I think my dog is GMO

SirBonerFart
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?

Replies

  • skullshank
    skullshank Posts: 4,327 Member
    he was probably bred by monsanto.
    have him put down immediately, and do NOT eat him.
  • cmcollins001
    cmcollins001 Posts: 3,472 Member
    There is nothing wrong with your dog...just play with him in moderation and you'll and he will be fine.
  • escloflowneCHANGED
    escloflowneCHANGED Posts: 3,038 Member
    I think it's the right thing to do! Just don't pay some "doctor" to do it, a hammer will do!
  • soldier4242
    soldier4242 Posts: 1,368 Member
    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.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,599 Member
    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!
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 913 Member
    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.
  • soldier4242
    soldier4242 Posts: 1,368 Member
    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.
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 913 Member
    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.
  • soldier4242
    soldier4242 Posts: 1,368 Member
    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.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,599 Member
    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.
  • soldier4242
    soldier4242 Posts: 1,368 Member
    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.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,599 Member
    No argument.
  • Bahet
    Bahet Posts: 1,254 Member
    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.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,599 Member
    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.
  • Gilbrod
    Gilbrod Posts: 1,216 Member
    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!
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,599 Member
    I for one welcome our new corn overlords!

    27145_470357679701919_171497564_n.jpg
  • Mr_Cape219
    Mr_Cape219 Posts: 1,373 Member
    I for one welcome our new corn overlords!

    27145_470357679701919_171497564_n.jpg

    oh yum! When do we harvest!? :D
  • Gilbrod
    Gilbrod Posts: 1,216 Member
    I for one welcome our new corn overlords!

    27145_470357679701919_171497564_n.jpg

    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: