Back then you would get 5 popcorn per bucket at the movies.
Thats a teosinte seed; teosinte is the grass ancestor of corn that still grows in Mexico.
So its the corn that is genetically modified.
Ancestor is not the same as non GMO. One could say that primates in Madagascar are ancestors to human. But there’s no human population that is either GMO or went through the process of selective breeding.
selective breeding
I wonder, isn’t sexual selection a form of “selective breeding”?
True, but people selectively bred teosinte into corn.
Ok… but the reason why people don’t like GMOs is because they’re bred to be doused in pesticides. They also can cross-pollinate with non-GMO’s to create non viable seeds among other things.
GMO is a misconstrued term much like free range or grass fed or no trans fats.
Don’t step on the rake.
*Some
Is the keyword, GMO purposes can be vast, and not all are just for pesticides or non-fertility.
Some are even used to be more pest resistant so it can be less reliant on pesticides.
We should recognize the tremendous efforts of prehistoric American botanists for selectively breeding so many major food crops. Maize, tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, squash, beans, avocado, cacao, peanuts, papaya, and pineapples are among the many crops first developed in pre-1492 America.
Gregor Mendel entered the chat …
Not sure what this is trying to say, but this seems to conflate genetic modification with selective breeding!
Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. That’s what it’s trying to say.
By the individual definitions of the words, yes. However in actual use, genetically modified means modification through direct methods such as chemical agents, enzymes, or electroporation.
Edit:
This isn’t my opinion. Here is an article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732/
You can selectively breed rabbits for 1000 years and not get a glow in the dark rabbit that can be made in a week in a lab.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/glow-in-dark-rabbits-scientists
Sure, but you could selectively breed rabbits for 1,000,000 years and get a glow in the dark rabbit; GFP is just a protein like any other - if you painstakingly selectively breed for a specific DNA sequence, you’ll eventually get it regardless of your starting genetic pool. Classic selective breeding is a form of genetic modification - modern genetic modification methods are just way faster.
I agree that we don’t currently know enough about genetics to utilize genetic modification without unforeseen side effects, and so there should be limitations on what we’re able to genetically modify until we can show that we understand it well enough to meaningfully minimize potential issues, but those same issues occur with selective breeding - they’re, again, just slower.
That’s all beside the point that actual scientists use GMO to mean directly genetically modified and not selective breeding.
The speed of a technology is a substantial difference.
Claiming selective breeding is GMO because they are both artificial genetic modifications is like saying a horse and an Boeing 747 are both just transportation.
a horse and an Boeing 747 are both just transportation.
But… they are.
The speed is substantial, yes. That was my point. They are essentially the same; one simply uses the organism’s own natural genetic variation mechanisms, while the other introduces new variations manually. Yes, that is a difference that requires separation of the two in certain circumstances, but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.
Claiming selective breeding is the same as producing a GMO is like saying an eagle and a Boeing 747 are both utilizing mechanisms that allow them to fly, which is true.
They are essentially the same;
A bullet shot from a gun is not the same as a bullet moved a few inches every year.
We already know about the devastating effects of invasive species where an animal was introduced to a new environment and had unexpected effects.
but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.
It’s the details that matter. It can take decades before side effects are noticed. Like DDT and now neonicotinoids. GMO could be better or worse. Saying it’s the same as natural selection is misleading which is why scientists use GM to mean direct gene modification, not natural or selective breeding.
Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.
And… again… as I already said… there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.
Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO’s will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO’s can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.
Selective breeding modifies the genes, so… No.
Or, yes?
Which person decided to domesticate that thing. Just like “hey I found this weird looking grass fruit wanna enslave it” and chief’s like “hell yeah of course I wanna enslave it!” and then they just ate increasingly beady grass for a few thousand years
They just realized it was edible, thought to save some to plant, and then the big idea was whenever they realized they should save the biggest ones to replant
Wrong, the grass enslaved humanity. It was like “I hear wheat is doing well, I wanna get a hominid slave species that will protect me from pests and propagate my genetic line whilst literally clearing away all competing plants for miles.”
And corn got their slaves, and as the plant relaxed over successive generations they grew more bready and delicious because the only predator eating them was also ensuring their monocrop dominance so get fat and whatever who cares!
Thanks to capitalism however we can re buy the seed every season and insure Monsantos earnings please the shareholders
Thanks to assholes
Ftfy
Because we will never be free of assholes, regardless of the system.
But surely you can see how a system that rewards asshole behavior is part of the problem here? Maybe we’d have fewer assholes if the system didn’t reinforce the behavior and train new assholes every day. Maybe over time, over multiple generations, we could eliminate assholes almost completely
There’s a reason we’ve never seen this mythical system you’re speaking of. People, in general, are assholes and will act in their own best interests every time.
Do people use breed and generically modify interchangeably? Are they actually the same
deleted by creator
We get to choose the genes when genetically modifying, and it usually takes a few years (plus health metrics and research once complete).
Contrary, when selectively breeding we can breed for traits which we are not guaranteed to actually get, and it takes a few decades (plus health metrics and research once complete).
when selectively breeding we can breed for traits which we are not guaranteed to actually get, and it takes a few decades (plus health metrics and research once complete).
Nobody will make you confirm your randomly bred variant is actually healthy, or even non-harmful, and you can sell it without publishing a thing.
Gmos go through far more rigorous testing requirements than new organisms created by traditional means. you’ve got it completely backwards.
But that’s what I said…
I’m an idiot. My bad.
EDIT: OP cleared up the confusion, thanks for that I … what? This is such a gigantic leap, going from Teosinte to modern day mazie and calling it a GMO, what is it even suppoed to mean? We shouldn’t use domesticated plant? I am seriously scared by the lack of what I consider to be general knowledge of breeding in the general population, have people stopped going to school in the last 5 years?
It’s pro-GMO, showing we’ve always modified plants.
Well, alright thanks for clearing that up. I understand the meme now, although I still struggle with the … unusual use of terminology. But yes, it very much makes sense to show teosinte then!
Then again, depending on if you count CRISPR gene editing as GMO, the terminology fits perfect. CRISPR does exactly the same as breeding, just with perfection and knowing what happend on molecular biological level.
