Dumbest Things People Have Said About Your Chickens/Eggs/Meat

[oldrooster]

I was at a gathering today and was talking to a 40ish young man who said he didn't know what GMO was. Never heard of it. He also said there's a law on the books that prevents people from growing their own food and, if the government wanted to, they could come onto your land and get rid of your veggie garden.
My next door neighbor told me that GMO has been going on for hundreds of years; in fact, it happens naturally among plants and animals.

They weren't even drinking anything stronger than iced tea!

I had to come home, lie down with a cold compress on my forehead, close my eyes, and bask in the quiet.

In a way your neighbor is correct, just partially, not in the lab like GMO means but humans and the enviroment does modify the genetic structure by selectively cross breeding/pollenation, But I get your pont, you are referring to the modifications in the lab not using natural means of changing the way plants and animals develop.

 

[Irishhenman]

My next door neighbor told me that GMO has been going on for hundreds of years; in fact, it happens naturally among plants and animals.

They weren't even drinking anything stronger than iced tea!

I had to come home, lie down with a cold compress on my forehead, close my eyes, and bask in the quiet.

Your neighbour is right, selective breeding of animals is genetic modification. Evolution by natural selection is modifying plants and animals genetically to give them particular features. Just because it isn't done in a lab doesn't mean it isn't gmo!

 

[7 Biddies]

In a way your neighbor is correct, just partially, not in the lab like GMO means but humans and the enviroment does modify the genetic structure by selectively cross breeding/pollenation, But I get your pont, you are referring to the modifications in the lab not using natural means of changing the way plants and animals develop.

I'm not talking about hybridization. I'm talking about taking the double helix of DNA, unzipping it, and putting it back together with genetic material from another (incompatible) species .... like corn and fish. Something that would NEVER happen in nature. Cross-pollinization is something that happens in nature, when pollen from 2 similar organisms come together creating another version of its' parents. This can be accomplished via wind, bees, or other natural pollinators. When I explained this to my neighbor, he had to admit that he was in error ... he was thinking of this, not of manipulating DNA in a laboratory. He also didn't realize genetic manipulation was being done to our food, thereby making Frankenfood. All along, he thought people were talking about hybridization and couldn't understand why they were upset with Monsanto and the other companies..

 

[subhanalah]

What about graftin? I know it's within the same species, but it certainly doesn't happen in nature.
Not being contrary, I legitimately want to know your opinion.

 

[GOLDENSEABRIGHT]

I asked someone if they eat dead chicken and they said no

 

[oldrooster]

What about graftin? I know it's within the same species, but it certainly doesn't happen in nature.
Not being contrary, I legitimately want to know your opinion.

She is referring to taking the genetic makeup of one living organism and adding some genetic material from a completely different living creature to make a new, mechanically enginered living creature (my definition of creature here anything alive, animal, plant, mold, etc etc etc). I have heard some of this genetic engenering is same or similar species (like 2 apple trees, or 2 grasses) and the genetic splicing is in essence speed up by developing the end result the producer wants over 1 generation instead of several, but I realize that is a minor part of GMO and some people whom don't like GMO have mixed feelings over that portion, but may not be 100% against it....

 

[oldrooster]

I asked someone if they eat dead chicken and they said no

I want mine dead, but I will eat a live lettuce leaf....

 

[7 Biddies]

Your neighbour is right, selective breeding of animals is genetic modification. Evolution by natural selection is modifying plants and animals genetically to give them particular features. Just because it isn't done in a lab doesn't mean it isn't gmo!

If you want to split hairs, yes. However, "selective breeding" never came up until just now. But, I think people on this board understand the difference between the artificial manipulation of DNA and nature's hybridization, which is part of the natural selection process and her grand scheme to strengthen species. My point was that the people with whom I was speaking didn't realize there was a difference between the 2, and thought that all the con GMO people are candidates for aluminum foil hats! ("Why are you against bees cross pollinating plants?") Since this wasn't a contest between debate teams, they don't get partial points for being "technically correct". In the full context of the conversation, he was completely ignorant of the facts, evidenced by his saying, "Oh" after my explanation of the difference.

BTW, genetic manipulation and "selective breeding" are not the same (or even close) since the first does NOT involve "breeding" in it's traditional sense. It's not even close to artificial insemination, which is often used in "selective breeding" of animals and plants, too, for that matter. No eggs or spermatozoa are used in genetic manipulation, no pollen ... it's all done via gene splicing, so normal reproductive processes don't come into play. No need for male and female donors, for that matter. If you know anything about botany, you know that plants use a type of sexual reproduction to further the species, so GM (genetic modification) does not apply as such.

 

[7 Biddies]

What about graftin? I know it's within the same species, but it certainly doesn't happen in nature.
Not being contrary, I legitimately want to know your opinion.

Very interesting question and I certainly don't have the answer. However, thinking it out, it would seem similar to organ transplants. You're not getting a different plant, you're making one plant grow on another ... like transplanting an arm to where a leg was. Once you get past the rejection process, you now have an arm to walk on. But, if this person reproduces, the offspring would be like the parents were prior to the transplant. So, the fruit from the grafted plant would be the same as whatever the grafted limb would have produced had it not been grafted and, therefore, the seeds would reproduce the plant they would had it not come from a grafted plant. Can you follow this?

If you graft a branch from an apple tree to get another plant, for instance, you're going to get another tree just like the parent. But, if you graft a branch on to a different apple tree, like a Fuji onto a Granny Smith, you're going to get a Fuji from the new branch and Grannies from the rest of the tree. So, with grafting, you're not altering the genetic make up in any way. But, with sexual reproduction (plants, animals, whatever), you're *combining* the genetic material from both parents to create a new and different organism. Same is true of genetic manipulation, but you're artificially forcing it to happen in a way that could never happen without scientific intervention.

Does this make sense? I worry that it doesn't always come out clear to the reader. (J know what I'm saying. Doesn't mean anyone else does.)

 

[subhanalah]

Very interesting question and I certainly don't have the answer. However, thinking it out, it would seem similar to organ transplants. You're not getting a different plant, you're making one plant grow on another ... like transplanting an arm to where a leg was. Once you get past the rejection process, you now have an arm to walk on. But, if this person reproduces, the offspring would be like the parents were prior to the transplant. So, the fruit from the grafted plant would be the same as whatever the grafted limb would have produced had it not been grafted and, therefore, the seeds would reproduce the plant they would had it not come from a grafted plant. Can you follow this?

If you graft a branch from an apple tree to get another plant, for instance, you're going to get another tree just like the parent.  But, if you graft a branch on to a different apple tree, like a Fuji onto a Granny Smith, you're going to get a Fuji from the new branch and Grannies from the rest of the tree. So, with grafting, you're not altering the genetic make up in any way. But, with sexual reproduction (plants, animals, whatever), you're *combining* the genetic material from both parents to create a new and different organism. Same is true of genetic manipulation, but you're artificially forcing it to happen in a way that could never happen without scientific intervention.

Does this make sense? I worry that it doesn't always come out clear to the reader. (J know what I'm saying. Doesn't mean anyone else does.)

the fruit produced has the DNA of the new, grafted plant, not that of the sapling that's been grafted. It actually changes the DNA of the tree to that of the other tree that was "implanted" in it.
That was what I took away from Botany of Desire

There are also some that speculate the organ transplantee takes on certain aspects of the organ donor. It hasn't been proven scientifically yet, it is just a theory.