Are we too hard on GMO's(genetically modified organisms)?

While likely true of the currently used GM crops, like herbacide resistance, this is a generalization, and needs clarification. A modification can be made to increase its nutritional value. This trait is generally neutral in terms of selection, and likely tends towards negative pressure since the plant is probably expending more energy of something it doesn't need.

 

This is simply not true. How often do you see dogs revert to wolves? Modern agriculture is established through deforestation, the environment is greatly changed by man, and seeds are planted every year.

I don't think the first part is true, but I do not know. We do know that crops are maintained in man made settings.

corn and soy would not revert, but there would be much less if not for tilling and herbicides. Man has already transplanted species, and these non-native species, without natural reduction would take over.

One problem with round up ready seeds is they are not hybrids so the genes can spread, and man induces the pressure of spraying more round up to kill not resistant strains. The bt corn and cotton are hybrids and genes will not spread. The problem is not the "GMO", it is the way it is being used. Given the drought where I live, traditional till farming with other herbicides may have been worse. Ag practices like no till farming may be less damaging, but we need to use less mono crops and less herbicides.

That is one thing we can agree on.

+1

 

I stated it would tend to revert, I didn't state it would revert completely. A domesticated dog population will not stay domesticated if they are released into the wild.

The reversion, or more correctly the shift in equilibrium, is a function of the number of domesticated individuals and number of wild individuals, and the environment.

I should have mentioned in my previous post that individuals from the original population, in sufficient numbers, should cross with the domesticated counterpart in order for the old equilibrium to be reached eventually, if ever. Of course if they still semi isolated then it will not be possible.

Through domestication certain populations are incompatible/infertile with their ancestors. I think that is what you are referring to with Corn, Soy, etc. If those domesticated individuals die off (if they are maladapted to a natural environment), then it performs its function in shifting back the equilibrium. But in that sense, the GM organism is genetically isolated and the wild genome should be safe.

We have to differentiate between individuals and populations. In a monoculture the entire crop can be considered one individual within a population.

Also we'd have to consider any behavioral differences which could affect a likely pairing of individuals from isolated populations. In plants, it could be flowers opening at different times, etc.

My original point is that generally speaking, the genome is not as affected as much because in non-GM organisms, all the genes were present in the genome originally, or were natural mutations which were deemed useful and selected for artificially.

 

Their behvior and gene pool would likely change as some dogs would not do as well as others. They will not revert though to being grey wolves. Decent through modification does not work this way. Environmental pressures currently work more against the wild type grey wolf than they do dogs.

Man has created spieces quite far from the wild types he has found. Dogs and wolves at least can have vialble offspring. In the case of corn it took a long time to even figure out what the ancestor plant tensonite



And I doubt without agriculture it would have survived far out of central mexico.

bt corn can not produce viable offspring. This should be a rule on GMO or other mutant strains whether produced through GMO or traditional arctificial selection. Roundup ready corn does produce viable offspring and its seeds have spread. The reason for the spread of GMO round up ready corn is the amount of roundup sprayed on the fieleds which hurts the viability of other corn.

When I talk of monoculture, I am talking about planting a single type of plant, in our examples corn. Properly done some bt corn and non-bt corn should be planted near each other. If there is an infestation, the bt corn will survive, but their will not be evolutionary pressure to make bt resistant pests. Better still would be to plant other plants to break up the fields and limit environmental damages from a single source (e.g. pest, drounght, flood)

But these agriculture products often are far removed genetically from their wild ancestors. All these genes are "natural" and unatural. A bt gene insertion seems less damaging than some of the non-gmo modifications. The point should be these new plants need to be produced well, and agricultural practices continue to change.