genetically altered meat birds

[eatmorechicken]

Quote:
I would be interested to learn more! Have you ever read the publications of Paul Siegel's work? Very interesting stuff about the chicken gene mutations and growth rates.

 

[paduanchook]

i would like to read pauls work, is it online or something i can order? thanx for ur kindness, mark

 

[SteveH]

Quote:
I just love these debates as well as the facts I often read. Trouble is I have to replace the old facts all the time. I read Nebraska Man was factual evidence of the missing link living on the N. American continent................... saw a picture of him drawn based on a fossilized tooth he lost. Had to forget that fact when it turned it the tooth was a molar from a hog. They were teaching me in a grade school class about the theory of evolution of man, but I was curious about those facts because I read another fact that the author of the theory {Darwin} had withdrawn it as an acceptable explanation of the origin of any species, and had died long before I was born, in fact, before the grandparents of the old lady teaching me were born. Facts sure are funny, changeing back and forth all the time like that. Last time I read on it, everything started with a big bang and the fact is our universe is twenty billion years old, give or take, with a hot blob now called Earth about four billion years ago. Those numbers are bigger than the facts I learned as a kid. Once that blob cooled off, the fact is elements got together and became a one cell organism, and it began to mutate and formed genes whith each gene mutating thousands of times to come up with the thousands of bits of information each one needs to sustain life.

I've read the fact that a worm has either about 18000 or 20000 genes [depending on whose facts I believe] and that each contain thousands of bits of information , each bit of information having been the result of a mutation to the thousands of bits of information from the thousands of bits of information the single cell organism had mutated. If those mutations had occured at the rate of one million per second, the fact is the single cell organism would have to have existed before the earth did, actually longer ago by far than the big bang that happened 20 billion years ago. So the fact is, the mutations must have started before the big bang.

Gosh, I wonder how many mutations were necessary to make the earliest chicken evolve from a dinosaur, the one that was hardy enough to survive when all the dinosaurs died after the big rock hit the earth. It must have to be fewer mutations than took to make the worm, because I read the fact dinosaurs have only been gone 65.5 million years. Of course it could be a fact that the successful mutations are occurring a lot faster than a millions time per second; I'm going to start watching my chickens, at that rate one's soon going to mutate enough I'll notice the change.

 

[Tracydr]

Quote:
Really? So, tomatoes with genes inserted from fish and viruses don't bother you in the least? It seems to me that lab innovations to insert genes from one organism into another to make that soy or corn resist herbicide or contain it's own pesticide is far different from simple mutations, which are naturally occurring and are still part of the same organism, rather than containing a "splice" from some other species entirely. How is modifying a gene in the laboratory by inserting a piece of a gene from another species ( often not even another species from the same kingdom but possibly an animal, insect or virus spliced into a plant gene) anything at all like naturally occurring mutations and evolution?

 

[eatmorechicken]

Quote:
Really? So, tomatoes with genes inserted from fish and viruses don't bother you in the least? It seems to me that lab innovations to insert genes from one organism into another to make that soy or corn resist herbicide or contain it's own pesticide is far different from simple mutations, which are naturally occurring and are still part of the same organism, rather than containing a "splice" from some other species entirely. How is modifying a gene in the laboratory by inserting a piece of a gene from another species ( often not even another species from the same kingdom but possibly an animal, insect or virus spliced into a plant gene) anything at all like naturally occurring mutations and evolution?

I like your point. have you ever read the criteria Darwin explained for evolution to occur? I took Zoology last semester and we discussed Darwin and his theory for several weeks. This was out of my notes.

I. The four agents of evolutionary change.
A. Forces that create new variants
1. Mutation
2. Gene flow (migration)
B. Forces that lead to biased transmission of alleles between generations
1. Genetic drift
2. Natural selection

The Theory of Evolution is not considered a scientific fact because we have not witnessed a new species created. We have observed mutation and genetic drift, and that took hundreds or thousands of years to be done naturally.

Altering genes by human design is not natural. Their was no long term selection by the environment to allow gm organisms to function as a part of that environment. Introducing GM would be like introducing an invasive species. It could die off quickly or take over everything, wiping out many of the indigenous fauna.

 

[Tracydr]

It's been a long, long time since I took biology. College biology was back in the early 80s. I did, however, visit Galapegos for my Honeymoon, in 2008 and was able to read quite a bit about Darwin and his theories while traveling.
Fascinating place, BTW. Amazing to visit a place where so many species evolved, independently of any influx of outside influence.

 

[eatmorechicken]

Quote:
I found a list of publications here

I did a Google scholar search for most of them. I don't have the capital to pay for online journals.

 

[SteveH]

Quote:
Really? So, tomatoes with genes inserted from fish and viruses don't bother you in the least? It seems to me that lab innovations to insert genes from one organism into another to make that soy or corn resist herbicide or contain it's own pesticide is far different from simple mutations, which are naturally occurring and are still part of the same organism, rather than containing a "splice" from some other species entirely. How is modifying a gene in the laboratory by inserting a piece of a gene from another species ( often not even another species from the same kingdom but possibly an animal, insect or virus spliced into a plant gene) anything at all like naturally occurring mutations and evolution?

I like your point. have you ever read the criteria Darwin explained for evolution to occur? I took Zoology last semester and we discussed Darwin and his theory for several weeks. This was out of my notes.

I. The four agents of evolutionary change.
A. Forces that create new variants
1. Mutation
2. Gene flow (migration)
B. Forces that lead to biased transmission of alleles between generations
1. Genetic drift
2. Natural selection

The Theory of Evolution is not considered a scientific fact because we have not witnessed a new species created. We have observed mutation and genetic drift, and that took hundreds or thousands of years to be done naturally.

Altering genes by human design is not natural. Their was no long term selection by the environment to allow gm organisms to function as a part of that environment. Introducing GM would be like introducing an invasive species. It could die off quickly or take over everything, wiping out many of the indigenous fauna.

The Theory of Evolvution is not a fact of any sort for at leat three reasons.
1. Inspite of constant and ongoing attempts, true mutation has never been prooven possible to create even a one cell living organism.
2. Also inspite of constant and ongoing attempts, not one shred of evidence has been found linking the descent of any living species fr a different species that is now extinct.'
3. If the present popularly accepted scientific theory of the origin and age of Earth is correct, The Theory of Evolution is a mathmatic impossiblety.

Millions of people accept and embrace the Darwin' theory, yet all evidence is that it falls in the same category as the theory of space aliens dropping life here, the evolution theory being just a bit older..

I'm not supporting splicing gene cells to improove meat chickens, but GMs have already been introduced anyway. They will have the same impact as the domestication of plant and animal species did. If GM is used on chickens, and I think it likely, eventually the vast majority will accept it as progress with a few admitted pitfalls.

P.S. If they ever retitle Darwin's theory from an explanation of the origins of life, to the explanation of life adapting to sustain life, I will accept it whole heartedly as being absolute fact, and very proovable.

 

[Bossroo]

Over time, with every change in earth's oceans, lands, waterways, precipitation, atmosphere or an invation of a competing species , an organism that has occupied the once existing environment must change to adapt to the change to it's environment or die out. Try looking up the evolution of the horse as one example. ...

 

[Two Creeks Farm]

As long as gravy doesnt go extinct...let them mutate.......