GM vs selective breeding

[Oxwivi]

The thread this topic appeared has been closed before I could clarify this bit of information. I want to make this clear this is a factual thread rather than driven in opinion, I sincerely hope it won't be closed.

On-topic, quite a few people confused GM and selective breeding as one and the same. However that is not the case. Yes, selective breeding does work to to create a new hybrid variety of some plant, but that is natural. Why? Because we are not forcing genes from one plant into another organism. Selective breeding is done by cross-pollination and pollination will not occur if the plant isn't compatible with the pollen and mating is not possible.

On the other hand, GM, regardless of the type of organism, splices genes and reattaches them into unrelated DNAs. One of the example I had mentioned in the aforementioned thread was florescent cats which had genes (for the molecules that causes florescent effect) of jellyfishes implanted into their DNA. Now that is completely artificial. The biological system have no role to play into incorporating the new genes unlike cross-pollination.

[Joe of loath]

Did you know that pretty much all the soya consumed by the USA (And most of the rest of the world) has been GM since around 1970?

Like it or not, it's here to stay, and doesn't seem to have affected anyone much :p

[Paqman]

One of the example I had mentioned in the aforementioned thread was florescent cats which had genes (for the molecules that causes florescent effect) of jellyfishes implanted into their DNA. Now that is completely artificial. The biological system have no role to play into incorporating the new genes unlike cross-pollination.

It's less artificial than you might think. There's a process called horizontal gene transfer that results in bits of DNA being incorporated into wildly different organisms. For example, the cow genome contains genes from snakes that was transferred in by viruses.

Breeding is not the only natural mechanism for change in genomes.

[Oxwivi]

Did you know that pretty much all the soya consumed by the USA (And most of the rest of the world) has been GM since around 1970?

Like it or not, it's here to stay, and doesn't seem to have affected anyone much :p
This thread ain't about if GM is right or wrong.


It's less artificial than you might think. There's a process called horizontal gene transfer that results in bits of DNA being incorporated into wildly different organisms. For example, the cow genome contains genes from snakes that was transferred in by viruses.

Breeding is not the only natural mechanism for change in genomes.
Yeah, I know about 'em...

[Paqman]

Yeah, I know about 'em...

So, theoretically at least, there's no reason why cats couldn't end up with jellyfish genes in them through natural processes. It's somewhat unlikely, but it's not actually impossible.

[Joe of loath]

Then the question remains; What is artifical, what is natural? Where does something become artificial?

[Paqman]

Then the question remains; What is artifical, what is natural? Where does something become artificial?

I think there's enough grey areas that it's more accurate to think of it as a continuum, rather than a binary state. There will always be examples at either end that are clearly one or the other, but there will also be plenty where it depends on your point of view.

[Oxwivi]

I would say selective breeding is natural since eventually, due to natural selection, they'd end up with advantageous traits the breeding mixed in. It is probable rather than simply possible as in the case of cats ending up with florescent genes since there's really no environmental pressure to make them as such.

[Paqman]

I would say selective breeding is natural since eventually, due to natural selection, they'd end up with advantageous traits the breeding mixed in. It is probable rather than simply possible.

You could also argue that selective breeding is definitely not natural, as the selective pressure you're applying is being directed by something other than the natural environment. Selective breeding doesn't necessarily select for traits that make the animal more fit. Just look at some of the weird traits we've bred certain dogs for. Many pure breeds suffer terrible health problems caused by the features we've bred into them. Natural selection would tend to remove these traits if they were returned to the wild.

This would definitely be one of the grey areas I mentioned. It really comes down to your point of view.

[Fedz]

GM or selective breeding they're all the same essentially!

Selective breeding is mixing genes through breeding & GM is doing it in the lab!

My opinion: Go with the direct source GM :)

[cgroza]

I find GM way more accurate. Selective breeding has a way more wide variety of genes being transfered between the 2 organisms.

I find GM being a more specific , high tech, and precise selective breeding procedure.

[walt.smith1960]

There was an situation in the early or mid '70s which has stuck with me. Hybrid seed corn is produced by crossing two different varieties of plants. The parent plants are kinda sickly looking but the offspring are very robust. In order to do this it was necessary to detassel the "female" plants. Detasseling was done by hand and was Labor intensive. There was a gene discovered-I think it was called 'T male sterile' which caused the plant's tassel to either not develop or to be sterile. Great discovery and widely bred into seed stock. The only problem was that along with the sterile tassel came an unknown susceptibility to a blight. There were fears of a seed shortage because of this blight.

The lesson i took away from that is that sometimes we think we're more clever than we really are. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, at least not until that basket is WELL proven.

[DZ*]

8% of human DNA is viral
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107103621.htm
(similar to % of malware on PCs)