds over hundreds of generations doesn't involve any other species. Probably for good evolutionary reasons, people have a visceral reaction to some types of adulteration of food. Mixing fish genes into wheat hits people in the stomach with the same force as literally mixing fish guts into their bread.
Is it logical? Probably not. Is it real? Heck, yeah.0 -
I can accept that but it sounds to me like the type of thing that we should be trying to out grow. There used to a stigma against people that are left handed. That wasn't logical either. It was just wrong headed thinking that we are better off now that we are rid of.0
-
No argument.0
-
So one species of dog mated with another species of dog. That's unnatural and against god and you dog should be stoned to death.0
-
Chihuahua or Great Dane, all domestic dogs are the same species: Canis lupus familiaris. (They're actually all the same subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus.)
Since a species is defined by the ability to produce fertile offspring and selective breeding depends on fertile offspring, by definition selective breeding can only be done within a single species.0 -
Personally I think we should accept any benefit that science has to offer us. There isn't anything magical about corn and wheat growing out of the ground. People actually vilify scientists and say things like.
"I don't want eat food from a lab."
"I don't want any chemicals to be in my food."
I don't see how the words "lab", "chemical" and "scientist" started meaning "EVIL" but it will tick people off in a hurry if you say that you like them.
Agreed. If we look at the periodic table, everything there is natrual. Chemicals, by nature, are natrual. I don't understand why the hooplah of science engineering our food for the better. If I can modify corn to grow in the dunes of the Sahara and help hungry people, why not?! Go science!0 -
I for one welcome our new corn overlords!
0 -
I for one welcome our new corn overlords!
oh yum! When do we harvest!?
0 -
I for one welcome our new corn overlords!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0
