View Full Version : Dogs: The Ultimate GMO
This is really interesting for both dog lovers and science nerds alike from National Geographic. Dogs exist for man by man and for no other reason: They are purely a man made creature. We take that fact for granted as we often take dogs for granted. We have modified their genome from the wolf to our benefit, and some times their detriment.
Looks at some of the amazing breeding that's been done, like a super sniffer dog the Russians mixed with a Jackal used to find explosives, as well as the genetic problems many dogs suffer from. I really enjoyed this show and came away with an even greater appreciation for dogs in general.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlym9n_science-of-dogs_tech
Moose-Knuckle
01-08-14, 16:58
The thread on the evils - or lack there of, of GMOs - reminded me of this program by National Geographic on dogs.
Canines have a common ancestor that mankind did not create in a lab. I fail to see how selective breeding correlates to Big Ag with their bureaucrats and bagmen at every level of government strong arming their way to global food production . . . that is unless of course dog breeders now get appointed cabinet positions and are in charge of the food supply.
Inkslinger
01-08-14, 17:21
I avoid eating dogs too.
Canines have a common ancestor that mankind did not create in a lab. I fail to see how selective breeding correlates
The correlate is that they are man made creatures, no less, no more than if they did it in a lab vs eons of selective breeding. How it was done, does not matter. The final result, is what matters. And everything altered in a lab is also from common ancestors, etc, etc. But, not relevant to this thread or the intent of this thread. I posted it because it's an interesting topic that looks at how much man has altered the genome of the wolf to get dogs, not to debate GMOs from the other thread. Watch show if the topic is of interest....
If not, evil of GMOs debate, please go ==> HERE (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?145433-Monsanto-why-are-they-bad)
I avoid eating dogs too.
Your award is in the mail. Dogs are a common dish on the menu in many countries however, though I'd say we owe them more then that considering all they have done for us. Now, back to the topic at hand: the science of dogs and how much man has manipulated their genome to the benefits of mankind, etc. It's an interesting program.
Moose-Knuckle
01-08-14, 17:27
I avoid eating dogs too.
LOL, as do I.
Moose-Knuckle
01-08-14, 17:31
But, not relevant to this thread or the intent of this thread. I posted it because it's an interesting topic that looks at how much man has altered the genome of the wolf to get dogs, not to debate GMOs from the other thread. Watch show if the topic is of interest....
If not, evil of GMOs debate, please go ==> HERE (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?145433-Monsanto-why-are-they-bad)
I think its pretty clear in the thread your alluding to what your thoughts are on the matter. If this is a thread about dogs I don't understand why you bring up the subject matter of an unrelated thread.
Carry on.
I think its pretty clear in the thread your alluding to what your thoughts are on the matter.
No, it's not, or I would have posted in that thread.
If this is a thread about dogs I don't understand why you bring up the subject matter of an unrelated thread.
Carry on.
As explained, it's what reminded me of this show. I will edit my OP however now.
Moose-Knuckle
01-08-14, 17:46
No, it's not, or I would have posted in that thread.
My bad, I thought you had.
As explained, it's what reminded me of this show. I will edit my OP however now.
Well at least now I can sleep tonight! :) :joke:
My bad, I thought you had.
No sir!
Well at least now I can sleep tonight! :) :joke:
Wise a s s :neo:
I was just reading about cats actually.
They were domesticated much later than dogs and in a different way. Dogs benefited directly from human interaction, being fed by them and providing help and companionship in return. Cats moved in with humans because they could hunt down small pests like rats and mice. So even though cats have been with humans for thousands of years too, they're much closer to their wild ancestor than dogs.
Moose-Knuckle
01-08-14, 18:21
I was just reading about cats actually.
They were domesticated much later than dogs and in a different way. Dogs benefited directly from human interaction, being fed by them and providing help and companionship in return. Cats moved in with humans because they could hunt down small pests like rats and mice. So even though cats have been with humans for thousands of years too, they're much closer to their wild ancestor than dogs.
Cats are virtual killing machines
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kittycam-study-finds-cats-virtual-killing-machines-214018851.html
My wife rescued a pure bred Japanese Bobtail from a shelter. I was interested in finding out that particular breed's history. In 1602 they became national heroes in their homeland as they saved the empire from ruin as a plague of rats were decimating the silk worm population and rice stores. Now when you go into most Asian eateries you will see at least one statue/figurine of these felines as a good luck charm.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-08-14, 18:40
Cats are virtual killing machines
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kittycam-study-finds-cats-virtual-killing-machines-214018851.html
My wife rescued a pure bred Japanese Bobtail from a shelter. I was interested in finding out that particular breed's history. In 1602 they became national heroes in their homeland as they saved the empire from ruin as a plague of rats were decimating the silk worm population and rice stores. Now when you go into most Asian eateries you will see at least one statue/figurine of these felines as a good luck charm.
Is that where the Japanese "Rally Cat" with the arm that bobs up and down is from? Something about the right arm being luck and the left being money, or something like that. One of those gifts we get from our Japanese guys and about all you can say is "That's a cat, thank you."
The evolutionary pressures we have put on dogs and how far we have molded them to work in our systems is trully amazing. There was some report about dogs ability to read our emotions or non-verbal clues and they were better at it than primates. Make the master happy or end up in the stew.
Doesn't hurt that their own 'culture' is pretty in line with the hunter-gatherer mindset.
I was in a marketing survey class and I wanted to use the question if people are dog or cat person along with Beatles vs Elvis as the basis quick personality segmentor. My proff thought I was on crack. I can tell you that I have little in common with Beatle listening, cat lovers..... just sayin.
Moose-Knuckle
01-08-14, 20:02
Is that where the Japanese "Rally Cat" with the arm that bobs up and down is from? Something about the right arm being luck and the left being money, or something like that. One of those gifts we get from our Japanese guys and about all you can say is "That's a cat, thank you."
Those figurines are known as maneki-neko or "beckoning cat". While they come in a host of colors the most common are white with black and brown spots. Our Japanese Bobtail has this exact coloring its known a mi-ke, basically tri-color/calico. As for the meaning of the paw placement, there is actually a lot to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneki-neko
The evolutionary pressures we have put on dogs and how far we have molded them to work in our systems is trully amazing. There was some report about dogs ability to read our emotions or non-verbal clues and they were better at it than primates. Make the master happy or end up in the stew.
Doesn't hurt that their own 'culture' is pretty in line with the hunter-gatherer mindset.
Dogs always amaze me, there are some that can detect seizures in humans.
Seen it before.
And that is why those who mistreat dogs disgust me. We have deliberately bonded them to us and made them dependent on us. And they are one of the rare few creatures on the planet who understand things like loyalty and duty, even more so than some humans.
montanadave
01-08-14, 21:42
Seen it before.
And that is why those who mistreat dogs disgust me. We have deliberately bonded them to us and made them dependent on us. And they are one of the rare few creatures on the planet who understand things like loyalty and duty, even more so than most humans.
FIFY ;)
GMO and breeding are not the same thing at all !!!
maybe cross pollination of plants and breeding but not GMO !!
nice try though :)
This is really interesting for both dog lovers and science nerds alike from National Geographic. Dogs exist for man by man and for no other reason: They are purely a man made creature. We take that fact for granted as we often take dogs for granted. We have modified their genome from the wolf to our benefit, and some times their detriment.
Looks at some of the amazing breeding that's been done, like a super sniffer dog the Russians mixed with a Jackal used to find explosives, as well as the genetic problems many dogs suffer from. I really enjoyed this show and came away with an even greater appreciation for dogs in general.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlym9n_science-of-dogs_tech
Many GMO foods are a mix of combining plant and animal DNA in a lab.... Dogs were just a product of selective breeding practices.
Genetic success in chasing/biting.:)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/c3006/H18%20Cerakote/Brick/DSCN4269.jpg
GMO and breeding are not the same thing at all !!!
maybe cross pollination of plants and breeding but not GMO !!
nice try though :)
Then I suggest you do not understand it at all...
Seen it before.
And that is why those who mistreat dogs disgust me. We have deliberately bonded them to us and made them dependent on us. And they are one of the rare few creatures on the planet who understand things like loyalty and duty, even more so than some humans.
I agree, that show only reinforced the fact to me we owe them far more than they owe us.
GMO and breeding are not the same thing at all !!!
Yes it is, and my comments on that already covered, so no need re rehash it again in this thread. Feel free go the existing thread on GMOs and explain how (using science) and why I'm incorrect on that.
Many GMO foods are a mix of combining plant and animal DNA in a lab.... Dogs were just a product of selective breeding practices.
Which selectively attempts to combine traits (via DNA) via selective breeding. The difference is only in the minds of those who lack the science knowledge and think selective breeding some how different and more "natural" than it being done more targeted in a lab. The fact is dogs, are 100% made made creatures. Long term selective breeding is a much slower and more inefficient way to get your GMO, but it's 100% a form of genomic manipulation (being done before they even knew what DNA was) to get a GMO. That does not take any real background in genetics, or even back bio to understand. It does take the use of some basic critical thinking however and removal of emotional roadblock to the simple concepts discussed.
Additional thoughts on that issue, as to not side track to much ==> HERE (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?145433-Monsanto-why-are-they-bad&p=1829861#post1829861)
A GMO produced in a lab, obviously has the potential to go much further than selective breeding can and that's both a potential negative and positive.
Genetic success in chasing/biting.:)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v501/c3006/H18%20Cerakote/Brick/DSCN4269.jpg
Pretty doggy. I hope he's not chasing and biting people and animals he/she shouldn't be. Watch that show, it will make you appreciate dogs even more.
When you break out the petri dish and start splicing gene's to make a new breeds, then we're talking GMO dogs.
Like Spider Goats.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357
And yes that as F-ed up as altering the food we eat to produce toxins that kill insects (and people wonder why gastro-intestinal problems are skyrocketing).
When you break out the petri dish and start splicing gene's to make a new breeds, then we're talking GMO dogs.
Like Spider Goats.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357
And yes that as F-ed up as altering the food we eat to produce toxins that kill insects (and people wonder why gastro-intestinal problems are skyrocketing).
One does not need to splice DNA from unrelated species to get a GMO. Using extreme examples of the edge of GMO tech (glow in the dark rabbits, Spider goats, etc) has no impact on that fact.
Pretty doggy. I hope he's not chasing and biting people and animals he/she shouldn't be. Watch that show, it will make you appreciate dogs even more.
It was a joke on the breed.... I have read a library on canines and seen the show also.
It was a joke on the breed.... I have read a library on canines and seen the show also.
What's the breed? Looks like a Shepard and something else I figured.
Dutch Shepherd. A pretty interesting breed...as the Dutch value spirit/courage before immediate obedience in their working dogs. I thought the show was pretty cool by the way.
Dutch Shepherd. A pretty interesting breed...as the Dutch value spirit/courage before immediate obedience in their working dogs. I thought the show was pretty cool by the way.
I think all dog owners need to watch that show. Even as a science type who had a solid idea of selective breeding and the origins of the dog, I learned a fair amount from this show and came away with an even greater appreciation for them. I have a retired Greyhound. Wonderful dog and I'd get more/another without hesitation.
One does not need to splice DNA from unrelated species to get a GMO. Using extreme examples of the edge of GMO tech (glow in the dark rabbits, Spider goats, etc) has no impact on that fact.
Using the other end of the spectrum to try and poke fun at those who don't not agree with petri dish gmo's has no impact on that fact that they are not only morally wrong, but a dangerous Pandora's box.
Not to mention the fact that your blatantly incorrect in your understanding of genetically modified organisms. Selective breeding doesn't seem to fit the "definition" of GMO's.....
"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques". Like I stated before. If you use genetic engineering to produce a new breed of dog, you've got a GMO dog.
Not a big deal, if you love GMO's go for it. You can enjoy them as much as you want....
Failure2Stop
01-09-14, 11:48
Saw the show.
Thought it was pretty neat, especially the Russian sniffer dog.
Using the other end of the spectrum to try and poke fun at those who don't not agree with petri dish gmo's has no impact on that fact that they are not only morally wrong, but a dangerous Pandora's box.
Fear of technology will never stop it's progress. Many feared the steam engine when it came out as it was going to replace them (and it did) and many were sure computers where the end of man (and they may yet be right!), but those techs also were part of our progression. +/- came with them as it does for all new tech. Every new technology has the potential to open some Pandora's Box, either real or perceived, and challenges our belief systems. Some might consider inbreeding wolfs to get a dog that exists for no other reason than to assist human beings - many of whom have serious genetic problems - is not moral. It sure as hell aint "natural." But typical of many, anything done long enough becomes "natural" and accepted. The process of selective breeding of dogs, farm animals, plants, etc, usually to the detriment if the animal but benefit of man, is neither "natural" or moral per se, if one one to follow your blanket statement to it's logical conclusion.
Not to mention the fact that your blatantly incorrect in your understanding of genetically modified organisms. Selective breeding doesn't seem to fit the "definition" of GMO's.....
Yes, the common vernacular of GMO = genetically altered in a lab using methods such a inserted genetic material, usually via prokaryotic plasmid.
"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques". Like I stated before. If you use genetic engineering to produce a new breed of dog, you've got a GMO dog.
Guess what, selective breeding is a genetic engineering technique. Genetic engineering techniques existed FAR before the ability to directly alter a genome in a lab. It can't be that difficult for an intelligent person such as yourself (even minus any actual science background in genetics) to understand that, other than the emotional block being used to avoid the fact.
If you choose to see GMO to = lab made or altered organism, that's fine. That does not make it technically correct however. Yes, that is how most view it in the common vernacular due mostly to people's mental comfort zone vs technical.
This:
22625
Became that*:
22626
For one reason and one reason only: humans genetically engineering them via selective breeding.
Not a big deal, if you love GMO's go for it. You can enjoy them as much as you want....
You eat GMOs every meal of your life, so I hope you enjoy them too my friend.
* = as well as 400 other breeds.
Saw the show.
Thought it was pretty neat, especially the Russian sniffer dog.
Agreed. I thought the dog/Jackal hybrid dog really interesting. One thing they didn't mention though, was the Blood Hound. I had thought they were the "top dog" when it came to ability to smell minute amount of X. Anyone who works with working dogs comment on that?
Then I suggest you do not understand it at all...
yeah you would ? but its not !
no its not at all !!!
you do not understand what GMO is then if you think breeding is the same
do you understand the differences of cross pollinating and GMO ?
your comments are not covered they are just comments and are wrong :)
in your eyes all humans are GMO then ? since we have cross bred over the many years
go look up glofish if you want to point to a GMO pet !
certain lab mice etc.. are GMO
GMO animals are very rare and are more lab situations for testing not even like the glofish
again know and learn the difference :)
Yes it is, and my comments on that already covered, so no need re rehash it again in this thread. Feel free go the existing thread on GMOs and explain how (using science) and why I'm incorrect on that.
"Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology (<the exploitation of biological processes for industrial and other purposes, esp. the genetic manipulation of microorganisms for the production of antibiotics, hormones, etc.)."
Again you are incorrect. Selective breeding does not use biotechnology to produce genetic engineering. I am afraid you are confused on the subject, or just attempting to stir the pot (< Im going to assume that is whats going on here)....or just believe your opinion is fact, which apparently it is not.
Im with Honu, do you actually believe Human Beings are genetically modified organisms???? Since of course humans have been selectively breeding for a few hundred thousand years....
BT Corn = GMO
Dog = selective breeding
Difference = huge
I just posted this to the "Monsanto...whya re they bad" thread and wanted to link it here as it is being discussed here as well:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?145433-Monsanto-why-are-they-bad&p=1830752#post1830752
no its not at all !!!
you do not understand what GMO is then if you think breeding is the same
I have already explained that to you and to others in this thread, and you have yet to counter with anything of value other than repeating the same (incorrect) statement. Counter, using science, anything I have stated. I'll take a wild guess and say you don't have any background in genetics for this discussion and are simply dong the "don't confuse me with the facts because I don't like what you're saying" routine here. It aint working son.
What's clear is, you don't know anything about GMO.
"Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology (<the exploitation of biological processes for industrial and other purposes, esp. the genetic manipulation of microorganisms for the production of antibiotics, hormones, etc.)."
Again you are incorrect. Selective breeding does not use biotechnology to produce genetic engineering. I am afraid you are confused on the subject, or just attempting to stir the pot (< Im going to assume that is whats going on here)....or just believe your opinion is fact, which apparently it is not.
Im with Honu, do you actually believe Human Beings are genetically modified organisms???? Since of course humans have been selectively breeding for a few hundred thousand years....
BT Corn = GMO
Dog = selective breeding
Difference = huge
And to repeat, because you appear to think saying same thing over, will alter anything:
"Yes, that is how most view it in the common vernacular..."
Do we need go over that again? My full response to the above already exists in this thread. Selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering. Does not seem like rocket science to me, but I have actually studied the topic in bio chem, genetics courses, etc. How's about you?
hahahaha OK keep believing in the wrong thing ? or trying to simplify it now to fit what you want the title was GMO you are wrong about GMO ?
again show me where breeding is GMO in science journals
cloned yes
bred no !
again google up glofish that is a GMO animal a dog is not ? again are we all GMO products ?
CCAC offers the following definition of a genetically engineered animal: “an animal that has had a change in its nuclear or mitochondrial DNA (addition, deletion, or substitution of some part of the animal’s genetic material or insertion of foreign DNA) achieved through a deliberate human technological intervention.” Those animals that have undergone induced mutations (for example, by chemicals or radiation — as distinct from spontaneous mutations that naturally occur in populations) and cloned animals are also considered to be genetically engineered due to the direct intervention and planning involved in creation of these animals.
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTXTZ7A#a=1
these are GMO animals ! you notice things like glowing animals or the first dolly of course :) or other strange things sorry regular dog breeds are not part of any of this ?
some farm animals are in that GMO class like the salmon they are doing etc..
read this and get back to me !
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078015/
you are wrong about GMO
link me to documents that say breeding is GMO
I have already explained that to you and to others in this thread, and you have yet to counter with anything of value other than repeating the same (incorrect) statement. Counter, using science, anything I have stated. I'll take a wild guess and say you don't have any background in genetics for this discussion and are simply dong the "don't confuse me with the facts because I don't like what you're saying" routine here. It aint working son.
What's clear is, you don't know anything about GMO.
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/default.htm
Q: What is genetic engineering?
A. Genetic engineering generally refers to the use of recombinant DNA techniques to introduce new characteristics or traits into an organism. It entails producing a piece of DNA (the recombinant DNA or rDNA construct) and introducing it into an organism so that new or altered traits can be imparted to that organism. The genes and other segments of DNA that are part of the rDNA construct may be obtained from other organisms, or synthesized from scratch in a laboratory. Genetic engineering enables people to introduce a much wider range of new traits into an organism than is possible by conventional breeding. It has been widely used in agriculture, for example to make crops resistant to certain pests or herbicides, in medicine, for example to develop microbes that can produce pharmaceuticals for human or animal use, and in food to produce microorganisms that aid in baking, brewing, and cheese-making.
Q: How are GE animals different from conventional animals?
A. From a scientific perspective, the only intrinsic difference is that GE animals contain an rDNA construct that gives them a new trait or characteristic, such as producing a pharmaceutical or growing faster. The degree of difference between a GE animal and its conventional counterpart will depend on the new trait that the GE animal possesses.
again your idea of dogs as GMO is not correct :)
if a dog breed is changed by the idea above then sure but again breeding is not GMO !!!
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/default.htm
Q: What is genetic engineering?
A. Genetic engineering generally refers to the use of recombinant DNA techniques to introduce new characteristics or traits into an organism. It entails producing a piece of DNA (the recombinant DNA or rDNA construct) and introducing it into an organism so that new or altered traits can be imparted to that organism. The genes and other segments of DNA that are part of the rDNA construct may be obtained from other organisms, or synthesized from scratch in a laboratory. Genetic engineering enables people to introduce a much wider range of new traits into an organism than is possible by conventional breeding. It has been widely used in agriculture, for example to make crops resistant to certain pests or herbicides, in medicine, for example to develop microbes that can produce pharmaceuticals for human or animal use, and in food to produce microorganisms that aid in baking, brewing, and cheese-making.
Q: How are GE animals different from conventional animals?
A. From a scientific perspective, the only intrinsic difference is that GE animals contain an rDNA construct that gives them a new trait or characteristic, such as producing a pharmaceutical or growing faster. The degree of difference between a GE animal and its conventional counterpart will depend on the new trait that the GE animal possesses.
again your idea of dogs as GMO is not correct :)
if a dog breed is changed by the idea above then sure but again breeding is not GMO !!!
The best thing about the above is it confirms what I have been saying. You just don't have the background to know it. It's like debating how evil guns are with someone who does not know an AR from a bb gun, and cutting and pasting from web sites like Brady Bunch to "confirm" their position. It comes under the "you don't know what you don't know" heading. You're hung up on semantics of the definition because it's all you have to avoid what appears to be a threatening concept for you it seems.
At this point, I doubt anything will get you to use your critical thinking skills vs emotional invested position, but this is a decent write up:
"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."
Full article:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2008/09/19/genetic-modification-explained/
In simple as I can make it terms:
SB = genetic modification
GM via a lab = genetic modification
Both are a form of genetic engineering leading to a GMO, which is a generic term that in the common vernacular is the version you are hung up on.
No, they are not the same thing, nor has any claim made they are as far as any technical aspects are concerned, only the result. Wolves however have had their genome modified by humans to make dogs of all kinds (let me guess, you also couldn't be bothered to watch the linked program either...) for our benefit, and often their detriment. If all that is still too complex for you to grasp, and the term GMO as used in the common vernacular is all your brain can deal with, I can't make it any simpler.
I'm done responding to you on this topic.
again your post was GMO dogs are not GMO
you want to say one thing then try to twist it into something else with something that kinda bridges that ? pretty funny though :) hahahhaha
look at what you quoted :) hahahaahaahh OH man you crack me up though :) hahahahah
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,
and above that in your NZ article
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.
again READ !!!!!
you do notice the one you posted said THE DIFFERENCE !!!!
and the one above it describes what it IS !!!!
and don't start doing the you just don't have the background to know it !!! personal crap leave that out !
Food we eat via seeds vs animals bred via selective breeding are not one in the same GMO, /thread.
Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification
So... Yeah. That happened.
MountainRaven
01-09-14, 21:49
I understand the use of 'GMO' as a rhetorical device for referring to what we have done with dogs.
But stating that anything which is selectively bred is a GMO means that every living thing on this planet (plus virii and every possible DNA/RNA-based organism in the universe) is a GMO. At which point in time, you have basically thrown the definition of 'GMO' into a paper shredder, used the remnants to wipe your butt, flushed them down the toilet, pumped them out, dried them, lit them on fire, loaded the ashes into a rocket and shot them into the sun.
e.g.: A male salmon swims up a stream, impresses a female salmon, and releases his sperm into her eggs. They chose each other, they made babies, their spawn are GMOs. The alpha male wolf breeds with the alpha female wolf (and not with a beta or an omega or any wolf other than an alpha). They were selective, they bred. Their pups are GMOs. You chose your wife, your wife chose you. You breed, you have kids, your kids are GMOs. The only possible exceptions are plants, and that's only because plants are largely immobile and do not choose where their pollen ultimately lands… except through bees and butterflies and birds… who are then involved in the selection process and… the fruit of that pollen is a GMO.
I understand the use of 'GMO' as a rhetorical device for referring to what we have done with dogs.
But stating that anything which is selectively bred is a GMO means that every living thing on this planet (plus virii and every possible DNA/RNA-based organism in the universe) is a GMO. At which point in time, you have basically thrown the definition of 'GMO' into a paper shredder, used the remnants to wipe your butt, flushed them down the toilet, pumped them out, dried them, lit them on fire, loaded the ashes into a rocket and shot them into the sun.
e.g.: A male salmon swims up a stream, impresses a female salmon, and releases his sperm into her eggs. They chose each other, they made babies, their spawn are GMOs. The alpha male wolf breeds with the alpha female wolf (and not with a beta or an omega or any wolf other than an alpha). They were selective, they bred. Their pups are GMOs. You chose your wife, your wife chose you. You breed, you have kids, your kids are GMOs. The only possible exceptions are plants, and that's only because plants are largely immobile and do not choose where their pollen ultimately lands… except through bees and butterflies and birds… who are then involved in the selection process and… the fruit of that pollen is a GMO.
I can see your point with that line of reasoning. I meant via the process of forced evolution on an animal via human beings, which selective breeding of wolf -> dog produced an animal not from normal "natural" evolution or natural selection. It's genome altered by us. Selective breeding due to normal evolutionary process is not the same as the process that gave us dogs, or the food plants we eat.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.