GM Rice
Tim Powys-Lybbe
website last night:
Researchers have genetically engineered a more nutritious type of rice
which could help alleviate the serious problem of vitamin A deficiency.
It is estimated 124 million children worldwide lack vitamin A, putting
them at risk of permanent blindness and other serious ailments.
The scientists, based at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in
Zurich, inserted three genes into rice that make the plant produce
beta-carotene.
This is the substance all mammals, including humans, must take into
their bodies to make vitamin A.
Beta-carotene, or provitamin A as it is known, gives the new rice a
golden colour.
The team, whose research is reported in the journal Science, says
breeding lines of the plant are now being established and the seeds will
be made freely available to farmers in developing countries.
This will please aid organisations who have expressed concern that the
new plant technologies will be priced beyond the reach of the world's
poorest farmers.
What do the anti-GM lobby make of it?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk
For a patchwork of bygones: www.southfrm.demon.co.uk
Torsten Brinch
<..>
> Researchers have genetically engineered a more nutritious type of rice
> which could help alleviate the serious problem of vitamin A deficiency.
<..>
Tim, are there any particularly good reasons to mess with the genes
of a long and well proven staple food to produce more beta-carotene?
I mean, beta-carotene is already readily available in more than sufficient
amounts to anybody who needs it, and everywhere they need it.
I should think that this indicates, that vitamin A deficiency is rather
more a serious educational problem than it is a biotechnological
one.
--
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Email: ia...@inetdotuni2.dk
(interpret 'dot' in domain name)
Oz
<t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk> writes
> This will please aid organisations who have expressed concern that the
> new plant technologies will be priced beyond the reach of the world's
> poorest farmers.
If you actually saw the piece on TV I'm afraid that at least some of the
aid agencies were not impressed. Appaarently curing these diseases might
mean than countries wouldn't put the effort in to improving their
conditions, which would remain unchanged.
I was speechless. One mustn't cure diseases or make people have a better
life because if you do governments won't improve their conditions?
Bastards.
--
Oz
Jim Webster
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>Tim Powys-Lybbe skrev i meddelelsen >Tim, are there any particularly good
reasons to mess with the genes
>of a long and well proven staple food to produce more beta-carotene?
>
>I mean, beta-carotene is already readily available in more than sufficient
>amounts to anybody who needs it, and everywhere they need it.
>I should think that this indicates, that vitamin A deficiency is rather
>more a serious educational problem than it is a biotechnological
>one.
There has been quite a bit of discussion on both UK Radio and TV about this.
Oz has also picked up on one side of it. While there may be plenty of
beta-carotene about, vast numbers of people are not getting it. Now it may
well be a political thing, in which case we have to change the politics. Or
it may be an educational thing in which case we can educate.
Unfortuately the educational angle appears to be having very
success. Doubtless those involved in this will say that they need more
resources but unfortunately those resources are not forthcoming. If they
were then they would already be deployed. The political angle is even more
difficult. Yes you can pander to your imperialist instincts and impose your
corrupt western ideology on the free peoples of the third world, (no I don't
actually believe it but I'm sure you, like me, can visulise the headlines
already). You are dealing with a heady brew of nationalism, political
corruption, short stupidity and poverty.
Of the three ways to get more beta-carotene into the population of the third
world you can chose the one of your choice. Howevever I'm afraid that with
the same amount of money put behind each the GM rice probably has most
chance of success.
I must admit that I await the forthcoming debate, which will ripple happily
across the net for months, with some interest. For connoisseurs of double
speak and hypocrisy, and especially for those who treasure the human
ability to hold two or more mutually contradictory opinions simultaneously w
ithout realising it, we could be in for a vintage time ;-)
JIm Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
Oz
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>I mean, beta-carotene is already readily available in more than sufficient
>amounts to anybody who needs it, and everywhere they need it.
>I should think that this indicates, that vitamin A deficiency is rather
>more a serious educational problem than it is a biotechnological
>one.
Apparently this really isn't true in many parts of the world. The TV
program showed what looked like the himalayan range. Nobody on the
program disputed that vitamin A supplementation was required in some
parts of the world, and quite a bit of money seems to be spent trying to
get it there. One got the impression that it involved rather a lot of
people.
--
Oz
Oz
pagebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>For connoisseurs of double
>speak and hypocrisy, and especially for those who treasure the human
>ability to hold two or more mutually contradictory opinions simultaneously w
>ithout realising it, we could be in for a vintage time ;-)
Remember this quote.
--
Oz
sarah
> I found this on the London British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
> website last night:
>
> Researchers have genetically engineered a more nutritious type of rice
> which could help alleviate the serious problem of vitamin A deficiency.
>
> It is estimated 124 million children worldwide lack vitamin A, putting
> them at risk of permanent blindness and other serious ailments.
>
> The scientists, based at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in
> Zurich, inserted three genes into rice that make the plant produce
> beta-carotene.
>
> This is the substance all mammals, including humans, must take into
> their bodies to make vitamin A.
>
> Beta-carotene, or provitamin A as it is known, gives the new rice a
> golden colour.
>
> The team, whose research is reported in the journal Science, says
> breeding lines of the plant are now being established and the seeds will
> be made freely available to farmers in developing countries.
>
> This will please aid organisations who have expressed concern that the
> new plant technologies will be priced beyond the reach of the world's
> poorest farmers.
>
> What do the anti-GM lobby make of it?
Depends on philosophy as much as anything ;-/
But also on how much the seed costs to buy, how much the crop costs to
grow (eg. does it require more/specific agrochemicals, how does the
yield compare with varieties currently grown).
It's been pointed out on one of the biotech lists that increasing the
Vit. A content of rice does not address shortages of iron, calcium and
Vit C also associated with a diet low in meat/legumes and veg, nor does
it address the synergistic effects of vitamin consumption (examples
cited included Vit C aiding absorption of iron, high calcium intake
preventing iron absorption). And apparently some existing wild-type
fragrant rices already have higher beta-carotene levels than the GM
variety (but no one contributing to the discussion was aware of any work
being done to improve existing varieties).
In general, Vit A intake is low because of a lack of green veg and other
good sources; this in turn is due to a) lack of understanding of the
need to eat these and b) decreasing availability of produce as incomes
fall/prices rise/land previously used to grow fresh foods is converted
to other, more lucrative uses.
Is introducing a technological fix the best longterm solution?
regards
sarah
--
-------------------------------------
...All truths wait in all things,
They neither hasten their own delivery nor resist it,...
Whitman
Jim Webster
Oz wrote in message ...
I have this dark feeling that I may never be allowed to forget it. ;-))
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>--
>Oz
Jim Webster
sarah wrote in message
>> What do the anti-GM lobby make of it?
>
>Depends on philosophy as much as anything ;-/
>
>But also on how much the seed costs to buy, how much the crop costs to
>grow (eg. does it require more/specific agrochemicals, how does the
>yield compare with varieties currently grown).
apparently he was giving the "patent rights" away free.
>
>It's been pointed out on one of the biotech lists that increasing the
>Vit. A content of rice does not address shortages of iron, calcium and
>Vit C also associated with a diet low in meat/legumes and veg,
effectively what they are saying is GM rice doesn't deal with poverty which
is what they really have to deal with
nor does
>it address the synergistic effects of vitamin consumption (examples
>cited included Vit C aiding absorption of iron, high calcium intake
>preventing iron absorption). And apparently some existing wild-type
>fragrant rices already have higher beta-carotene levels than the GM
>variety (but no one contributing to the discussion was aware of any work
>being done to improve existing varieties)
>
>In general, Vit A intake is low because of a lack of green veg and other
>good sources; this in turn is due to a) lack of understanding of the
>need to eat these and b) decreasing availability of produce as incomes
>fall/prices rise/land previously used to grow fresh foods is converted
>to other, more lucrative uses.
The only solution to dietary deficiencies in subsistance farmers is
industrialisation (not of agriculture but genuine industries) which enables
them to earn enough money to educate their children and buy in the foods
they need.
>
>Is introducing a technological fix the best longterm solution?
in the long term we are all dead. :-(
If any other fix was easy it would have already happened. I suspect that
what will actually happen will be what always seems to happen. A short term
expedient will be used which will either solve the problem or become
irrelevant because a totally different problem will blow up rendering the
current worries irrelevant. Not really a good way of doing it but it's
worked so far ;-)(1)
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
(1) Just not very well.
Harold Lindaberry
Oz wrote:
I didn't see the TV program but if the UK is anything like the US I'm
afraid TV is not the best way to get a true picture of any situation - they
usually pick the worst situation picture - for instance storm damage if you see
a large number of pictures of the same tree having fallen on the same car from
every conceivable angle. by each news network. If it's not a disaster it
doesn't count. I suggest that if one is looking for an all inclusive vitamin
mineral supplement a more method might be to develop a palletizing or
bracketing machine to make pellets that look like rice taste like rice ( maybe
even make it from rice or perhaps even impregnate rice and skip the palletize
). I doubt seriously if there will be one crop that will supply all nutritional
requirements in one crop at least in the near future.
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
>
>
> --
> Oz
Oz
<swr...@amitiel.demon.co.uk> writes
>But also on how much the seed costs to buy, how much the crop costs to
>grow (eg. does it require more/specific agrochemicals, how does the
>yield compare with varieties currently grown).
The gene is (according to the originating prof) to be given away FOC for
use in introducing it conventionally into their existing breeding lines.
Consequently, apart from perhaps a small yield loss, there should be no
extra requirements for inputs.
>It's been pointed out on one of the biotech lists that increasing the
>Vit. A content of rice does not address shortages of iron, calcium and
>Vit C also associated with a diet low in meat/legumes and veg, nor does
>it address the synergistic effects of vitamin consumption (examples
>cited included Vit C aiding absorption of iron, high calcium intake
>preventing iron absorption).
OK, so it doesn't solve every problem on the earth. Doubtless vit C can
be similarly fixed in due course. The correction of other mineral
imbalances probably require mineral supplementation. However I would
point out that calcium and iron salts are very cheap whilst vitamins are
not.
>In general, Vit A intake is low because of a lack of green veg and other
>good sources; this in turn is due to a) lack of understanding of the
>need to eat these and b) decreasing availability of produce as incomes
>fall/prices rise/land previously used to grow fresh foods is converted
>to other, more lucrative uses.
And probably that nothing much grows for many months of the year.
>Is introducing a technological fix the best longterm solution?
Has been for the last few thousand years.
--
Oz
Tracy Aquilla
>>
>> Researchers have genetically engineered a more nutritious type of rice
>> which could help alleviate the serious problem of vitamin A deficiency.
and Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
[snip]
> Tim, are there any particularly good reasons to mess with the genes
> of a long and well proven staple food to produce more beta-carotene?
> I mean, beta-carotene is already readily available in more than sufficient
> amounts to anybody who needs it, and everywhere they need it.
> I should think that this indicates, that vitamin A deficiency is rather
> more a serious educational problem than it is a biotechnological
> one.
Does this answer your question, Tim? It appears that some would assert
there really isn't any problem that can be addressed using these new GMO
rice lines.
Tracy
Torsten Brinch
>Of the three ways to get more beta-carotene into the population of the
>third world you can chose the one of your choice. Howevever I'm afraid that
>with the same amount of money put behind each the GM rice probably has
>most chance of success.
Now, I do not know whích three ways are on your mind, Jim.
What I see as physical possibilities -- quite generally in such
nutrition policy matters -- would be:
A) that the population learns to improve their diet by utilizing
beta-carotene sources which are already available to it.
(edible green plants)
B) that a commonly ingested food is fortified with beta-carotene
(I'd put this 'golden rice' in this category, it's just that whereas
rice is already a common food, golden rice needs first to be
developed, and then to become a common food,
before it can serve the purpose.)
C) that the population (at risk) is supplied with separate diet supplements.
(vitamin pills)
I am attracted to option A): education/knowledge, since a population
has little chance of loosing cultural knowledge once it has acquired it --
but of course, the dietary habits of a population are notoriously difficult
to change.
I would consider option C) a well targetable, narrow and
short term approach, useful especially if it can form part of a basic
health system for the young ones.
Option B), fortification of food, would be my last resort, and I
think it would probably be more practical, in case it is seen as
necessary by the population operators, to fortify rice generally
with external sources of carotene, rather than making sure that
all rice available is of a particularly golden variety.
Torsten Brinch
><..>It appears that some would assert
>there really isn't any problem that can be addressed using these
>new GMO rice lines.
I think that the broiler chicken and pig industry
could well be interested in GM carotene enriched rice, that is,
if it can be had at a reasonable price and in reasonable
quantities, in this way rice might indeed become a better
cash crop, for some exporting countries in the third world.
Maybe it would be to go to far to say that this new kind of rice
would be adressing a _problem_ that the animal industries have,
but it would be at least one more way to adress one of their
needs.
For those of you who are more interested in the science, which
is basis for this media campaign and the sudden focus on
a serious nutrition problem in the third world, I recommend
the articles in the recent issue of Science www.sciencemag.org
(Pleace note, that you must be a subscriber to read full text articles
from Science's web site)
Ye X et al "Engineering the Provitamin A (beta-carotene)
Biosynthetic pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm",
Ye X et al, Science ( 14 Jan 2000) 287, 303-304, Abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/287/5451/303
and the accompanying Perspective article:
"Enhanced: The Green Revolution Strikes Gold"
Guerinot M L, Science (14 Jan 2000) 287, 241-243, Abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/287/5451/241
Jim Webster
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>
>
>>Of the three ways to get more beta-carotene into the population of the
>>third world you can chose the one of your choice. Howevever I'm afraid
that
>>with the same amount of money put behind each the GM rice probably has
>>most chance of success.
>
>
>Now, I do not know whích three ways are on your mind, Jim.
>What I see as physical possibilities -- quite generally in such
>nutrition policy matters -- would be:
>
>A) that the population learns to improve their diet by utilizing
> beta-carotene sources which are already available to it.
> (edible green plants)
>
>B) that a commonly ingested food is fortified with beta-carotene
> (I'd put this 'golden rice' in this category, it's just that whereas
> rice is already a common food, golden rice needs first to be
> developed, and then to become a common food,
> before it can serve the purpose.)
>
>C) that the population (at risk) is supplied with separate diet
supplements.
> (vitamin pills)
>
>I am attracted to option A): education/knowledge, since a population
>has little chance of loosing cultural knowledge once it has acquired it --
>but of course, the dietary habits of a population are notoriously difficult
>to change.
I tend to agree with you in this. The UK government has been trying to alter
our dietary habits and has merely met with contempt. The changes that have
occured have tended to be inspite of them rather than because of them.
>
>I would consider option C) a well targetable, narrow and
>short term approach, useful especially if it can form part of a basic
>health system for the young ones.
The problem is that it is short term but demands long term committment from
an outside agency because the suppliments will have to be purchased and
delivered from outside the population you are helping. It is unlikely they
could afford them. If they cannot afford the supplements now it could be
many years before they have the wherewithal to purchase them.
>
>Option B), fortification of food, would be my last resort, and I
>think it would probably be more practical, in case it is seen as
>necessary by the population operators, to fortify rice generally
>with external sources of carotene, rather than making sure that
>all rice available is of a particularly golden variety.
I agree that this is the most reasonable and more practical. After all it
is something most populations do a bit of , one way or another. However if
you are fortifying the food using other crops you are actually back with
option A and need education etc. If you fortify the food using purchased
supplements you are running close to option C. The advantage of Option B is
that the crop is hopefully self replicating so once accepted it would deal
with the problem. Ideally you would follow it up with option A so that the
population isn't trapped into dependancy on this one crop.
I could envisage a scenario where the GM crop could be brought
it. The need to change to the crop would have to be explained by
educationalists otherwise the farmers would just continue to use their own
saved seed. (so the GM option shares some of the problems of option A) While
that message was being handed on you automatically raise the issue of beta
carotene and while you are explaining you can simultaneously point out that
there are other sources of the same substance to hand. That way the people
themselves can decide to either switch to the new crop, grow other crops as
well (which might not be possible on the land they have available) or a
combination of the two.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
Oz
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>I am attracted to option A): education/knowledge, since a population
>has little chance of loosing cultural knowledge once it has acquired it --
>but of course, the dietary habits of a population are notoriously difficult
>to change.
Since this has been know about for decades at least one may deduce that
'education' is either difficult or there are no suitable green leved
plants about for much of the year.
In the high mountains of the dry side of the himalaya and probably parts
of the sahel this is likely to be the case.
I see no reason to stop 'educating' just because there is another
alternative. OTOH it would appear that 'education' hasn't made much
headway, and this may be due to the conditions rather than the stupidity
of the populace.
--
Oz
Oz
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> writes
>I think that the broiler chicken and pig industry
>could well be interested in GM carotene enriched rice, that is,
>if it can be had at a reasonable price and in reasonable
>quantities, in this way rice might indeed become a better
>cash crop, for some exporting countries in the third world.
I don't think I have ever come across rice (other than byproducts) used
for animal feed. I suspect it is considerably too expensive.
--
Oz
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote:
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> >>
> >> Researchers have genetically engineered a more nutritious type of rice
> >> which could help alleviate the serious problem of vitamin A deficiency.
> [snip]
> >> What do the anti-GM lobby make of it?
>
> and Torsten Brinch wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > Tim, are there any particularly good reasons to mess with the genes
> > of a long and well proven staple food to produce more beta-carotene?
> > I mean, beta-carotene is already readily available in more than sufficient
> > amounts to anybody who needs it, and everywhere they need it.
> > I should think that this indicates, that vitamin A deficiency is rather
> > more a serious educational problem than it is a biotechnological
> > one.
>
> Does this answer your question, Tim? It appears that some would assert
> there really isn't any problem that can be addressed using these new GMO
> rice lines.
No, but I'm very interested in the debate. My question was intended to
start a debate, of course. My view is that the answer can only come
from more research into the farming conditions of the areas with vitamin
A deficiency and some realistic appraisal of the options available to
the poor people there. This needs finance, of course. The advantage of
the debate so far is that it has extended the options of possible
solution, not to mention a slight query on what the actual problem is
(never believe a word of what you hear on the media!).
And, to clarify some people's understanding, I did not see it in a TV
program it was on a BBC internet site that gives a news summary. The
article gave a bit more information which I can quote if anyone is
interested.
> Tracy
fa...@my-deja.com
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snipped]
> What do the anti-GM lobby make of it?
I would just wait and see what will happen. There are many
projects like this (e.g. increasing amount of iron in rice),
mainly developed by university labs. None of these ready to use
GMOs has left the lab, although many of them would really
increase the quality of the product. However, much more
economic power was used to push herbicide resistances in
plants. If the Anti-GM lobby would not exist, only HR or
IR or VR plants would have been developed, because that is
what industry needs to make more cash. IMO the beta-carotene
rice goes into the right direction: better quality, additional
features for the consumer. Let us see, how the story of
these GMOs goes on.
Ciao
Andreas :-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Oz
<t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk> writes
>No, but I'm very interested in the debate. My question was intended to
>start a debate, of course. My view is that the answer can only come
>from more research into the farming conditions of the areas with vitamin
>A deficiency and some realistic appraisal of the options available to
>the poor people there.
My bro-in-law, who is an ag economist (and farmed himself for 20 yeras
as well) specialising in the 3rd world, keeps reminding me that the
local people rarely do something a particular way for no reason. Usually
they have many very very valid reasons for doing what they do. So if you
want them to do something different you had better have a very good way
out of the problems that will ensue when they change at your behest.
Generally he has found that the best way to initiate change is to do it
from within. In other words make it worth their while. That's why the
'green revolution' went so fast and so quickly. Everyone saw that using
the modern varieties and some fertiliser doubled yields and that the
economics were sound and that's why they changed, their lot was improved
and visibly so.
So if you want them to grow and eat green veg then the sort of thing he
would suggest would be to import (very expensive) green veg for the
richer people (as a luxury item) and flog off the outer leaves cheap to
the poorer. Hopefully someone figures out how to grow something similar
locally and makes a bundle whereupon .... Wasn't there a scifi novella
called something like 'Glory Road' along these lines in Harold's day?
--
Oz
Dennis G.
>
>Of the three ways to get more beta-carotene into the population of the third
>world you can chose the one of your choice. Howevever I'm afraid that with
>the same amount of money put behind each the GM rice probably has most
>chance of success.
>
>I must admit that I await the forthcoming debate, which will ripple happily
>across the net for months, with some interest. For connoisseurs of double
>speak and hypocrisy, and especially for those who treasure the human
>ability to hold two or more mutually contradictory opinions simultaneously w
>ithout realising it, we could be in for a vintage time ;-)
>
>JIm Webster
>
Just curious about where this third world rice growing population without leafy
green vegetables resides, geographically ?I thought the traditional area was
Asia.
Our area has many residents recently immigrated from that region and all of
their diets include reliance on vegetables of all shades. In my opinion the best
contribution made to our West Coast culture is the improvemment of local diets
with the introduction of Asian vegetable techniques for preparation and serving
as well as growing. And the importation of fruits and veggies we would never see
without the demand they have created.
Market Gardens down along Marine Drive in Burnaby produce many outdoor crops
each year( as many as 5 I'm told ). Spinach, brussels sprouts, cauliflower,
broccoli, and likely other Chinese cabbage types I don't know about are still
being harvested all down the west coast.
I have no objection to GM rice that produces pre-VitA, but I am surprised to
hear it is needed considering how the diets of third world immigrants in the
Fraser Valley demand so much more vegetables than the traditional diet of this
region.
Beta-carotene rice to an Asian/South American/African diet sounds like coals to
Newcastle to me.
Dennis
Jim Webster
Dennis G. wrote in message <
>Just curious about where this third world rice growing population without
leafy
>green vegetables resides, geographically ?I thought the traditional area
was
>Asia
must admit I was a bit lost myself, I was assuming it was mountain and
poorer areas.
>I have no objection to GM rice that produces pre-VitA, but I am surprised
to
>hear it is needed considering how the diets of third world immigrants in
the
>Fraser Valley demand so much more vegetables than the traditional diet of
this
>region.
>
>Beta-carotene rice to an Asian/South American/African diet sounds like
coals to
>Newcastle to me.
Mind you, if you are right, they just will not bother planting it unless it
is cheaper and shows a better margin.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.>
>Dennis
Oz
<denni...@mindlink.net> writes
>Our area has many residents recently immigrated from that region and all of
>their diets include reliance on vegetables of all shades.
I must admit it seems odd to me.
Sorgum or barley would seem a better choice.
--
Oz
Tracy Aquilla
>
> In article <6b33798...@southfrm.demon.co.uk>,
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [snipped]
> > What do the anti-GM lobby make of it?
>
> I would just wait and see what will happen. There are many
> projects like this (e.g. increasing amount of iron in rice),
> mainly developed by university labs. None of these ready to use
> GMOs has left the lab, although many of them would really
Actually, they (i.e., iron enriched rice lines and crosses between vit.
A and iron enriched) have "left the lab", are already in animal feeding
trials and human data should be available in less than two years.
> increase the quality of the product. However, much more
> economic power was used to push herbicide resistances in
> plants. If the Anti-GM lobby would not exist, only HR or
> IR or VR plants would have been developed, because that is
You are merely speculating.
> what industry needs to make more cash. IMO the beta-carotene
> rice goes into the right direction: better quality, additional
> features for the consumer. Let us see, how the story of
> these GMOs goes on.
Indeed.
Tracy
Marty Sachs
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Besides, ancient breeders have engineered this trait into maize a few
thousand years ago (yellow kernels are not found in teosinte or any
other related grass). It's great that rice breeders are finally
catching up.
-Marty Sachs
Torsten Brinch
>Besides, ancient breeders have engineered this trait into maize a few
>thousand years ago <..>
Yummy. How many would 'a few' thousands years be more
precisely, Warrior, and can I see your evidence of this
engineering feat, please.
Main Entry: engineer
Function: transitive verb
1 : to lay out, construct, or manage as an engineer
2 a : to contrive or plan out usually with more or less subtle skill and
craft <..>
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>
> >Besides, ancient breeders have engineered this trait into maize a few
> >thousand years ago <..>
>
> Yummy. How many would 'a few' thousands years be more
> precisely,
The yellow in the kernels doesn't preserve very well in archeological
records and folks back then didn't write very much. So, it's hard for
me to give a more precise date. Certainly not a recent feat.
> and can I see your evidence of this
> engineering feat, please.
>
> Main Entry: engineer
> Function: transitive verb
> 1 : to lay out, construct, or manage as an engineer
> 2 a : to contrive or plan out usually with more or less subtle skill and
> craft <..>
Compare the yellow endosperm of modern maize kernels with the white
endosperm of teosinte kernels. This is every bit as much an engineering
feat as making rice yellow.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Torsten Brinch
>In article <Phdh4.16$VE....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>
>> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>>
>> >Besides, ancient breeders have engineered this trait into maize a few
>> >thousand years ago <..>
>>
>> Yummy. How many would 'a few' thousands years be more
>> precisely,
>
>The yellow in the kernels doesn't preserve very well in archeological
>records and folks back then didn't write very much. So, it's hard for
>me to give a more precise date. Certainly not a recent feat.
Hum, well. A few thousands years would be something
like 2000-3000 years, I guess, if that is OK with you.
>> and can I see your evidence of this
>> engineering feat, please.
>>
>> Main Entry: engineer
>> Function: transitive verb
>> 1 : to lay out, construct, or manage as an engineer
>> 2 a : to contrive or plan out usually with more or less subtle skill and
>> craft <..>
>Compare the yellow endosperm of modern maize kernels with the white
>endosperm of teosinte kernels. This is every bit as much an engineering
>feat as making rice yellow.
Marty, I only found the color and the chemical composition to
differ between the two. There is nothing there, as far as
I can detect, which implies the involvement of an ancient engineer.
Could it be that this 'engineering feat' is a matter of religious belief
to you (but you know that currency is not accepted at our gambling
table!), or is there really scientific evidence of craft and skill hidden
somewhere in that endosperm, which I have overlooked?
A DNA coded message in the maize genome: 'Xiuchatl was here',
or similar would do. But where is it?
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >In article <Phdh4.16$VE....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >>
> >> >Besides, ancient breeders have engineered this trait into maize a few
> >> >thousand years ago <..>
> >>
> >> Yummy. How many would 'a few' thousands years be more
> >> precisely,
> >
> >The yellow in the kernels doesn't preserve very well in archeological
> >records and folks back then didn't write very much. So, it's hard for
> >me to give a more precise date. Certainly not a recent feat.
>
> Hum, well. A few thousands years would be something
> like 2000-3000 years, I guess, if that is OK with you.
That's a good ball park estimate.
>
> >> and can I see your evidence of this
> >> engineering feat, please.
> >>
> >> Main Entry: engineer
> >> Function: transitive verb
> >> 1 : to lay out, construct, or manage as an engineer
> >> 2 a : to contrive or plan out usually with more or less subtle skill
> >> and
> >> craft <..>
>
>
> >Compare the yellow endosperm of modern maize kernels with the white
> >endosperm of teosinte kernels. This is every bit as much an engineering
> >feat as making rice yellow.
>
> Marty, I only found the color and the chemical composition to
> differ between the two. There is nothing there, as far as
> I can detect, which implies the involvement of an ancient engineer.
>
> Could it be that this 'engineering feat' is a matter of religious belief
> to you (but you know that currency is not accepted at our gambling
> table!), or is there really scientific evidence of craft and skill hidden
> somewhere in that endosperm, which I have overlooked?
>
> A DNA coded message in the maize genome: 'Xiuchatl was here',
> or similar would do. But where is it?
Well, I guess this means that you don't believe that the breeding
involved in allowing rice to express carotenoids in its kernels was an
engineering feat. So, OK, you can also say that both yellow kernel
maize and yellow kernel rice involved breeding efforts that occurred a
few thousand years apart.
What I see is that grasses, if left to their own devices, will not
express carotenoids in the kernel endosperm. However, human breeders
can manipulate grasses to do so. To me, this fits the definition of
genetic engineering very nicely.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Torsten Brinch
Nonsense.
>So, OK, you can also say that both yellow kernel
>maize and yellow kernel rice involved breeding efforts that occurred a
>few thousand years apart.
No. It is you who say that. I myself am just asking for your evidence,
because you have bet 2000-3000 years on it, which I stand to gain
if you cannot produce the evidence.
>What I see is that grasses, if left to their own devices, will not
>express carotenoids in the kernel endosperm. However, human breeders
>can manipulate grasses to do so. To me, this fits the definition of
>genetic engineering very nicely.
Will you please get back to the evidence, I was asking you for.
Or shall I take it that I can just cash in the 2000-3000 years
right away?
Jim Webster
Marty Sachs wrote in message ...
>In article <errh4.1180$VE....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>
>> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>> >In article <Phdh4.16$VE....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
>> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>> >>
>> >> >Besides, ancient breeders have engineered this trait into maize a few
>> >> >thousand years ago <..>
>> >>
>> >> Yummy. How many would 'a few' thousands years be more
>> >> precisely,
>> >
>> >The yellow in the kernels doesn't preserve very well in archeological
>> >records and folks back then didn't write very much. So, it's hard for
>> >me to give a more precise date. Certainly not a recent feat.
>>
>> Hum, well. A few thousands years would be something
>> like 2000-3000 years, I guess, if that is OK with you.
>
>
>That's a good ball park estimate.
Might interest you two gentlemen , but on Channel 4 on UK TV there is a
short series put together by Richard Rudgley (anthropologist) where he
pushes human cultural development back into the iceage and is talking at
times of 20,000BC+. I haven't had time to run any sort of check on him yet
but he might just add a couple of thousand years to your estimate.
There again it might just by TV snake oil
Oz
agebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Might interest you two gentlemen , but on Channel 4 on UK TV there is a
>short series put together by Richard Rudgley (anthropologist) where he
>pushes human cultural development back into the iceage and is talking at
>times of 20,000BC+. I haven't had time to run any sort of check on him yet
>but he might just add a couple of thousand years to your estimate.
The first programme was quite good. The second was classical fake. He
shows you a couple of sites, guesses a few things for which there is no
evidence and then says 'we have shown' when he hasn't shown anything
whatsoever. This is particularly inept because there are some sites (eg
the mediterranian shell 'tells') which could support small bits of his
suppositions.
He gets one more viewing and if he can't do a half decent job he's for
the killfile.
Nothing like that mad egyptologist who knows his stuff and has good
arguments. [NB unlike the other mad egyptologists.]
--
Oz
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >So, OK, you can also say that both yellow kernel
> >maize and yellow kernel rice involved breeding efforts that occurred a
> >few thousand years apart.
>
> No. It is you who say that. I myself am just asking for your evidence,
> because you have bet 2000-3000 years on it, which I stand to gain
> if you cannot produce the evidence.
>
> >What I see is that grasses, if left to their own devices, will not
> >express carotenoids in the kernel endosperm. However, human breeders
> >can manipulate grasses to do so. To me, this fits the definition of
> >genetic engineering very nicely.
>
> Will you please get back to the evidence, I was asking you for.
> Or shall I take it that I can just cash in the 2000-3000 years
> right away?
The evidence is maize with yellow endosperm. The timing is based on the
spread of yellow corn throughout the Americas before 1492. Now I guess
that early farmers could have FedExed samples of yellow corn around, a
day or two before Columbus arrived, but I don't think that FedEx, or any
other overnight service existed at that time ;-)
Even if you want to imagine a rapid spread just before Columbus, the
yellow endosperm trait has been present in many diverse races of maize,
indicating either this feat was accomplished before the races diverged
or was independently introduced into each of the races. Either would
take some time.
If you have any evidence that this feat was only accomplished recently,
I'd be interested to hear it.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Jim Webster
Oz wrote in message <>The first programme was quite good. The second was
classical fake. He
>shows you a couple of sites, guesses a few things for which there is no
>evidence and then says 'we have shown' when he hasn't shown anything
>whatsoever. This is particularly inept because there are some sites (eg
>the mediterranian shell 'tells') which could support small bits of his
>suppositions.
It is interesting that back in the '70s they were showing that Stonehenge,
Carnac etc were vastly older than Egypt yet it still hasn't sunk in.
>
>He gets one more viewing and if he can't do a half decent job he's for
>the killfile.
three part series, you've been outmanoeuvred ;-))
>
>Nothing like that mad egyptologist who knows his stuff and has good
>arguments. [NB unlike the other mad egyptologists.]
At least this guy wasn't postulating helpful spacemen.
(why is it you cannot get an alien astronaut to help when you are struggling
to reroof a barn?)
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
>--
>Oz
Oz
pagebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>It is interesting that back in the '70s they were showing that Stonehenge,
>Carnac etc were vastly older than Egypt yet it still hasn't sunk in.
Vastly older than the pyramids, yes. There are some contemparaneous (if
not older) sites in egypt though.
>>Nothing like that mad egyptologist who knows his stuff and has good
>>arguments. [NB unlike the other mad egyptologists.]
>
>At least this guy wasn't postulating helpful spacemen.
>
>(why is it you cannot get an alien astronaut to help when you are struggling
>to reroof a barn?)
You scared them off with all your crystals of course.
--
Oz
Dennis G.
>At least this guy wasn't postulating helpful spacemen.
>
>(why is it you cannot get an alien astronaut to help when you are struggling
>to reroof a barn?)
>
>Jim Webster
>
What the hell would a crop circle engineer know about roofing ? Be reasonable!
Dennis
Torsten Brinch
>In article <dTxh4.8$1o5...@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>>><..>
>> >What I see is that grasses, if left to their own devices, will not
>> >express carotenoids in the kernel endosperm. However, human breeders
>> >can manipulate grasses to do so. To me, this fits the definition of
>> >genetic engineering very nicely.
>> Will you please get back to the evidence, I was asking you for.
>> Or shall I take it that I can just cash in the 2000-3000 years
>> right away?
>The evidence is maize with yellow endosperm. <..>
That is simply insufficient evidence, Marty, since genetic engineering
cannot be said to be a neccessary precondition for the appearance
of yellow endosperm. (Cf. that a house on fire is not evidence of
arson). -- But alas, you say that this is the only evidence you've got,
so you've lost this game.
Erm. You wouldn't by any chance have brought a few more
thousands of years with you, which you would like to bet on
another wild claim which you cannot back up with evidence?
Jim Webster
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>Erm. You wouldn't by any chance have brought a few more
>thousands of years with you, which you would like to bet on
>another wild claim which you cannot back up with evidence?
what worries me is what Torsten intends to do with all these years he's
accumulating. By definition they are all used and in some cases pretty
heavily used at that.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
>
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >The evidence is maize with yellow endosperm. <..>
>
> That is simply insufficient evidence, Marty, since genetic engineering
> cannot be said to be a neccessary precondition for the appearance
> of yellow endosperm.
Show me a wild grass that has carotenoids in its endosperm, and you just
might have a real argument here.
> (Cf. that a house on fire is not evidence of
> arson).
No, but, if in all history only two have ever been on fire and one was
clearly caused by arson and the other also clear had human factors
implicated in its fire, one might come to the conclusion that arson was
involved in the second case as well.
> -- But alas, you say that this is the only evidence you've got,
> so you've lost this game.
No, it simply means that you're not willing to accept the evidence
presented.
> Erm. You wouldn't by any chance have brought a few more
> thousands of years with you, which you would like to bet on
> another wild claim which you cannot back up with evidence?
The fact remains that people have been genetically engineering plants
and animals for thousands of years. Yellow endosperm maize is merely
one example of this and is very comparable to what was recently done in
rice to get carotenoid expression in its endosperm. However, in maize
this feat was accomplish a few thousand years ago.
If you want those thousands of years, you're going to have to show me
evidence that maize came about naturally.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Torsten Brinch
>
>Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>
>>thousands of years with you, which you would like to bet on
>>another wild claim which you cannot back up with evidence?
>what worries me is what Torsten intends to do with all these years he's
>accumulating. By definition they are all used and in some cases pretty
>heavily used at that.
Jim, don't you worry. Marty and I use A1 recyclable years
in our games. The years I gain from the games will of course
be disposed of according to tradition. Which is, that I must end
up donating this huge mass of years back to Marty (who obviously
needed them more than I do, so it would be unethical of me
to keep them).
But more importantly, with this sort of arrangement Marty can
bet (and loose) the very same years over and over again,
and our joyful game never needs to come to a sad end
due to one participant suddenly running out of time.
Torsten Brinch
>In article <NFgi4.128$nd....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>
>> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>
>> >The evidence is maize with yellow endosperm. <..>
>>
>> That is simply insufficient evidence, Marty, since genetic engineering
>> cannot be said to be a neccessary precondition for the appearance
>> of yellow endosperm.
>Show me a wild grass that has carotenoids in its endosperm, and you just
>might have a real argument here.
Nonsense. You are the one putting years at stake for a claim.
Observed yellow endosperm is sufficient evidence for your
claim _only_ if can be demonstrated that this particular grass
species could not have evolve to become yellow endospermed,
that such a creature needs to be engineered to exist.
>> (Cf. that a house on fire is not evidence of
>> arson).
>No, but, [Sic]
>if in all history only two have ever been on fire and one was
>clearly caused by arson and the other also clear had human factors
>implicated in its fire, one might come to the conclusion that arson was
>involved in the second case as well.
Based on what?
>> -- But alas, you say that this is the only evidence you've got,
>> so you've lost this game.
>No, it simply means that you're not willing to accept the evidence
>presented.
No, it means that, as your evidence is clearly unacceptable,
I cannot accept it, and you have lost the game. Tough, Warrior.
Please accept that a claim can only be made rationally with the
strength by which it can be supported by evidence, and then
bloody hand over those blasted few kyears you owe me.
Just think of the millenia you have already lost to me on previous
occasions (of which most have benevolently been donated back
to you, lest you'd stop to learn). A loss of a few thousands years
now should not worry you. Think of the fun we've had.
>> Erm. You wouldn't by any chance have brought a few more
>> thousands of years with you, which you would like to bet on
>> another wild claim which you cannot back up with evidence?
>The fact remains that people have been genetically engineering plants
>and animals for thousands of years.
Ahh. I -knew- that you could not resist the temptation of another game!
Thousands? How many thousands of years would we more precisely be
looking at here? Also, can I have your definition of 'genetically engineer',
please?
>Yellow endosperm maize is merely
>one example of this and is very comparable to what was recently done in
>rice to get carotenoid expression in its endosperm.
>However, in maize
>this feat was accomplish a few thousand years ago.
Interesting. I mean, as you are a maize geneticist, you
might like to expound on this. As I understand it, one type of GM Rice
must necessarily have involved the introduction of a daffodil gene +
a gene from the bacterium Erwinia ureduvora + a promoter from a virus +
the pea Rubisco subunit.+ a few pieces of uncertain origin but
clearly functional in the context --all in one fully compact unit.
(It is difficult to imagine how such a single transformation event
should have come about naturally, and the whole setup also rather
carries all the expected hallmarks of a single deliberately performed
engineering act.)
Anyhow, Mutant Maize Warrior, what is the genetics behind yellow
endosperm _maize_? This is a scientific question, mind you, from
a humble amateur scientist to a professional maize geneticist.
Which genetic events, bits and pieces must necessarily have been
involved in the process or event which produced yellow endosperm
in maize? What do we actually know about it? Is it comparable to
the GM rice construct in the sense that it darnedly looks as if it
has been engineered?
>If you want those thousands of years, you're going to have to show me
>evidence that maize came about naturally.
You can't be serious. How do _you_ think the first maize plant
came about? Do you think that it was contrived by a bunch of
humans who decided to make a proper crop plant out of
timothe and then went out and did the deed? Or was maize
courtesy by weird design by the very same technologically
superior alien species which some believe visited in
on Central America from outer space, just about at that
time p'rhaps?
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >In article <NFgi4.128$nd....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >
> >> >The evidence is maize with yellow endosperm. <..>
> >>
> >> That is simply insufficient evidence, Marty, since genetic engineering
> >> cannot be said to be a neccessary precondition for the appearance
> >> of yellow endosperm.
>
> >Show me a wild grass that has carotenoids in its endosperm, and you just
> >might have a real argument here.
>
>
> Nonsense. You are the one putting years at stake for a claim.
Are you arguing that the yellow endosperm trait was not in maize a few
thousand years ago?
> Observed yellow endosperm is sufficient evidence for your
> claim _only_ if can be demonstrated that this particular grass
> species could not have evolve to become yellow endospermed,
> that such a creature needs to be engineered to exist.
Well, IMHO, the fact that NO wild grasses (including the teosintes which
are the same species as maize) have yellow endosperm, is excellent
evidence that maize could not have naturally evolved to become yellow
endospermed. If you have evidence to the contrary, i would be
interested.
No one can prove a negative absolutely. However, I'd say the chances
are that it would be just as likely for a frost tolerant gene from a
flounder to naturally find its way into a strawberry. Not likely, but
remotely possible.
>
> >> -- But alas, you say that this is the only evidence you've got,
> >> so you've lost this game.
>
> >No, it simply means that you're not willing to accept the evidence
> >presented.
>
>
> No, it means that, as your evidence is clearly unacceptable,
> I cannot accept it, and you have lost the game. Tough, Warrior.
>
> Please accept that a claim can only be made rationally with the
> strength by which it can be supported by evidence, and then
> bloody hand over those blasted few kyears you owe me.
So, that's how your games are played ;-) Sorry, but I don't see my
evidence as being 'clearly unacceptable'. I do agree that you
apparently won't accept it. However, since you're making this into a
game and are creating the rules on the fly, it seems that ANY evidence I
present, won't be accepted by you and you will therefore unilaterally
declare it 'clearly unacceptable'.
>
> Just think of the millenia you have already lost to me on previous
> occasions (of which most have benevolently been donated back
> to you, lest you'd stop to learn). A loss of a few thousands years
> now should not worry you. Think of the fun we've had.
It is fun sparring with you Torsten. However, I don't see how I ever
lost even one year to you ;-)
> >The fact remains that people have been genetically engineering plants
> >and animals for thousands of years.
>
> Ahh. I -knew- that you could not resist the temptation of another game!
> Thousands? How many thousands of years would we more precisely be
> looking at here? Also, can I have your definition of 'genetically
> engineer', please?
Again; crossbreeding has resulted in much more productive strains of
crop plants. Called artificial selection, or selective breeding, these
techniques have become aspects of a larger field called genetic
engineering.
During the 10,000 or 11,000 years that have passed since the beginning of
agriculture, the animals and plants that humans have selected as useful
to them have undergone profound changes. The consequences of of these
changes are so great that the differences between breeds of animals or
varieties of plants of the same species often exceed those between
different species under natural conditions.
Artificial selection differs considerably from natural selection, which
creates stabilized biological systems that ensure the development of a
normal, or so-called wild, phenotype; i.e., an organism containing a
wealth of properties that preadapt it to a wide variety of environmental
conditions and ensure continuation of the species. Artificial selection
breaks down precisely these stabilized systems, thereby creating gene
combinations that could not survive in nature and providing a range of
new possibilities.
This is the aspect of genetic engineering that I have been referring to.
>
> >Yellow endosperm maize is merely
> >one example of this and is very comparable to what was recently done in
> >rice to get carotenoid expression in its endosperm.
>
> >However, in maize
> >this feat was accomplished a few thousand years ago.
>
> Interesting. I mean, as you are a maize geneticist, you
> might like to expound on this. As I understand it, one type of GM Rice
> must necessarily have involved the introduction of a daffodil gene +
> a gene from the bacterium Erwinia ureduvora + a promoter from a virus +
> the pea Rubisco subunit.+ a few pieces of uncertain origin but
> clearly functional in the context --all in one fully compact unit.
Well, again, there is no recorded history on this; but the genetic
evidence indicates that early maize 'genetic engineers' relied on the
existing carotenoid synthesis pathway genes (that all green plants have;
although in these genes of wild grasses, expression is restricted so
that it doesn't occur in the endosperm). They used genes that had
altered promotors (the part of the gene that instructs where, when and
how much expression will occur) that allow expression in the endosperm
as well as the green parts of the plant. They put these genes together
and obtained a maize plant that had yellow kernels. They selected the
yellow kernels and increased them them and introduced this trait into
many different maize varieties.
> (It is difficult to imagine how such a single transformation event
> should have come about naturally, and the whole setup also rather
> carries all the expected hallmarks of a single deliberately performed
> engineering act.)
Isn't amazing what early breeders were capable of?
> Anyhow, Mutant Maize Warrior, what is the genetics behind yellow
> endosperm _maize_? This is a scientific question, mind you, from
> a humble amateur scientist to a professional maize geneticist.
> Which genetic events, bits and pieces must necessarily have been
> involved in the process or event which produced yellow endosperm
> in maize? What do we actually know about it? Is it comparable to
> the GM rice construct in the sense that it darnedly looks as if it
> has been engineered?
Using biotechnology, breeders can now easily change promotors of a gene
to expand its range of expression. How the promotors of carotenoid
synthesis genes of maize changed and how breeders put the different
genes (with altered expression) together has not been recorded.
However, the fact that human breeders genetically engineered a plant
with white endosperm into one with yellow endosperm, is quite clear.
> >If you want those thousands of years, you're going to have to show me
> >evidence that maize came about naturally.
>
> You can't be serious. How do _you_ think the first maize plant
> came about? Do you think that it was contrived by a bunch of
> humans who decided to make a proper crop plant out of
> timothe and then went out and did the deed? Or was maize
> courtesy by weird design by the very same technologically
> superior alien species which some believe visited in
> on Central America from outer space, just about at that
> time p'rhaps?
Believe what you want, but it is certainly clear that without artificial
intervention (i.e., genetic engineering) there would be no maize (yellow
endospermed or otherwise).
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Jim Webster
Torsten Brinch wrote in message >>what worries me is what Torsten intends to
do with all these years he's
>>accumulating. By definition they are all used and in some cases pretty
>>heavily used at that.
>
>
>Jim, don't you worry. Marty and I use A1 recyclable years
>in our games. The years I gain from the games will of course
>be disposed of according to tradition. Which is, that I must end
>up donating this huge mass of years back to Marty (who obviously
>needed them more than I do, so it would be unethical of me
>to keep them).
>
>But more importantly, with this sort of arrangement Marty can
>bet (and loose) the very same years over and over again,
>and our joyful game never needs to come to a sad end
>due to one participant suddenly running out of time.
I'm relieved at that. I began to worry that my past might be disappearing
before my very eyes. You know what it's like. The futures bad enough, set a
decade aside for something, turn round and someone has made off with it. I
don't want the past doing that as well.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
Torsten Brinch
>In article <fNni4.398$nd....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>> >In article <NFgi4.128$nd....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
>> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>> >> >The evidence is maize with yellow endosperm. <..>
>> >> That is simply insufficient evidence, Marty, since genetic engineering
>> >> cannot be said to be a neccessary precondition for the appearance
>> >> of yellow endosperm.
>> >Show me a wild grass that has carotenoids in its endosperm, and you just
>> >might have a real argument here.
>> Nonsense. You are the one putting years at stake for a claim.
>Are you arguing that the yellow endosperm trait was not in maize a few
>thousand years ago?
No, _you_ are arguing that. Your claim is "ancient breeders have
engineered this trait into maize a few thousand years ago", which
implies that the trait was not present in maize until a few thousands
years ago. What I am arguing is, that your evidence for this claim
is sorely lacking.
>> Observed yellow endosperm is sufficient evidence for your
>> claim _only_ if can be demonstrated that this particular grass
>> species could not have evolve to become yellow endospermed,
>> that such a creature needs to be engineered to exist.
>Well, IMHO, the fact that NO wild grasses (including the teosintes which
>are the same species as maize) have yellow endosperm, is excellent
>evidence that maize could not have naturally evolved to become yellow
>endospermed. If you have evidence to the contrary, i would be
>interested.
>No one can prove a negative absolutely. However, I'd say the chances
>are that it would be just as likely for a frost tolerant gene from a
>flounder to naturally find its way into a strawberry. Not likely, but
>remotely possible.
Well, Marty, _which_ genetic elements 'found its way into maize' such
that it became yellow endospermed? A similar inquiry could be made
into the background for yellow endosperm sorghum, I guess. I take it
that in neither of these two cases DNA recombinant technology
can be assumed to have been involved.
>> >> -- But alas, you say that this is the only evidence you've got,
>> >> so you've lost this game.
>> >No, it simply means that you're not willing to accept the evidence
>> >presented.
>> No, it means that, as your evidence is clearly unacceptable,
>> I cannot accept it, and you have lost the game. Tough, Warrior.
>> Please accept that a claim can only be made rationally with the
>> strength by which it can be supported by evidence, and then
>> bloody hand over those blasted few kyears you owe me.
>So, that's how your games are played ;-) Sorry, but I don't see my
>evidence as being 'clearly unacceptable'.
Let me explain it to you, calmly. Your claim is, that "ancient breeders
have engineered this trait [yellow endosperm] into maize a few
thousand years ago". This implies several things, notably, that
some humans with sufficient craft and skill to do it, actually
did make a directed effort to introduce the trait into maize,
and furthermore, that they did it within a certain window of time.
And the only 'evidence' you have presented is that maize has
yellow endosperm. But that cannot bear the burden of you claim,
which is why it must be unacceptable to me.
>I do agree that you apparently won't accept it.
It is as if you were claiming to have 4 aces, but will
only let me see one of them. That is unacceptable.
>However, since you're making this into a game and are creating
>the rules on the fly
Huh? I did not make the rule I mentioned above. I expect you to
be rational (since this is a sci newsgroup it is not unreasonable
to expect rationality to be implied as a precondition for
communication). And rationality certainly implies that one
only claims something to be true, if it necessarily must be
true, or if empirical evidence can verify that it is actually true.
The statement "ancient breeders have engineered this trait
into maize a few thousand years ago" is, as far as I can see,
not a necessarily true statement, and your empirical evidence
'maize has yellow endosperm' is simply insufficient to verify
how that trait came about, and when.
>present, won't be accepted by you and you will therefore unilaterally
>declare it 'clearly unacceptable'.
Rationally you must 'soften up' your claim such that it is supportable
by the base of evidence which you have available to you. Alternatively,
if you want to maintain your claim unmodified, you must acknowledge
that it is not rationally based. In the latter case, noone can of course
demand evidence of you for your claim, but then again your claim
does not deserve to be taken seriously on a sci newsgroup.
>> Just think of the millenia you have already lost to me on previous
>> occasions (of which most have benevolently been donated back
>> to you, lest you'd stop to learn). A loss of a few thousands years
>> now should not worry you. Think of the fun we've had.
>It is fun sparring with you Torsten. However, I don't see how I ever
>lost even one year to you ;-)
I expect all our games to have been meticulously recorded
by www.deja.com in case you should wish to review past scores.
And as to the how, the method by which you have lost all those
years is simply that you make claims involving many years,
claims which you cannot back up with evidence.
>> >The fact remains that people have been genetically engineering plants
>> >and animals for thousands of years.
>> Ahh. I -knew- that you could not resist the temptation of another game!
>> Thousands? How many thousands of years would we more precisely be
>> looking at here? Also, can I have your definition of 'genetically
>> engineer', please?
><..>
>Artificial selection <..>>This is the aspect of genetic engineering
>that I have been referring to.
Artificial selection. Thanks. And the time scale? You said people have
been genetically engineering plants and animals for thousands of years
(using the technique of artificial selection). How _many_ thousands
of years would that be more precisely?
>> >Yellow endosperm maize is merely
>> >one example of this and is very comparable to what was recently done in
>> >rice to get carotenoid expression in its endosperm.
>> >However, in maize
>> >this feat was accomplished a few thousand years ago.
>> Interesting. I mean, as you are a maize geneticist, you
>> might like to expound on this. As I understand it, one type of GM Rice
>> must necessarily have involved the introduction of a daffodil gene +
>> a gene from the bacterium Erwinia ureduvora + a promoter from a virus +
>> the pea Rubisco subunit.+ a few pieces of uncertain origin but
>> clearly functional in the context --all in one fully compact unit.
>Well, again, there is no recorded history on this; but the genetic
>evidence indicates that early maize 'genetic engineers' relied on the
>existing carotenoid synthesis pathway genes (that all green plants have;
>although in these genes of wild grasses, expression is restricted so
>that it doesn't occur in the endosperm). They used genes that had
>altered promotors (the part of the gene that instructs where, when and
>how much expression will occur) that allow expression in the endosperm
>as well as the green parts of the plant. They put these genes together
>and obtained a maize plant that had yellow kernels. They selected the
>yellow kernels and increased them them and introduced this trait into
>many different maize varieties.
I think you must be able to be more specific as to the genetic
background for yellow endosperm in maize. Your are a maize
geneticist, no? I take it that maize naturally evolved with a
geranyl-geranyl-P2-geranyl-geranyl transferase system,
which enables it to produce phytoene in endosperm? But what
is the rest of the story, what evidence of transformative events
have more precisely been recorded in the maize genome, enabling
the desaturation and cyclization steps necessary to process
phytoene into colored substances?
>> (It is difficult to imagine how such a single transformation event
>> should have come about naturally, and the whole setup also rather
>> carries all the expected hallmarks of a single deliberately performed
>> engineering act.)
>Isn't amazing what early breeders were capable of?
Huh? Are you claiming that your alleged ancient genetic engineers
managed to put the trait yellow endosperm into maize in a _single_
transformation event, which happened 2-3000 years ago?
>> Anyhow, Mutant Maize Warrior, what is the genetics behind yellow
>> endosperm _maize_? This is a scientific question, mind you, from
>> a humble amateur scientist to a professional maize geneticist.
>> Which genetic events, bits and pieces must necessarily have been
>> involved in the process or event which produced yellow endosperm
>> in maize? What do we actually know about it? Is it comparable to
>> the GM rice construct in the sense that it darnedly looks as if it
>> has been engineered?
>Using biotechnology, breeders can now easily change promotors of a gene
>to expand its range of expression. How the promotors of carotenoid
>synthesis genes of maize changed and how breeders put the different
>genes (with altered expression) together has not been recorded.
I do not understand this. There simply must be available records
in DNA code in the maize genome.
>However, the fact that human breeders genetically engineered a plant
>with white endosperm into one with yellow endosperm, is quite clear.
And furthermore it is not under dispute here. The evidence for the
genetic engineering of yellow endospermed rice using DNA
recombination technology would probably be overwhelming.
>> >If you want those thousands of years, you're going to have to show me
>> >evidence that maize came about naturally.
>> You can't be serious. How do _you_ think the first maize plant
>> came about? Do you think that it was contrived by a bunch of
>> humans who decided to make a proper crop plant out of
>> timothe and then went out and did the deed? Or was maize
>> courtesy by weird design by the very same technologically
>> superior alien species which some believe visited in
>> on Central America from outer space, just about at that
>> time p'rhaps?
>Believe what you want, but it is certainly clear that without artificial
>intervention (i.e., genetic engineering) there would be no maize (yellow
>endospermed or otherwise).
I think you mean artificial selection here, and the broader term
'artificial intervention' just accidentally slipped in... It is certainly
clear, that artificial selection cannot put a trait into a plant
species -- it can only artificially select from the variability already
present in it. But puzzlingly your claim is that "ancient breeders
have engineered this trait _into_ maize a few thousand years ago"
-- using the techique of artificial selection. Please explain.
Harold Lindaberry
>
>
> No, _you_ are arguing that. Your claim is "ancient breeders have
> engineered this trait into maize a few thousand years ago", which
> implies that the trait was not present in maize until a few thousands
> years ago. What I am arguing is, that your evidence for this claim
> is sorely lacking.
I think you guys are arguing semantics about the definition of engineering
IMO whether yellow endosperm showed up either by mutation or accidental crossing
and was selected and propagated or whether some wild assed gut with a gene gun
fired it is immaterial. They both involve human selection and probation and this
probably constitutes engineering to some degree or at least that's the way I
look at it. The gene gun or other means of mutation without mans intervention
constitute engineering without mans intervention that constitutes evolution ?
Nuff said - that's my 2 cents worth which probably is overvalued at that price
;-)
I just made a random selection from one of my tomato breeding seed lines a
completely different plant in appearance from any other tomato I've ever seen in
fact most people who see it ask what kind of plant is that the plant is 4 or 5
times as large and the leaves probably 10X I am maintaining it vegetatively as
well I have collected seed. As I see it if it breeds true from my selection I am
in a sense engineering - if it occurred and successful propagated in nature it
would be an evolution matter - thoughts ?
Harold.
>
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >In article <fNni4.398$nd....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >> >In article <NFgi4.128$nd....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> >> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>
>
> >> >> >The evidence is maize with yellow endosperm. <..>
>
> >> >> That is simply insufficient evidence, Marty, since genetic
> >> >> engineering
> >> >> cannot be said to be a neccessary precondition for the appearance
> >> >> of yellow endosperm.
>
> >> >Show me a wild grass that has carotenoids in its endosperm, and you
> >> >just
> >> >might have a real argument here.
>
> >> Nonsense. You are the one putting years at stake for a claim.
>
> >Are you arguing that the yellow endosperm trait was not in maize a few
> >thousand years ago?
>
> No, _you_ are arguing that. Your claim is "ancient breeders have
> engineered this trait into maize a few thousand years ago", which
> implies that the trait was not present in maize until a few thousands
> years ago. What I am arguing is, that your evidence for this claim
> is sorely lacking.
No, I was being conservative. All I'm saying is that this trait was
introduced into maize by human breeders, somewhere about 2-5 thousand
years ago and was not (and still isn't) found in wild grasses.
I'm not clear what your problem is with this. Do you have any evidence
to the contrary? Do you need me to send you seed samples of every known
species of wild grasses to show you that they don't have carotenoids in
their endosperm?
>
> >> Observed yellow endosperm is sufficient evidence for your
> >> claim _only_ if can be demonstrated that this particular grass
> >> species could not have evolve to become yellow endospermed,
> >> that such a creature needs to be engineered to exist.
>
> >Well, IMHO, the fact that NO wild grasses (including the teosintes which
> >are the same species as maize) have yellow endosperm, is excellent
> >evidence that maize could not have naturally evolved to become yellow
> >endospermed. If you have evidence to the contrary, i would be
> >interested.
>
> >No one can prove a negative absolutely. However, I'd say the chances
> >are that it would be just as likely for a frost tolerant gene from a
> >flounder to naturally find its way into a strawberry. Not likely, but
> >remotely possible.
>
> Well, Marty, _which_ genetic elements 'found its way into maize' such
> that it became yellow endospermed? A similar inquiry could be made
> into the background for yellow endosperm sorghum, I guess. I take it
> that in neither of these two cases DNA recombinant technology
> can be assumed to have been involved.
As for Sorghum, not too much is known yet about its genetics. It is a
relatively close relative of maize, so it is of interest at the genome
level. It does appear that there are 'yellow endosperm varieties' of
Sorghum. However, this pigment is apparently not from carotenoids.
See: http://www.cyberspaceag.com/grainsorghumfacts.html I may be wrong
about this, but haven't found anything that states that the yellow
pigment in yellow endospermed Sorghum is due to carotenoids.
As for maize, there are a several genes that function in both the
endosperm and leaves (i.e., if you knock out one of these genes the
seeds will be white and seedlings will be albino [due to
photo-oxidation]). One of these genes (y1) has an allele that is
expressed only in the leaves. The Y1 allele is expressed in both
endosperm and leaf. This gene is the main difference between white and
yellow corn. There are also several genes in the carotenoid
biosynthesis pathway that are duplicate factors (one member expressed
only in the leaf and the other only in the endosperm). Since we're only
beginning to get a genomic picture of the teosintes, it is difficult to
know exactly which gene changes contributed toward the yellow endosperm
phenotype in maize. It seems clear that the Y1 allele is unique to
maize, but it also appears that changes in other genes were also
involved.
I don't know about the yellow endosperm trait of Sorghum, but it seems
clear that maize breeders were able to genetically engineer the yellow
endosperm trait of maize without using recombinant DNA technology.
> >> >> -- But alas, you say that this is the only evidence you've got,
> >> >> so you've lost this game.
>
> >> >No, it simply means that you're not willing to accept the evidence
> >> >presented.
>
> >> No, it means that, as your evidence is clearly unacceptable,
> >> I cannot accept it, and you have lost the game. Tough, Warrior.
>
> >> Please accept that a claim can only be made rationally with the
> >> strength by which it can be supported by evidence, and then
> >> bloody hand over those blasted few kyears you owe me.
>
> >So, that's how your games are played ;-) Sorry, but I don't see my
> >evidence as being 'clearly unacceptable'.
>
> Let me explain it to you, calmly. Your claim is, that "ancient breeders
> have engineered this trait [yellow endosperm] into maize a few
> thousand years ago". This implies several things, notably, that
> some humans with sufficient craft and skill to do it, actually
> did make a directed effort to introduce the trait into maize,
> and furthermore, that they did it within a certain window of time.
I would say that some human breeders with sufficient craft and skill to
do it, actually created the maize plant from teosinte. Some traits such
as yield increase were certainly looked for purposely, others were found
in conjunction with other breeding endeavors much like certain
discoveries are made today. There is no record available to say where
yellow endosperm falls. It may have been purposely looked for or like
products such as 'post-it-notes', it may have been found while looking
for something else. I would imagine that even you would consider the
glue in 'post-it-notes' to be an engineered product, even though the
scientist at 3M that discovered it, was actually looking for something
else.
> >However, since you're making this into a game and are creating
> >the rules on the fly
>
> Huh? I did not make the rule I mentioned above. I expect you to
> be rational (since this is a sci newsgroup it is not unreasonable
> to expect rationality to be implied as a precondition for
> communication). And rationality certainly implies that one
> only claims something to be true, if it necessarily must be
> true, or if empirical evidence can verify that it is actually true.
You might want to look into a mirror on this one my friend ;-)
>
> The statement "ancient breeders have engineered this trait
> into maize a few thousand years ago" is, as far as I can see,
> not a necessarily true statement, and your empirical evidence
> 'maize has yellow endosperm' is simply insufficient to verify
> how that trait came about, and when.
I gave you my rational behind the when. As for the how, if you have any
better explanations, I'd be happy to hear them.
>
> >present, won't be accepted by you and you will therefore unilaterally
> >declare it 'clearly unacceptable'.
>
>
> Rationally you must 'soften up' your claim such that it is supportable
> by the base of evidence which you have available to you. Alternatively,
> if you want to maintain your claim unmodified, you must acknowledge
> that it is not rationally based. In the latter case, noone can of course
> demand evidence of you for your claim, but then again your claim
> does not deserve to be taken seriously on a sci newsgroup.
I would certainly be willing to 'soften up' my 'claim', if a better
model comes along. However, IMHO, the evidence does support this; the
existence of carotenoid-endospermed maize was a human mediated event.
If obtaining carotenoid-endospermed cereals was as trivial as you're
trying to make it to be, we would have seen it long ago in wheat and
rice, etc. Maize is not all that different at this level from other
cereals, nor is maize a 'magic' plant. Perhaps, the early maize genetic
engineers were simply better at their trade than those involved in
shaping other cereals ;-)
>
> >> Just think of the millenia you have already lost to me on previous
> >> occasions (of which most have benevolently been donated back
> >> to you, lest you'd stop to learn). A loss of a few thousands years
> >> now should not worry you. Think of the fun we've had.
>
> >It is fun sparring with you Torsten. However, I don't see how I ever
> >lost even one year to you ;-)
>
> I expect all our games to have been meticulously recorded
> by www.deja.com in case you should wish to review past scores.
> And as to the how, the method by which you have lost all those
> years is simply that you make claims involving many years,
> claims which you cannot back up with evidence.
You might want to look back yourself, I don't see any years lost on my
part ;-)
>
> >> >The fact remains that people have been genetically engineering plants
> >> >and animals for thousands of years.
>
> >> Ahh. I -knew- that you could not resist the temptation of another
> >> game!
> >> Thousands? How many thousands of years would we more precisely be
> >> looking at here? Also, can I have your definition of 'genetically
> >> engineer', please?
>
>
> ><..>
> >Artificial selection <..>>This is the aspect of genetic engineering
> >that I have been referring to.
>
> Artificial selection. Thanks. And the time scale? You said people have
> been genetically engineering plants and animals for thousands of years
> (using the technique of artificial selection). How _many_ thousands
> of years would that be more precisely?
As I've said numerous times in the past, at least 10,000 years. That's
from the best fossil evidence to date.
See above, y1 encodes phytoene synthase. So, no, maize did not
naturally evolve the ability to synthesize phytoene in endosperm. The
Y1 allele is in maize only. Certainly, however, this ability exists in
the leaves (as it does in all green plants).
> But what
> is the rest of the story, what evidence of transformative events
> have more precisely been recorded in the maize genome, enabling
> the desaturation and cyclization steps necessary to process
> phytoene into colored substances?
See above for details. It is a combination of novel multiple uses for
single genes in the pathway, as well as gene duplication and separation
of function for other genes.
>
> >> (It is difficult to imagine how such a single transformation event
> >> should have come about naturally, and the whole setup also rather
> >> carries all the expected hallmarks of a single deliberately performed
> >> engineering act.)
>
> >Isn't amazing what early breeders were capable of?
>
> Huh? Are you claiming that your alleged ancient genetic engineers
> managed to put the trait yellow endosperm into maize in a _single_
> transformation event, which happened 2-3000 years ago?
No, not really for this case, but other aspects of what made teosinte
into maize were via single events.
>
> >> Anyhow, Mutant Maize Warrior, what is the genetics behind yellow
> >> endosperm _maize_? This is a scientific question, mind you, from
> >> a humble amateur scientist to a professional maize geneticist.
> >> Which genetic events, bits and pieces must necessarily have been
> >> involved in the process or event which produced yellow endosperm
> >> in maize? What do we actually know about it? Is it comparable to
> >> the GM rice construct in the sense that it darnedly looks as if it
> >> has been engineered?
>
> >Using biotechnology, breeders can now easily change promotors of a gene
> >to expand its range of expression. How the promotors of carotenoid
> >synthesis genes of maize changed and how breeders put the different
> >genes (with altered expression) together has not been recorded.
>
>
> I do not understand this. There simply must be available records
> in DNA code in the maize genome.
Yes, for example, the promoter of the Y1 allele is different from the
promoter of y1 alleles. However, the whole story is not available yet
since not all the genes in the maize carotenoid synthesis pathway have
been isolated and sequenced. Nor, have the genes isolated in maize been
examined in teosinte as yet.
>
> >However, the fact that human breeders genetically engineered a plant
> >with white endosperm into one with yellow endosperm, is quite clear.
>
>
> And furthermore it is not under dispute here. The evidence for the
> genetic engineering of yellow endospermed rice using DNA
> recombination technology would probably be overwhelming.
Human breeders have also genetically engineered maize with white
endosperm into one with yellow endosperm, is also quite clear. However,
this was done long before recombinant DNA technology existed.
>
> >> >If you want those thousands of years, you're going to have to show me
> >> >evidence that maize came about naturally.
>
> >> You can't be serious. How do _you_ think the first maize plant
> >> came about? Do you think that it was contrived by a bunch of
> >> humans who decided to make a proper crop plant out of
> >> timothe and then went out and did the deed? Or was maize
> >> courtesy by weird design by the very same technologically
> >> superior alien species which some believe visited in
> >> on Central America from outer space, just about at that
> >> time p'rhaps?
>
> >Believe what you want, but it is certainly clear that without artificial
> >intervention (i.e., genetic engineering) there would be no maize (yellow
> >endospermed or otherwise).
>
>
> I think you mean artificial selection here, and the broader term
> 'artificial intervention' just accidentally slipped in... It is certainly
> clear, that artificial selection cannot put a trait into a plant
> species -- it can only artificially select from the variability already
> present in it. But puzzlingly your claim is that "ancient breeders
> have engineered this trait _into_ maize a few thousand years ago"
> -- using the techique of artificial selection. Please explain.
If you start off with a plant that lacks a trait in nature, and end up
with a plant that has this trait after human manipulation, one has
engineered this trait into the plant. Artificial selection is used in
a variety of breeding methods; including but not limited to when one
introduces a trait via recombinant DNA technology.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Marty Sachs
> I think you guys are arguing semantics about the definition of
> engineering
> IMO whether yellow endosperm showed up either by mutation or accidental
> crossing
> and was selected and propagated or whether some wild assed gut with a
> gene gun
> fired it is immaterial. They both involve human selection and probation
> and this
> probably constitutes engineering to some degree or at least that's the
> way I
> look at it. The gene gun or other means of mutation without mans
> intervention
> constitute engineering without mans intervention that constitutes
> evolution ?
> Nuff said - that's my 2 cents worth which probably is overvalued at that
> price
> ;-)
Thank you Harold. Yes, gene-gun or not, recombinant DNA technology or
more simply artificial selection, any genetic change in a plant or
animal that does not or cannot propagate in nature, but does so with
human mediated efforts constitutes genetic engineering.
> I just made a random selection from one of my tomato breeding seed
> lines a
> completely different plant in appearance from any other tomato I've ever
> seen in
> fact most people who see it ask what kind of plant is that the plant is 4
> or 5
> times as large and the leaves probably 10X I am maintaining it
> vegetatively as
> well I have collected seed. As I see it if it breeds true from my
> selection I am
> in a sense engineering - if it occurred and successful propagated in
> nature it
> would be an evolution matter - thoughts ?
I agree with you 100%.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Torsten Brinch
><..>IMO whether yellow endosperm showed up either
>by mutation or accidental crossing and was selected and
>propagated or whether some wild assed gut with a gene
>gun fired it is immaterial. They both involve human selection
>and probation and this probably constitutes engineering to
>some degree or at least that's the way I look at it.
>The gene gun or other means of mutation without mans
>intervention constitute engineering without mans intervention
Harold, I think the key to the interesting philosophical question
which you raise is, that the concept 'evolution' implies a change
of gene frequencies without implying a purpose of the change
of gene frequencies.
The concept 'engineering' certainly also implies change, but
unlike the concept 'evolution', the concept 'engineering' cannot
imply change without also implying a purpose of change.
Cf. the two concepts 'lethal accident' and 'murder'.
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388B17E4...@epix.net>...
> ><..>IMO whether yellow endosperm showed up either
> >by mutation or accidental crossing and was selected and
> >propagated or whether some wild assed gut with a gene
> >gun fired it is immaterial. They both involve human selection
> >and probation and this probably constitutes engineering to
> >some degree or at least that's the way I look at it.
> >The gene gun or other means of mutation without mans
> >intervention constitute engineering without mans intervention
> >that constitutes evolution ? <..>
>
> Harold, I think the key to the interesting philosophical question
> which you raise is, that the concept 'evolution' implies a change
> of gene frequencies without implying a purpose of the change
> of gene frequencies.
Evolution IMO simply involves the trait or traits either improving or
at least not adversely affecting survival if the species involved under
natural conditions it is interesting to note that most crop plants
selected cannot make it on there own in nature
>
>
> The concept 'engineering' certainly also implies change, but
> unlike the concept 'evolution', the concept 'engineering' cannot
> imply change without also implying a purpose of change.
Cf. the two concepts 'lethal accident' and 'murder'.
You loose me here - the point being ?
Harold
Torsten Brinch
>In article <CtCi4.224$%W4....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>><..> Your claim is "ancient breeders have
>> engineered this trait into maize a few thousand years ago", which
>> implies that the trait was not present in maize until a few thousands
>> years ago. What I am arguing is, that your evidence for this claim
>> is sorely lacking.
>No, I was being conservative. All I'm saying is that this trait was
>introduced into maize by human breeders, somewhere about 2-5 thousand
>years ago and was not (and still isn't) found in wild grasses.
Sigh. You are just repeating your claim. And you were bloody
rather obviously being nudged to present your evidence for it.
>I'm not clear what your problem is with this. Do you have any evidence
>to the contrary? Do you need me to send you seed samples of every known
>species of wild grasses to show you that they don't have carotenoids in
>their endosperm?
Whether they did or did not is irrelevant. In either case it would not
support your claim.
>><..>
>> Well, Marty, _which_ genetic elements 'found its way into maize' such
>> that it became yellow endospermed? A similar inquiry could be made
>> into the background for yellow endosperm sorghum, I guess. I take it
>> that in neither of these two cases DNA recombinant technology
>> can be assumed to have been involved.
>As for Sorghum, not too much is known yet about its genetics. It is a
>relatively close relative of maize, so it is of interest at the genome
>level. It does appear that there are 'yellow endosperm varieties' of
>Sorghum. However, this pigment is apparently not from carotenoids.
>See: http://www.cyberspaceag.com/grainsorghumfacts.html I may be wrong
>about this, but haven't found anything that states that the yellow
>pigment in yellow endospermed Sorghum is due to carotenoids.
Well, the yellow endospermed sorghum is actually due to carotenoids,
but let us just leave it at that.
It is irrelevant to your claim which is about maize.
>As for maize, there are a several genes that function in both the
>endosperm and leaves (i.e., if you knock out one of these genes the
>seeds will be white and seedlings will be albino [due to
>photo-oxidation]). One of these genes (y1) has an allele that is
>expressed only in the leaves. The Y1 allele is expressed in both
>endosperm and leaf. This gene is the main difference between white and
>yellow corn.
OK. so, from the text below, the main difference between yellow
and white endospermed corn is that the yellow expresses
phytoene synthase in endosperm, while the white does not.
Right?
>There are also several genes in the carotenoid
>biosynthesis pathway that are duplicate factors (one member expressed
>only in the leaf and the other only in the endosperm). Since we're only
>beginning to get a genomic picture of the teosintes, it is difficult to
>know exactly which gene changes contributed toward the yellow endosperm
>phenotype in maize. It seems clear that the Y1 allele is unique to
>maize, but it also appears that changes in other genes were also
>involved.
In which respect(s) is the Y1 allele unique?
>I don't know about the yellow endosperm trait of Sorghum, but it seems
>clear that maize breeders were able to genetically engineer the yellow
>endosperm trait of maize <..>
Sigh. It is not clear.
<..>
>> >> Please accept that a claim can only be made rationally with the
>> >> strength by which it can be supported by evidence, and then
>> >> bloody hand over those blasted few kyears you owe me.
>> >So, that's how your games are played ;-) Sorry, but I don't see my
>> >evidence as being 'clearly unacceptable'.
>> Let me explain it to you, calmly. Your claim is, that "ancient breeders
>> have engineered this trait [yellow endosperm] into maize a few
>> thousand years ago". This implies several things, notably, that
>> some humans with sufficient craft and skill to do it, actually
>> did make a directed effort to introduce the trait into maize,
>> and furthermore, that they did it within a certain window of time.
><..> There is no record available to say where
>yellow endosperm falls. It may have been purposely looked for or like
>products such as 'post-it-notes', it may have been found while looking
>for something else. I would imagine that even you would consider the
>glue in 'post-it-notes' to be an engineered product, even though the
>scientist at 3M that discovered it, was actually looking for something
>else.
Wow, that's more like it, Marty. This is a far cry from your original
categorical claim "ancient breeders have engineered this trait into
maize a few thousand years ago". Actually you are saying
that there does not exist sufficient evidence for your claim --
that it might have been just one of these things that happens.
My, my, we may witness a progress for rationality, the sound
adjustment of a claim to fit the evidence. I am proud of you,
Marty. You owe me a few thousands years and you bloody
know it :-)
<..>
>> The statement "ancient breeders have engineered this trait
>> into maize a few thousand years ago" is, as far as I can see,
>> not a necessarily true statement, and your empirical evidence
>> 'maize has yellow endosperm' is simply insufficient to verify
>> how that trait came about, and when.
>I gave you my rational behind the when. As for the how, if you
>have any better explanations, I'd be happy to hear them.
It is (was) your claim, and therefore your burden of proof.
>> >present, won't be accepted by you and you will therefore unilaterally
>> >declare it 'clearly unacceptable'.
>> Rationally you must 'soften up' your claim such that it is supportable
>> by the base of evidence which you have available to you. Alternatively,
>> if you want to maintain your claim unmodified, you must acknowledge
>> that it is not rationally based. In the latter case, noone can of course
>> demand evidence of you for your claim, but then again your claim
>> does not deserve to be taken seriously on a sci newsgroup.
>I would certainly be willing to 'soften up' my 'claim', if a better
>model comes along. However, IMHO, the evidence does support this
>; the existence of carotenoid-endospermed maize was a human
>mediated event.
? Existence is not an event. You must mean something else here.
Most likely this is your slightly foggy way of trying to come back
to repeating your original claim once more, and you have still not
presented sufficient evidence that supports it, and you admitted
above that such evidence does not exist.
At best the evidence you have presented could be said to be not
inconsistent with your claim.
>If obtaining carotenoid-endospermed cereals was as trivial as you're
>trying to make it to be, we would have seen it long ago in wheat and
>rice, etc. Maize is not all that different at this level from other
>cereals, nor is maize a 'magic' plant. Perhaps, the early maize genetic
>engineers were simply better at their trade than those involved in
>shaping other cereals ;-)
If you inspect the preceding paragraph critically, Marty, you
will note that it does not add support for your claim.
<..>
>> Artificial selection. Thanks. And the time scale? You said people have
>> been genetically engineering plants and animals for thousands of years
>> (using the technique of artificial selection). How _many_ thousands
>> of years would that be more precisely?
>As I've said numerous times in the past, at least 10,000 years. That's
>from the best fossil evidence to date.
10 grand! Oh, careless you :-) .
And the best fossil evidence for that would be _?_
<..>
>> I think you must be able to be more specific as to the genetic
>> background for yellow endosperm in maize. Your are a maize
>> geneticist, no? I take it that maize naturally evolved with a
>> geranyl-geranyl-P2-geranyl-geranyl transferase system,
>> which enables it to produce phytoene in endosperm?
>See above, y1 encodes phytoene synthase. So, no, maize did not
>naturally evolve the ability to synthesize phytoene in endosperm. The
>Y1 allele is in maize only. Certainly, however, this ability exists in
>the leaves (as it does in all green plants).
I see. In your mind, would the first ancient breeders first have
had to put that Y1 allele into maize, or did it just happen to be
there when they allegedly started to put other genes into it?
>> But what
>> is the rest of the story, what evidence of transformative events
>> have more precisely been recorded in the maize genome, enabling
>> the desaturation and cyclization steps necessary to process
>> phytoene into colored substances?
>See above for details. It is a combination of novel multiple uses for
>single genes in the pathway, as well as gene duplication and separation
>of function for other genes.
So, in your mind, your hypothetical breeders could _not_ have
effected it with one single transition event, I conclude.
<..>
>> >Using biotechnology, breeders can now easily change promotors of a gene
>> >to expand its range of expression. How the promotors of carotenoid
>> >synthesis genes of maize changed and how breeders put the different
>> >genes (with altered expression) together has not been recorded.
>> I do not understand this. There simply must be available records
>> in DNA code in the maize genome.
>Yes, for example, the promoter of the Y1 allele is different from the
>promoter of y1 alleles.
Now I wonder if it is known whether the mutation affecting
the promoter was actually constituting the changed
functional difference between the two alleles?
>However, the whole story is not available yet
>since not all the genes in the maize carotenoid synthesis pathway
>have been isolated and sequenced. Nor, have the genes isolated
>in maize been examined in teosinte as yet.
Pity. Such evidence could have become crucial for your case.
>> >However, the fact that human breeders genetically engineered a plant
>> >with white endosperm into one with yellow endosperm, is quite clear.
>> And furthermore it is not under dispute here. The evidence for the
>> genetic engineering of yellow endospermed rice using DNA
>> recombination technology would probably be overwhelming.
>Human breeders have also genetically engineered maize with white
>endosperm into one with yellow endosperm, is also quite clear<..>
It is not clear.
<..>
>> >it is certainly clear that without artificial
>> >intervention (i.e., genetic engineering) there would be no maize (yellow
>> >endospermed or otherwise).
>> I think you mean artificial selection here, and the broader term
>> 'artificial intervention' just accidentally slipped in... It is certainly
>> clear, that artificial selection cannot put a trait into a plant
>> species -- it can only artificially select from the variability already
>> present in it. But puzzlingly your claim is that "ancient breeders
>> have engineered this trait _into_ maize a few thousand years ago"
>> -- using the techique of artificial selection. Please explain.
>If you start off with a plant that lacks a trait in nature, and end up
>with a plant that has this trait after human manipulation, one has
>engineered this trait into the plant. <..>
Nonsense. A plant does not stop to evolve just because
it becomes subject of human manipulation.
Torsten Brinch
>animal that does not or cannot propagate in nature, but does so with
>human mediated efforts constitutes genetic engineering.
By that logic genocide and the extinction of species due to
human activities would also constitute genetic engineering.
Is that your intention?
(I would find such language use unnecessarily imprecise)
Torsten Brinch
>> >The gene gun or other means of mutation without mans
>> >intervention constitute engineering without mans intervention
>> >that constitutes evolution ? <..>
>> Harold, I think the key to the interesting philosophical question
>> which you raise is, that the concept 'evolution' implies a change
>> of gene frequencies without implying a purpose of the change
>> of gene frequencies.
> Evolution IMO simply involves the trait or traits either improving or
>at least not adversely affecting survival if the species involved under
>natural conditions.
That is not a particularly clear-cut definition of evolution. You
come close to a definition of natural selection, however, which
is an important mechanism in evolution.
> it is interesting to note that most crop plants
>selected cannot make it on there own in nature
Why is that interesting. It is not surprising, is it?
>> The concept 'engineering' certainly also implies change, but
>> unlike the concept 'evolution', the concept 'engineering' cannot
>> imply change without also implying a purpose of change.
>> Cf. the two concepts 'lethal accident' and 'murder'.
> You loose me here - the point being ?
Both 'lethal accident' and 'murder' imply a change, but only
one of these concepts ('murder') implies a purpose of change.
The two concepts 'evolution' and 'engineering' are similarly
related to each other.
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> ><..>any genetic change in a plant or
> >animal that does not or cannot propagate in nature, but does so with
> >human mediated efforts constitutes genetic engineering.
>
> By that logic genocide and the extinction of species due to
> human activities would also constitute genetic engineering.
> Is that your intention?
I guess it depends on ones point of view and whether one feels the
desire to quibble with semantics - I tend to look at it as competition
between species.
>
>
> (I would find such language use unnecessarily imprecise)
I tend to agree both parties need to agree on the definition of terms
before startind
Harold
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388B8AE5...@epix.net>...
>
> >> >The gene gun or other means of mutation without mans
> >> >intervention constitute engineering without mans intervention
> >> >that constitutes evolution ? <..>
>
> >> Harold, I think the key to the interesting philosophical question
> >> which you raise is, that the concept 'evolution' implies a change
> >> of gene frequencies without implying a purpose of the change
> >> of gene frequencies.
>
> > Evolution IMO simply involves the trait or traits either improving or
> >at least not adversely affecting survival if the species involved under
> >natural conditions.
>
> That is not a particularly clear-cut definition of evolution. You
> come close to a definition of natural selection, however, which
> is an important mechanism in evolution.
I never said I was great in definitions - it just describes my definition
and outlook it may be right it may be wrong but it's mine and the way I look
at evolution.
>
>
> > it is interesting to note that most crop plants
> >selected cannot make it on there own in nature
>
> Why is that interesting. It is not surprising, is it?
Not really surprising - just interesting to me and it might indicate mans
hand in the system for longer than we might want to admit.
>
>
> >> The concept 'engineering' certainly also implies change, but
> >> unlike the concept 'evolution', the concept 'engineering' cannot
> >> imply change without also implying a purpose of change.
>
> >> Cf. the two concepts 'lethal accident' and 'murder'.
>
> > You loose me here - the point being ?
>
> Both 'lethal accident' and 'murder' imply a change, but only
> one of these concepts ('murder') implies a purpose of change.
I guess I'm thick as a brick I still don't grasp our point - lethal genes
occur all the time but they don't just appear in the line - the purpose of
change is maintaining the niche as conditions and competition changes the
genetically adapted better go on - the others join the Extinct club - the
purpose is survival
>
> The two concepts 'evolution' and 'engineering' are similarly
> related to each other.
Related IMO yes but identical no as it seems that engineered crops are not
normally to make it on their own - Ma nature is pretty tough to beat when left
to their own devices - If we manipulate crops to provide maximum output for
man we take survivability out of the system - Ma Nature doesn't give a shit
about mans survivability - as hunter gatherers found out a long time ago
>
Harold
Torsten Brinch
Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388BACB9...@epix.net>...
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>><..>
> <..> - lethal genes
>occur all the time but they don't just appear in the line - the purpose of
>change is maintaining the niche as conditions and competition changes the
>genetically adapted better go on - the others join the Extinct club - the
>purpose is survival
I fully agree in your last point. In life, survival and replication is
the purpose.
Otoh a natural change in a living physical/chemical structure
which is carrying purpose (better expressed: which _is_ purpose)
does not and cannot have any purpose. It does not matter
whether such a mutation from some perspective can be said to be
beneficial, neutral, or harmful -- it just happens, with no purpose
of change involved.
>> The two concepts 'evolution' and 'engineering' are similarly
>> related to each other.
> Related IMO yes but identical no as it seems that engineered crops are
not
>normally to make it on their own <snip>.
You misunderstand. I am talking about the relation between
the two concepts. The concept 'engineering' implies change,
but unlike the concept 'evolution', the concept 'engineering' cannot
imply change without also implying a purpose of change.
--
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388BACB9...@epix.net>...
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> >><..>
> > <..> - lethal genes
> >occur all the time but they don't just appear in the line - the purpose of
> >change is maintaining the niche as conditions and competition changes the
> >genetically adapted better go on - the others join the Extinct club - the
> >purpose is survival
>
> I fully agree in your last point. In life, survival and replication is
> the purpose.
>
> Otoh a natural change in a living physical/chemical structure
> which is carrying purpose (better expressed: which _is_ purpose)
> does not and cannot have any purpose. It does not matter
> whether such a mutation from some perspective can be said to be
> beneficial, neutral, or harmful -- it just happens, with no purpose
> of change involved.
I agree - WHAT IS IS
>
>
> >> The two concepts 'evolution' and 'engineering' are similarly
> >> related to each other.
>
> > Related IMO yes but identical no as it seems that engineered crops are
> not
> >normally to make it on their own <snip>.
>
> You misunderstand.
It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last - My dad told me many
many years ago " If you have an idea and try to convey it and the other guy
doesn't get it it's not his fault it's yours it's your idea "
> I am talking about the relation between
> the two concepts. The concept 'engineering' implies change,
> but unlike the concept 'evolution', the concept 'engineering' cannot
> imply change without also implying a purpose of change.
I guess I still don't get it - every time sex is involved there is change
-Excluding cloning - normally when there is sexual reproduction there is change
and genetic variability ?
Harold
Tracy Aquilla
>
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
[snip]
>
> Otoh a natural change in a living physical/chemical structure
> which is carrying purpose (better expressed: which _is_ purpose)
> does not and cannot have any purpose. It does not matter
> whether such a mutation from some perspective can be said to be
> beneficial, neutral, or harmful -- it just happens, with no purpose
> of change involved.
Perhaps you are using the term "purpose" in an uncommon way, intending
an uncommon meaning, but there is evidence indicating that a
microorganism can mutate with the purpose of changing its genotype and
thus increasing its chances of surviving under very harsh conditions.
Last I heard, geneticists referred to this phenomenon as "directed
mutation".
Tracy
Tracy Aquilla
> In article <CtCi4.224$%W4....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> <ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> > >Are you arguing that the yellow endosperm trait was not in maize a few
> > >thousand years ago?
> >
> > No, _you_ are arguing that. Your claim is "ancient breeders have
> > engineered this trait into maize a few thousand years ago", which
> > implies that the trait was not present in maize until a few thousands
> > years ago. What I am arguing is, that your evidence for this claim
> > is sorely lacking.
>
> No, I was being conservative. All I'm saying is that this trait was
> introduced into maize by human breeders, somewhere about 2-5 thousand
> years ago and was not (and still isn't) found in wild grasses.
>
> I'm not clear what your problem is with this.
I believe the problem may be that it tumbles his fragile house of cards.
Tracy
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>
> >> Well, Marty, _which_ genetic elements 'found its way into maize' such
> >> that it became yellow endospermed? A similar inquiry could be made
> >> into the background for yellow endosperm sorghum, I guess. I take it
> >> that in neither of these two cases DNA recombinant technology
> >> can be assumed to have been involved.
>
> >As for Sorghum, not too much is known yet about its genetics. It is a
> >relatively close relative of maize, so it is of interest at the genome
> >level. It does appear that there are 'yellow endosperm varieties' of
> >Sorghum. However, this pigment is apparently not from carotenoids.
> >See: http://www.cyberspaceag.com/grainsorghumfacts.html I may be wrong
> >about this, but haven't found anything that states that the yellow
> >pigment in yellow endospermed Sorghum is due to carotenoids.
>
>
> Well, the yellow endospermed sorghum is actually due to carotenoids,
> but let us just leave it at that.
> It is irrelevant to your claim which is about maize.
The only item I could find on the web concerning carotenoids in Sorghum
grain is at: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0818e/T0818E0e.htm#Vitamins.
It's not clear to me that the yellow color is entirely due to
carotenoids. There are other phyto-pigments that can give a yellow color
to plant tissues. If you have further information on this I'd be
interested. If you wish, I'll consider this a side issue. I'd like to
learn more about the biology of Sorghum.
>
> >As for maize, there are a several genes that function in both the
> >endosperm and leaves (i.e., if you knock out one of these genes the
> >seeds will be white and seedlings will be albino [due to
> >photo-oxidation]). One of these genes (y1) has an allele that is
> >expressed only in the leaves. The Y1 allele is expressed in both
> >endosperm and leaf. This gene is the main difference between white and
> >yellow corn.
>
> OK. so, from the text below, the main difference between yellow
> and white endospermed corn is that the yellow expresses
> phytoene synthase in endosperm, while the white does not.
> Right?
In present day maize, yes this is true.
> >There are also several genes in the carotenoid
> >biosynthesis pathway that are duplicate factors (one member expressed
> >only in the leaf and the other only in the endosperm). Since we're only
> >beginning to get a genomic picture of the teosintes, it is difficult to
> >know exactly which gene changes contributed toward the yellow endosperm
> >phenotype in maize. It seems clear that the Y1 allele is unique to
> >maize, but it also appears that changes in other genes were also
> >involved.
>
>
> In which respect(s) is the Y1 allele unique?
It has a novel promoter that enables this allele to be expressed in both
leaf and endosperm tissue. The alleles found in teosintes are like the
y1 alleles found in white endosperm maize and are only expressed in
photosynthetic tissues.
>
> >I don't know about the yellow endosperm trait of Sorghum, but it seems
> >clear that maize breeders were able to genetically engineer the yellow
> >endosperm trait of maize <..>
>
> Sigh. It is not clear.
Perhaps not to you.
> ><..> There is no record available to say where
> >yellow endosperm falls. It may have been purposely looked for or like
> >products such as 'post-it-notes', it may have been found while looking
> >for something else. I would imagine that even you would consider the
> >glue in 'post-it-notes' to be an engineered product, even though the
> >scientist at 3M that discovered it, was actually looking for something
> >else.
>
>
> Wow, that's more like it, Marty. This is a far cry from your original
> categorical claim "ancient breeders have engineered this trait into
> maize a few thousand years ago". Actually you are saying
> that there does not exist sufficient evidence for your claim --
> that it might have been just one of these things that happens.
> My, my, we may witness a progress for rationality, the sound
> adjustment of a claim to fit the evidence. I am proud of you,
> Marty. You owe me a few thousands years and you bloody
> know it :-)
So, I guess you're saying that products like post-it-notes, round-up,
etc, are not engineered; since the end product's use was not the
originally intended use.
> >I gave you my rational behind the when. As for the how, if you
> >have any better explanations, I'd be happy to hear them.
>
>
> It is (was) your claim, and therefore your burden of proof.
Well, I guess by your reasoning one can suppose that Stone Henge in
England or the giant stone statues on Easter Island could have been
created by natural phenomena, since there is no 'proof' that they were
built by humans. Again, if you have a better explanation as to how
these occurred, I'd be happy to hear it.
> >If obtaining carotenoid-endospermed cereals was as trivial as you're
> >trying to make it to be, we would have seen it long ago in wheat and
> >rice, etc. Maize is not all that different at this level from other
> >cereals, nor is maize a 'magic' plant. Perhaps, the early maize genetic
> >engineers were simply better at their trade than those involved in
> >shaping other cereals ;-)
>
>
> If you inspect the preceding paragraph critically, Marty, you
> will note that it does not add support for your claim.
Not in your eyes in any case.
> >> Artificial selection. Thanks. And the time scale? You said people have
> >> been genetically engineering plants and animals for thousands of years
> >> (using the technique of artificial selection). How _many_ thousands
> >> of years would that be more precisely?
>
> >As I've said numerous times in the past, at least 10,000 years. That's
> >from the best fossil evidence to date.
>
>
> 10 grand! Oh, careless you :-) .
> And the best fossil evidence for that would be _?_
We've been through this before numerous times. Simply look back at our
past posts in Deja.
> >> I think you must be able to be more specific as to the genetic
> >> background for yellow endosperm in maize. Your are a maize
> >> geneticist, no? I take it that maize naturally evolved with a
> >> geranyl-geranyl-P2-geranyl-geranyl transferase system,
> >> which enables it to produce phytoene in endosperm?
>
> >See above, y1 encodes phytoene synthase. So, no, maize did not
> >naturally evolve the ability to synthesize phytoene in endosperm. The
> >Y1 allele is in maize only. Certainly, however, this ability exists in
> >the leaves (as it does in all green plants).
>
>
> I see. In your mind, would the first ancient breeders first have
> had to put that Y1 allele into maize, or did it just happen to be
> there when they allegedly started to put other genes into it?
It's not clear in what order the event(s) occurred. They didn't leave
behind their 'lab notes'.
>
> >> But what
> >> is the rest of the story, what evidence of transformative events
> >> have more precisely been recorded in the maize genome, enabling
> >> the desaturation and cyclization steps necessary to process
> >> phytoene into colored substances?
>
> >See above for details. It is a combination of novel multiple uses for
> >single genes in the pathway, as well as gene duplication and separation
> >of function for other genes.
>
>
> So, in your mind, your hypothetical breeders could _not_ have
> effected it with one single transition event, I conclude.
I don't think so, but they might have. The actual hows regarding this
were not recorded.
> >Yes, for example, the promoter of the Y1 allele is different from the
> >promoter of y1 alleles.
>
> Now I wonder if it is known whether the mutation affecting
> the promoter was actually constituting the changed
> functional difference between the two alleles?
It certainly seems to be. Although, folks haven't studied the different
promoters in expression studies as yet.
>
> >However, the whole story is not available yet
> >since not all the genes in the maize carotenoid synthesis pathway
> >have been isolated and sequenced. Nor, have the genes isolated
> >in maize been examined in teosinte as yet.
>
>
> Pity. Such evidence could have become crucial for your case.
I don't see how. If all of this were done, you still wouldn't accept
this.
> >If you start off with a plant that lacks a trait in nature, and end up
> >with a plant that has this trait after human manipulation, one has
> >engineered this trait into the plant. <..>
>
> Nonsense. A plant does not stop to evolve just because
> it becomes subject of human manipulation.
This is certainly true (although natural selection is usually a much
slower process than artificial selection and we're talking about a
time-frame of thousands of years, not millions). However, it is also
clear that many plant traits that are found after human manipulation are
never found in nature. Carotenoids in endosperm is one such trait.
Again, if obtaining carotenoid-endospermed cereals was as trivial as
you're trying to make it to be, we would have seen it long ago in wheat
and rice, etc.
In article <GFMi4.859$%W4....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> ><..>any genetic change in a plant or
> >animal that does not or cannot propagate in nature, but does so with
> >human mediated efforts constitutes genetic engineering.
>
>
> By that logic genocide and the extinction of species due to
> human activities would also constitute genetic engineering.
> Is that your intention?
>
> (I would find such language use unnecessarily imprecise)
No, I don't see at all how this refers to what I wrote.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Harold Lindaberry
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
The way I look at it the mutation of gene potential is just there -
the individual organism either has it or doesn't under one set of
conditions it may be useful in survival in another it is not - the fact
that probably no two sexually combined organisms have the same exactly
genetic make up that is where selection comes in. - The organism doesn't
direct it it JUST IS or ISN'T. - IMO directed mutation mutation is like
saying the cart is pushing the horse - if the genes are there it possibly
can be done if they're not it can't or at least that's the way I look at
it.
Harold
>
> Tracy
Marty Sachs
> The way I look at it the mutation of gene potential is just there -
> the individual organism either has it or doesn't under one set of
> conditions it may be useful in survival in another it is not - the fact
> that probably no two sexually combined organisms have the same exactly
> genetic make up that is where selection comes in. - The organism doesn't
> direct it it JUST IS or ISN'T. - IMO directed mutation mutation is like
> saying the cart is pushing the horse - if the genes are there it possibly
> can be done if they're not it can't or at least that's the way I look at
> it.
One thing I would add to this is that organisms do gain new genes for
natural -or- artificial selection to work on. New genes can arise from
mutation of a related duplicate gene, or introduction from other
organisms (ranging from hybridization with a different species to a
plant being infected by a parasite such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens, or
a retrovirus).
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Tracy Aquilla
>
> Tracy Aquilla wrote:
>
> > Torsten Brinch wrote:
> > >
> > > >Torsten Brinch wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Otoh a natural change in a living physical/chemical structure
> > > which is carrying purpose (better expressed: which _is_ purpose)
> > > does not and cannot have any purpose. It does not matter
> > > whether such a mutation from some perspective can be said to be
> > > beneficial, neutral, or harmful -- it just happens, with no purpose
> > > of change involved.
> >
> > Perhaps you are using the term "purpose" in an uncommon way, intending
> > an uncommon meaning, but there is evidence indicating that a
> > microorganism can mutate with the purpose of changing its genotype and
> > thus increasing its chances of surviving under very harsh conditions.
> > Last I heard, geneticists referred to this phenomenon as "directed
> > mutation".
>
> the individual organism either has it or doesn't under one set of
> conditions it may be useful in survival in another it is not - the fact
> that probably no two sexually combined organisms have the same exactly
> genetic make up that is where selection comes in. - The organism doesn't
> direct it it JUST IS or ISN'T. - IMO directed mutation mutation is like
> saying the cart is pushing the horse - if the genes are there it possibly
> can be done if they're not it can't or at least that's the way I look at
> it.
It appears you missed the point. Until several years ago, it was
generally agreed that mutation is a random event. However, based on the
theory above and the evidence that supports it, it now appears that not
all mutations are random. The difference is significant and indicates,
contrary to Torsten's assertion, that mutations can have purpose.
Tracy
Joao Jose Marques
> generally agreed that mutation is a random event. However, based on the
> theory above and the evidence that supports it, it now appears that not
> all mutations are random.
It doesn't matter. Torsten is using the word purpose correctly. For a
microrganism to do anything on purpose it would have to be self-aware.
The mutation may be directed by some biochemical mechanism and it may
serve a purpose but it was not made on purpose as it would imply some
sort of decision-making.
JM.
Harold Lindaberry
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> It appears you missed the point. Until several years ago, it was
> generally agreed that mutation is a random event. However, based on the
> theory above and the evidence that supports it,
evidence that they are not - the gene gun et. al. ?
> it now appears that not all mutations are random. The difference is
> significant and indicates,
> contrary to Torsten's assertion, that mutations can have purpose
Whose - God - Ma Nature ?
Harold
> .
> Tracy
Tracy Aquilla
> Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> > Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> > > Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> > > > Torsten Brinch wrote:
> > > > > whether such a mutation from some perspective can be said to be
> > > > > beneficial, neutral, or harmful -- it just happens, with no purpose
> > > > > of change involved.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you are using the term "purpose" in an uncommon way, intending
> > > > an uncommon meaning, but there is evidence indicating that a
> > > > microorganism can mutate with the purpose of changing its genotype and
> > > > thus increasing its chances of surviving under very harsh conditions.
> > > The way I look at it the mutation of gene potential is just there -
> > >The organism doesn't direct it it JUST IS or ISN'T.
> > It appears you missed the point. Until several years ago, it was
> > generally agreed that mutation is a random event. However, based on the
> > theory above and the evidence that supports it,
>
> evidence that they are not - the gene gun et. al. ?
>
> > it now appears that not all mutations are random. The difference is
> > significant and indicates,
> > contrary to Torsten's assertion, that mutations can have purpose
>
> Whose - God - Ma Nature ?
It is simply the purpose of change, which does not imply 'whose'
purpose.
Tracy
Tracy Aquilla
>
> > It appears you missed the point. Until several years ago, it was
> > generally agreed that mutation is a random event. However, based on the
> > all mutations are random.
>
> It doesn't matter.
Oh, why not? The distinction is significant, as it disproves the
assertion that mutations cannot have a purpose.
> Torsten is using the word purpose correctly.
Perhaps, but if so, he was apparently unaware that mutations can have a
purpose.
> For a microrganism to do anything on purpose it would have to be self-aware.
I did not use the phrase "on purpose", rather, you have interjected that
term. Please provide the source of your definition of "purpose", which
makes reference to self-awareness.
Do you also maintain that microorganisms are chemotactic for no purpose?
Do they also reproduce for no purpose?
> The mutation may be directed by some biochemical mechanism and it may
> serve a purpose but it was not made on purpose as it would imply some
> sort of decision-making.
Decision making does not necessarily require sentience or
self-awareness; decision making is common in lower organisms, even if
based solely on biochemical mechanisms.
Did you know that males of C. elegans masturbate?
Tracy
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> I am talking about the relation between
>> the two concepts. The concept 'engineering' implies change,
>> but unlike the concept 'evolution', the concept 'engineering' cannot
>> imply change without also implying a purpose of change.
> I guess I still don't get it - every time sex is involved there is change
>-Excluding cloning - normally when there is sexual reproduction there
> is change and genetic variability ?
Harold, the keyword is not change, it is _purpose_.
Sexual reproduction does not imply purpose of genetic change.
Torsten Brinch
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>
>> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>> ><..>any genetic change in a plant or
>> >animal that does not or cannot propagate in nature, but does so with
>> >human mediated efforts constitutes genetic engineering.
>> By that logic genocide and the extinction of species due to
>> human activities would also constitute genetic engineering.
>> Is that your intention?
>> (I would find such language use unnecessarily imprecise)
>No, I don't see at all how this refers to what I wrote.
Sorry. Then the logic of what you wrote must have escaped me.
Please explain.
Torsten Brinch
>In article <MvMi4.821$%W4....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>> >I may be wrong
>> >about this, but haven't found anything that states that the yellow
>> >pigment in yellow endospermed Sorghum is due to carotenoids.
>> Well, the yellow endospermed sorghum is actually due to carotenoids,
>> but let us just leave it at that.
>> It is irrelevant to your claim which is about maize.
>The only item I could find on the web concerning carotenoids in Sorghum
>grain is at: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0818e/T0818E0e.htm#Vitamins.
>It's not clear to me that the yellow color is entirely due to
>carotenoids. There are other phyto-pigments that can give a yellow color
>to plant tissues. If you have further information on this I'd be
>interested. If you wish, I'll consider this a side issue. I'd like to
>learn more about the biology of Sorghum.
I find this issue only marginally relevant. But yellow endospermed
sorghum does in fact have a carotenoid pathway, as you have learned
now. I am of course not in a position to say carotenoids are solely
responsible for the yellow color. I would find it unlikely.
But that question is fortunately completely irrelevant in this
context.
>> ><..> There is no record available to say where
>> >yellow endosperm falls. It may have been purposely looked for or like
>> >products such as 'post-it-notes', it may have been found while looking
>> >for something else. I would imagine that even you would consider the
>> >glue in 'post-it-notes' to be an engineered product, even though the
>> >scientist at 3M that discovered it, was actually looking for something
>> >else.
>> Wow, that's more like it, Marty. This is a far cry from your original
>> categorical claim "ancient breeders have engineered this trait into
>> maize a few thousand years ago". Actually you are saying
>> that there does not exist sufficient evidence for your claim --
>> that it might have been just one of these things that happens.
>> My, my, we may witness a progress for rationality, the sound
>> adjustment of a claim to fit the evidence. I am proud of you,
>> Marty. You owe me a few thousands years and you bloody
>> know it :-)
>So, I guess you're saying that products like post-it-notes, round-up,
>etc, are not engineered; since the end product's use was not the
>originally intended use.
This discussion is about maize, more specifically your claim,
that ancient breeders engineered the yellow sperm trait
into maize a few thousands years ago. If you are trying
to express that it may well be that some people just happened to
stumble across a variety of maize with the trait yellow endosperm,
but that this _still_ would mean that they had engineered the
trait into it, then you are speaking nonsense. Please reconsider.
>> >I gave you my rational behind the when. As for the how, if you
>> >have any better explanations, I'd be happy to hear them.
>> It is (was) your claim, and therefore your burden of proof.
>Well, I guess by your reasoning one can suppose that Stone Henge in
>England or the giant stone statues on Easter Island could have been
>created by natural phenomena, since there is no 'proof' that they were
>built by humans. Again, if you have a better explanation as to how
>these occurred, I'd be happy to hear it.
Please stick to the subject of this discussion.
>>> >If obtaining carotenoid-endospermed cereals was as trivial as you're
>> >trying to make it to be, we would have seen it long ago in wheat and
>> >rice, etc. Maize is not all that different at this level from other
>> >cereals, nor is maize a 'magic' plant. Perhaps, the early maize genetic
>> >engineers were simply better at their trade than those involved in
>> >shaping other cereals ;-)
>> If you inspect the preceding paragraph critically, Marty, you
>> will note that it does not add support for your claim.
>Not in your eyes in any case.
And on review the paragraph, it l does in yours? Then please explain.
>> >> Artificial selection. Thanks. And the time scale? You said people have
>> >> been genetically engineering plants and animals for thousands of years
>> >> (using the technique of artificial selection). How _many_ thousands
>> >> of years would that be more precisely?
>> >As I've said numerous times in the past, at least 10,000 years. That's
>> >from the best fossil evidence to date.
>> 10 grand! Oh, careless you :-) .
>> And the best fossil evidence for that would be _?_
>We've been through this before numerous times. Simply look back
>at our past posts in Deja.
A link, please, to the relevant post. Pointing to our past posts in
Deja is like pointing to an encyclopedia. That is not a proper reference.
>> >> I think you must be able to be more specific as to the genetic
>> >> background for yellow endosperm in maize. Your are a maize
>> >> geneticist, no? I take it that maize naturally evolved with a
>> >> geranyl-geranyl-P2-geranyl-geranyl transferase system,
>> >> which enables it to produce phytoene in endosperm?
>> >See above, y1 encodes phytoene synthase. So, no, maize did not
>> >naturally evolve the ability to synthesize phytoene in endosperm. The
>> >Y1 allele is in maize only. Certainly, however, this ability exists in
>> >the leaves (as it does in all green plants).
>> I see. In your mind, would the first ancient breeders first have
>> had to put that Y1 allele into maize, or did it just happen to be
>> there when they allegedly started to put other genes into it?
>It's not clear in what order the event(s) occurred. They didn't leave
>behind their 'lab notes'.
Think, man, think. It is quite obvious that not all orders of events
are equally possible, and some may entirely lack plausibility.
It is your hypothesis, and I should have thought you had considered
which of the scenarios which is endowed with plausibility before
you cared to set your hypothesis forth.
Make up for that blunder now, please.
>> >> But what
>> >> is the rest of the story, what evidence of transformative events
>> >> have more precisely been recorded in the maize genome, enabling
>> >> the desaturation and cyclization steps necessary to process
>> >> phytoene into colored substances?
>> >See above for details. It is a combination of novel multiple uses for
>> >single genes in the pathway, as well as gene duplication and separation
>> >of function for other genes.
>> So, in your mind, your hypothetical breeders could _not_ have
>> effected it with one single transition event, I conclude.
>I don't think so, but they might have. The actual hows regarding this
>were not recorded.
When you say it might have been possible that a single transition
event made corn yellow endospermed, which transitional scenario,
more precisely, would be on your mind?
>> >However, the whole story is not available yet
>> >since not all the genes in the maize carotenoid synthesis pathway
>> >have been isolated and sequenced. Nor, have the genes isolated
>> >in maize been examined in teosinte as yet.
>> Pity. Such evidence could have become crucial for your case.
>I don't see how. If all of this were done, you still wouldn't accept
>this.
That is unsubstantiated slaunderous ad hominem, Marty,
and not fit for a scientist.
>> >If you start off with a plant that lacks a trait in nature, and end up
>> >with a plant that has this trait after human manipulation, one has
>> >engineered this trait into the plant. <..>
>> Nonsense. A plant does not stop to evolve just because
>> it becomes subject of human manipulation.
>This is certainly true (although natural selection is usually a much
>slower process than artificial selection and we're talking about a
>time-frame of thousands of years, not millions). However, it is also
>clear that many plant traits that are found after human manipulation are
>never found in nature. Carotenoids in endosperm is one such trait.
>Again, if obtaining carotenoid-endospermed cereals was as trivial as
>you're trying to make it to be, we would have seen it long ago in wheat
>and rice, etc.
I think your argument here is that it is not a trivial matter,
and therefore it must have been engineered. But that is
a non sequitur.
I have made no implications that it is a trivial matter, btw.
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>>
>> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> which is carrying purpose (better expressed: which _is_ purpose)
>> does not and cannot have any purpose. It does not matter
>> beneficial, neutral, or harmful -- it just happens, with no purpose
>> of change involved.
>
>Perhaps you are using the term "purpose" in an uncommon way, intending
>an uncommon meaning, but there is evidence indicating that a
>microorganism can mutate with the purpose of changing its genotype and
>thus increasing its chances of surviving under very harsh conditions.
>mutation".
As you describe the phenomenon, it can seem inconsistent
with what I write, and I may well have to be express my thought
more precisely. Immediately it seems clear to me that it is quite
possible that a living structure within its purpose encompasses
a selfmodifying ability. I even think I may be able to give a few
examples which confirms it. Give me a link, and I will tell you
more of what I think about the particular phenomenon you
mention.
I do not intend to use purpose in an uncommon way, btw.
It may be unfamiliar to you to read that a living structure
_is_ purpose. If you think a little about it, I expect you to
be able to understand why this necessarily must be the
case, if purpose is to exist at all. (which noone can doubt)
Hint: the physical laws of the universe has no purpose.
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388C4063...@epix.net>...
>
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> >> I am talking about the relation between
> >> the two concepts. The concept 'engineering' implies change,
> >> but unlike the concept 'evolution', the concept 'engineering' cannot
> >> imply change without also implying a purpose of change.
>
> > I guess I still don't get it - every time sex is involved there is change
> >-Excluding cloning - normally when there is sexual reproduction there
> > is change and genetic variability ?
>
> Harold, the keyword is not change, it is _purpose_.
> Sexual reproduction does not imply purpose of genetic change.
Purpose ? reproduction and pleasure ?
Harold
Harold Lindaberry
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> > Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> > > Harold Lindaberry wrote:
> > > > Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> > > > > Torsten Brinch wrote:
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > whether such a mutation from some perspective can be said to be
> > > > > > beneficial, neutral, or harmful -- it just happens, with no purpose
> > > > > > of change involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you are using the term "purpose" in an uncommon way, intending
> > > > > an uncommon meaning, but there is evidence indicating that a
> > > > > microorganism can mutate with the purpose of changing its genotype and
> > > > > thus increasing its chances of surviving under very harsh conditions.
> [snip]
> > > > The way I look at it the mutation of gene potential is just there -
> [snip]
> > > >The organism doesn't direct it it JUST IS or ISN'T.
> [snip]
> > > It appears you missed the point. Until several years ago, it was
> > > generally agreed that mutation is a random event. However, based on the
> > > theory above and the evidence that supports it,
> >
> > evidence that they are not - the gene gun et. al. ?
> >
> > > it now appears that not all mutations are random. The difference is
> > > significant and indicates,
> > > contrary to Torsten's assertion, that mutations can have purpose
> >
> > Whose - God - Ma Nature ?
>
> It is simply the purpose of change, which does not imply 'whose'
> purpose.
You look at your way I'll look at it mine
Harold
>
> Tracy
Torsten Brinch
><..> For a microrganism to do anything on purpose it would have
>to be self-aware.
I don't think that self-awareness is a precondition for being
purposeful, rather that it must be the other way around.
>The mutation may be directed by some biochemical mechanism and it may
>serve a purpose but it was not made on purpose as it would imply some
>sort of decision-making.
Purpose implies the existence of a causality which goes beyond
and cannot be explained by the physical concept of cause and
effect. It does not imply decision-making. A physical object must
be purposeful long before it can even start to think about making
decisions.
Joao Jose Marques
> term.
You and Torsten used the expression "with the purpose". I assume "doing
something with a purpose" and "doing something on purpose" mean pretty
much the same.
> Please provide the source of your definition of "purpose", which
> makes reference to self-awareness.
Any dictionary will tell you that purpose is related to intention,
planning, aiming, designing etc. Only self-aware beings are capable of
such things.
> Do you also maintain that microorganisms are chemotactic for no purpose?
> Do they also reproduce for no purpose?
I maintain microrganisms reproduce without any purpose as they have no
idea what reproduction is and what its results are. Actually,
microorganisms, plants and most animals don't even know themselves
exist.
> Decision making does not necessarily require sentience or
> self-awareness; decision making is common in lower organisms, even if
> based solely on biochemical mechanisms.
According to some, not even Humans are truly capable of making
decisions. What to say about lower organisms? Microorganisms, plants and
most animals, if not all, never make decisions. They respond to
environmental conditions according to their genotype.
> Did you know that males of C. elegans masturbate?
Do these little perverts know what they are doing or they are just
responding to hormonal stimulus when they become sexually mature? Some
C. elegans are hermafrodites and capable of self-fertilization. Perhaps
the males don't "know" they are not hermafrodites and are simply trying
to fertilize themselves.
--
João Marques
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> Harold, the keyword is not change, it is _purpose_.
>> Sexual reproduction does not imply purpose of genetic change.
>
> Purpose ? reproduction and pleasure ?
Maybe I have used the word purpose so much that you
are forgetting that you do understand what it means? Fundamentally
purpose can only exist in a physical world if it is, at its very base,
a purpose to survive as a purposeful physical object -- and as physical
objects are perishable, purpose can only be perpetuated if it also is a
purpose to reproduce itself. Not unsurprisingly the zillionth reproduction
in an unbroken chain of succesful reproductions comes equipped
with a very strong and finely tuned drive to uphold and reproduce itself.
Sexually, if that is the option available to it. Pleasure, call it whatever
you like. Anything it takes to rock your hips.
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >So, I guess you're saying that products like post-it-notes, round-up,
> >etc, are not engineered; since the end product's use was not the
> >originally intended use.
>
> This discussion is about maize, more specifically your claim,
> that ancient breeders engineered the yellow sperm trait
> into maize a few thousands years ago.
Well, yes, but I need to understand what you mean by 'engineer' in order
to answer your concerns.
> If you are trying
> to express that it may well be that some people just happened to
> stumble across a variety of maize with the trait yellow endosperm,
> but that this _still_ would mean that they had engineered the
> trait into it, then you are speaking nonsense. Please reconsider.
Even biotech folks 'stumble' across traits and then put them to use. I
don't see much difference between this and if one stumbles across a
trait, that the plant normally would not use and would be lost in a
natural setting, and then incorporates this trait into several different
varieties. Thus the trait only exits in the final product (in this case
yellow endosperm in maize) because of human manipulation.
> >Well, I guess by your reasoning one can suppose that Stone Henge in
> >England or the giant stone statues on Easter Island could have been
> >created by natural phenomena, since there is no 'proof' that they were
> >built by humans. Again, if you have a better explanation as to how
> >these occurred, I'd be happy to hear it.
>
> Please stick to the subject of this discussion.
Again, I need to know where you're coming from in order to explain this
to you better. My 'claim' that the yellow endosperm trait is one that
was genetically engineered in maize a few thousand years ago is similar
to my 'claim' that Stone Henge in England and the giant stone statues on
Easter Island are human engineered constructs.
>
> >We've been through this before numerous times. Simply look back
> >at our past posts in Deja.
>
> A link, please, to the relevant post. Pointing to our past posts in
> Deja is like pointing to an encyclopedia. That is not a proper reference.
You're the one that is usually so keen to use an encyclopedia as a
reference.
> >It's not clear in what order the event(s) occurred. They didn't leave
> >behind their 'lab notes'.
>
> Think, man, think. It is quite obvious that not all orders of events
> are equally possible, and some may entirely lack plausibility.
> It is your hypothesis, and I should have thought you had considered
> which of the scenarios which is endowed with plausibility before
> you cared to set your hypothesis forth.
It's like asking, which stone in Stone Henge came first. There are many
possibilities.
> >I don't think so, but they might have. The actual hows regarding this
> >were not recorded.
>
> When you say it might have been possible that a single transition
> event made corn yellow endospermed, which transitional scenario,
> more precisely, would be on your mind?
As I said, I don't think so, but anything is possible. In that case
there would be numerous remote possibilities.
> >I don't see how. If all of this were done, you still wouldn't accept
> >this.
>
> That is unsubstantiated slaunderous ad hominem, Marty,
> and not fit for a scientist.
I'm just going on past experience ;-) There's lots of data supporting
my 'claim' here in deja.com. If you would actually accept this with all
the sequence and genome data you're asking for, I'm sorry if I
misrepresented you. We'll see a couple/few years down the road when
this data is available ;-)
In article <2X2j4.550$wk2....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >In article <GFMi4.859$%W4....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >> ><..>any genetic change in a plant or
> >> >animal that does not or cannot propagate in nature, but does so with
> >> >human mediated efforts constitutes genetic engineering.
>
>
<->
>
> Sorry. Then the logic of what you wrote must have escaped me.
> Please explain.
OK, I also 'claim' that Stone Henge in England and the giant stone
statues on Easter Island are human engineered constructs because that
scenario best fits the data with the fewest assumptions and fits with
human experience (Ockham's razor). I hope this helps.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Joao Jose Marques
> purposeful, rather that it must be the other way around.
It may not be a precondition for _being_ purposeful but self-awareness
is certainly a pre-condition for _acting_ purposefully.
--
João Marques
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388CBD77...@epix.net>...
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> >> Harold, the keyword is not change, it is _purpose_.
> >> Sexual reproduction does not imply purpose of genetic change.
> >
> > Purpose ? reproduction and pleasure ?
>
> Maybe I have used the word purpose so much that you
> are forgetting that you do understand what it means?
Well I guess it depends on ones dictionary and rather than belabor the
semantic issue my point of view is simply ( excluding GMO ) genetic
variability just is - and is devoid of purpose - if in the process of changing
conditions certain genes prove turn out to be beneficial or detrimental does
not represent purpose and there are probably " zillions " of combinations that
are just neutral until the conditions are right.
> Fundamentally
> purpose can only exist in a physical world if it is, at its very base,
> a purpose to survive as a purposeful physical object -- and as physical
> objects are perishable, purpose can only be perpetuated if it also is a
> purpose to reproduce itself. Not unsurprisingly the zillionth reproduction
> in an unbroken chain of succesful reproductions comes equipped
> with a very strong and finely tuned drive to uphold and reproduce itself.
Sex drive is a potent motivator.
>
> Sexually, if that is the option available to it. Pleasure, call it whatever
> you like. Anything it takes to rock your hips.
Or anything else you want to rock - Certainly homosexuals have no hope of
reproduction but the drive is still there ( so I'm told ) ;-)
Harold
Torsten Brinch
>> >etc, are not engineered; since the end product's use was not the
>> >originally intended use.
>> This discussion is about maize, more specifically your claim,
>> that ancient breeders engineered the yellow sperm trait
>> into maize a few thousands years ago.
>Well, yes, but I need to understand what you mean by 'engineer'
>in order to answer your concerns.
No, you don't. You are expected to know what you mean by
'engineer', when you use the term in a statement you make.
Your are expected to be able to explain what you mean,
if your statement is questioned. I am expected to listen and
be able to understand you if you explain yourself properly.
>> If you are trying
>> to express that it may well be that some people just happened to
>> stumble across a variety of maize with the trait yellow endosperm,
>> but that this _still_ would mean that they had engineered the
>> trait into it, then you are speaking nonsense. Please reconsider.
>Even biotech folks 'stumble' across traits and then put them to use. I
>don't see much difference between this and if one stumbles across a
>trait, that the plant normally would not use and would be lost in a
>natural setting, and then incorporates this trait into several different
>varieties. Thus the trait only exits in the final product (in this case
>yellow endosperm in maize) because of human manipulation.
I think it is good that you do see a difference between what you
write now and your original claim, which you are now reconsidering
and distancing yourself from. You are loathe to give the difference
much emphasis, but so what, you perceive a difference.
Changing one's mind is not easy.
>> >Well, I guess by your reasoning one can suppose that Stone Henge in
>> >England or the giant stone statues on Easter Island could have been
>> >created by natural phenomena, since there is no 'proof' that they were
>> >built by humans. Again, if you have a better explanation as to how
>> >these occurred, I'd be happy to hear it.
>> Please stick to the subject of this discussion.
>Again, I need to know where you're coming from in order to explain this
>to you better. My 'claim' that the yellow endosperm trait is one that
>was genetically engineered in maize a few thousand years ago is similar
>to my 'claim' that Stone Henge in England and the giant stone statues on
>Easter Island are human engineered constructs.
Stone Henge and Easter Island statues are irrelevant diversions.
I have questioned your claim regarding maize. Please stick to
the question at hand.
>> >We've been through this before numerous times. Simply look back
>> >at our past posts in Deja.
>> A link, please, to the relevant post. Pointing to our past posts in
>> Deja is like pointing to an encyclopedia. That is not a proper reference.
>You're the one that is usually so keen to use an encyclopedia as a
>reference.
You are acting childish.
>> >It's not clear in what order the event(s) occurred. They didn't leave
>> >behind their 'lab notes'.
>> Think, man, think. It is quite obvious that not all orders of events
>> are equally possible, and some may entirely lack plausibility.
>> It is your hypothesis, and I should have thought you had considered
>> which of the scenarios which is endowed with plausibility before
>> you cared to set your hypothesis forth.
>It's like asking, which stone in Stone Henge came first. There are many
>possibilities.
No. It is like asking which stones could not have come first.
If you look at a picture of Stone Henge, you will surely see what
I mean.
Torsten Brinch
>> >> >animal that does not or cannot propagate in nature, but does so with
>> >> >human mediated efforts constitutes genetic engineering.
>> Sorry. Then the logic of what you wrote must have escaped me.
>> Please explain.
>OK, I also 'claim' that Stone Henge in England and the giant stone
>statues on Easter Island are human engineered constructs because that
>scenario best fits the data with the fewest assumptions and fits with
>human experience (Ockham's razor). I hope this helps.
Not really. What you are making reference to here would be
a question of empirical fact, and the thing we are talking about
here is an enquiry into language use, which cannot be resolved
by making reference to something empirical.
You wrote: "any genetic change in a plant or animal that does
not or cannot propagate in nature, but does so with
human mediated efforts constitutes genetic engineering."
It is a not too well phrased statement, but I did understand
you as expressing that a human mediated effort to increase
frequencies of certain genetic combinations constitutes
genetic engineering. I asked you whether a human
mediated effort to _decrease_ the frequencies of certain
genetic combinations by that logic would also constitute
genetic engineering.
To this, you answered that my question has no bearing to
your original statement. So now I think that I did not understand
your original statement and am asking you, please, to explain
what you meant.
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388CBD77...@epix.net>...
>> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> >> Harold, the keyword is not change, it is _purpose_.
>> >> Sexual reproduction does not imply purpose of genetic change.
>> >
>> > Purpose ? reproduction and pleasure ?
>> Maybe I have used the word purpose so much that you
>> are forgetting that you do understand what it means?
> Well I guess it depends on ones dictionary and rather than belabor the
>semantic issue my point of view is simply ( excluding GMO ) genetic
>variability just is - and is devoid of purpose - if in the process of
>changing conditions certain genes prove turn out to be beneficial or
>detrimental does not represent purpose and there are probably
>" zillions " of combinations that are just neutral until the conditions
>are right.
I agree. But the concept of a change being potentially
beneficial or detrimental already implies a purpose
for which it can be beneficial or detrimental.
>> Fundamentally
>> purpose can only exist in a physical world if it is, at its very base,
>> a purpose to survive as a purposeful physical object -- and as physical
>> objects are perishable, purpose can only be perpetuated if it also is a
>> purpose to reproduce itself. Not unsurprisingly the zillionth
>>reproduction
>> in an unbroken chain of succesful reproductions comes equipped
>> with a very strong and finely tuned drive to uphold and reproduce itself.
> Sex drive is a potent motivator.
Indeed. There were times in my life where I was under its
influence almost as compellingly as I were under the influence
of gravity. And the drive is still burning in me -- albeit at a lower
heat level -- now that it has successfully fulfilled its purpose.
>> Sexually, if that is the option available to it. Pleasure, call it
>> whatever you like. Anything it takes to rock your hips.
>Or anything else you want to rock - Certainly homosexuals have no
>hope of reproduction but the drive is still there ( so I'm told ) ;-)
Yes. The drive has obviously become perverted in homosexuals --
something has gone 'wrong'. It is difficult to imagine how a genetically
based homosexual drive can be a factor ensuring its own reproduction.
Torsten Brinch
A machine can be purposeful, and we point to the designer as
the origin of the purpose in it. A machine is not said to be acting
purpusefully however, so your are making an important distinction.
The philosophical problem with a living (an maybe non-self-aware)
being is that it is purposeful as a machine, but that we can point to
no designers purpose to explain its apparent purposefulness.
Humans are in a situation in which it would be true to say that
they are purposeful (just like any other living beings); on top
of that they are self-aware -- and in particular they are aware
of themselves as purposeful beings.
The conscious experience of acting on purpose is quite
interesting. Science has found, that the intention to act
predates the conscious experience of deciding whether
to act or not. It seems to be the case, that conscious
decision-making is functioning as a kind of censorship,
which -- fed by deeper layers in the mental structure
with propositions for potential acts -- accepts some
propositions for implementation, while others are being
rejected or blocked from taking effect. In other words,
science has shown that the intention (impulse, proposition)
to act predates the consciously experienced decision to act.
This may be surprising at first, but philosophically speaking
it could not be different, since it must take a certain time for
a physical state of mind to be built up, which can be
experienced as being in the process of acting on purpose.
Interestingly 'propose' and 'purpose' have the same
ethymological origin.
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388CD791...@epix.net>...
> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
> >> Harold Lindaberry skrev i meddelelsen <388CBD77...@epix.net>...
> >> >Torsten Brinch wrote:
>
> >> >> Harold, the keyword is not change, it is _purpose_.
> >> >> Sexual reproduction does not imply purpose of genetic change.
> >> >
> >> > Purpose ? reproduction and pleasure ?
>
> >> Maybe I have used the word purpose so much that you
> >> are forgetting that you do understand what it means?
>
> > Well I guess it depends on ones dictionary and rather than belabor the
> >semantic issue my point of view is simply ( excluding GMO ) genetic
> >variability just is - and is devoid of purpose - if in the process of
> >changing conditions certain genes prove turn out to be beneficial or
> >detrimental does not represent purpose and there are probably
> >" zillions " of combinations that are just neutral until the conditions
> >are right.
>
> I agree. But the concept of a change being potentially
> beneficial or detrimental already implies a purpose
> for which it can be beneficial or detrimental.
Torsten I think we've just about flogged this philosophical semantics gene
engineering horse to death - each time the zillion neutral bystanders are there
and serve no purpose they are lost - and the next go round ( sexual encounter )
there is a different combination of neutral bystanders - I would say the
possibilities infinite if I knew what infinite was but I guess that is a topic
for another discussion
>
>
> >> Fundamentally
> >> purpose can only exist in a physical world if it is, at its very base,
> >> a purpose to survive as a purposeful physical object -- and as physical
> >> objects are perishable, purpose can only be perpetuated if it also is a
> >> purpose to reproduce itself. Not unsurprisingly the zillionth
> >>reproduction
> >> in an unbroken chain of succesful reproductions comes equipped
> >> with a very strong and finely tuned drive to uphold and reproduce itself.
>
> > Sex drive is a potent motivator.
>
> Indeed. There were times in my life where I was under its
> influence almost as compellingly as I were under the influence
> of gravity. And the drive is still burning in me -- albeit at a lower
> heat level -- now that it has successfully fulfilled its purpose.
I know what you mean - the mind is willing but the flesh is weak - not only
in sex but other endeavors - too bad we don't have the knowledge early when
we've got the get up and go to do it.
>
>
> >> Sexually, if that is the option available to it. Pleasure, call it
> >> whatever you like. Anything it takes to rock your hips.
>
> >Or anything else you want to rock - Certainly homosexuals have no
> >hope of reproduction but the drive is still there ( so I'm told ) ;-)
>
> Yes. The drive has obviously become perverted in homosexuals --
> something has gone 'wrong'. It is difficult to imagine how a genetically
> based homosexual drive can be a factor ensuring its own reproduction.
Possibly an in built population control method ? ;-)
Harold
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> <..> the concept of a change being potentially
>> beneficial or detrimental already implies a purpose
>> for which it can be beneficial or detrimental.
>Torsten I think we've just about flogged this philosophical
>semantics gene engineering horse to death -
If you've had enough, you have probably already had
more than enough. Harold.
I dare to hope that I have made my point :-)
>each time the zillion neutral bystanders are there
>and serve no purpose they are lost - and the next go
>round ( sexual encounter ) there is a different combination
>of neutral bystanders - I would say the possibilities infinite
>if I knew what infinite was but I guess that is a topic
>for another discussion
It could well be, but I suggest we leave it at that for today.
>> > Sex drive is a potent motivator.
>> Indeed. There were times in my life where I was under its
>> influence almost as compellingly as I were under the influence
>> of gravity. And the drive is still burning in me -- albeit at a lower
>> heat level -- now that it has successfully fulfilled its purpose.
>I know what you mean - the mind is willing but the flesh is weak -
>not only in sex but other endeavors - too bad we don't have the
>knowledge early when we've got the get up and go to do it.
"Living is done forwards, and is understood backwards"
(as some bloke whose name I do not remember once noted)
Hm. Maybe one could say the same about evolution.
;^)
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >In article <3X2j4.551$wk2....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >> >So, I guess you're saying that products like post-it-notes, round-up,
> >> >etc, are not engineered; since the end product's use was not the
> >> >originally intended use.
>
> >> This discussion is about maize, more specifically your claim,
> >> that ancient breeders engineered the yellow sperm trait
> >> into maize a few thousands years ago.
>
> >Well, yes, but I need to understand what you mean by 'engineer'
> >in order to answer your concerns.
>
>
> No, you don't. You are expected to know what you mean by
> 'engineer', when you use the term in a statement you make.
> Your are expected to be able to explain what you mean,
> if your statement is questioned. I am expected to listen and
> be able to understand you if you explain yourself properly.
Torsten, I consider both to be engineered. I would like to know where
you stand on products created for one intended use and and presently
used for something unrelated to that intended use.
One reason you gave for objecting to my calling the introducing the
yellow endosperm trait into maize 'genetic engineering' was simply
because you feel that human breeders had no intention at the time of
finding that trait. I'm simply pointing to other, more modern, examples
of this and asking where you stand on these.
If these do not fall within your definition of being engineered, there's
no sense in me trying to convince you that introducing the yellow
endosperm trait into maize was also an example of genetic engineering.
> >> If you are trying
> >> to express that it may well be that some people just happened to
> >> stumble across a variety of maize with the trait yellow endosperm,
> >> but that this _still_ would mean that they had engineered the
> >> trait into it, then you are speaking nonsense. Please reconsider.
>
> >Even biotech folks 'stumble' across traits and then put them to use. I
> >don't see much difference between this and if one stumbles across a
> >trait, that the plant normally would not use and would be lost in a
> >natural setting, and then incorporates this trait into several different
> >varieties. Thus the trait only exits in the final product (in this case
> >yellow endosperm in maize) because of human manipulation.
>
>
> I think it is good that you do see a difference between what you
> write now and your original claim, which you are now reconsidering
> and distancing yourself from. You are loathe to give the difference
> much emphasis, but so what, you perceive a difference.
> Changing one's mind is not easy.
No, I have always made distinctions among different aspects of genetic
engineering. Naturally genetic engineers of today have newer tools at
their disposal than genetic engineers did a few thousand years ago.
Just as the engineers that construct buildings today have newer tools at
their disposal than the folks that built Stone Henge.
>
> >> >Well, I guess by your reasoning one can suppose that Stone Henge in
> >> >England or the giant stone statues on Easter Island could have been
> >> >created by natural phenomena, since there is no 'proof' that they
> >> >were
> >> >built by humans. Again, if you have a better explanation as to how
> >> >these occurred, I'd be happy to hear it.
>
> >> Please stick to the subject of this discussion.
>
> >Again, I need to know where you're coming from in order to explain this
> >to you better. My 'claim' that the yellow endosperm trait is one that
> >was genetically engineered in maize a few thousand years ago is similar
> >to my 'claim' that Stone Henge in England and the giant stone statues on
> >Easter Island are human engineered constructs.
>
>
> Stone Henge and Easter Island statues are irrelevant diversions.
> I have questioned your claim regarding maize. Please stick to
> the question at hand.
Again, I would like to know where you stand on these. If you will
insist that there is no 'proof' that these are engineered structures,
there is no sense in my trying to convince you any further that the
yellow endosperm trait in maize was an example of genetic engineering.
>
> >> >It's not clear in what order the event(s) occurred. They didn't
> >> >leave
> >> >behind their 'lab notes'.
>
> >> Think, man, think. It is quite obvious that not all orders of events
> >> are equally possible, and some may entirely lack plausibility.
> >> It is your hypothesis, and I should have thought you had considered
> >> which of the scenarios which is endowed with plausibility before
> >> you cared to set your hypothesis forth.
>
> >It's like asking, which stone in Stone Henge came first. There are many
> >possibilities.
>
>
> No. It is like asking which stones could not have come first.
> If you look at a picture of Stone Henge, you will surely see what
> I mean.
Sure there are some steps that might be less likely (or impossible) to
be first steps, but there are still many potential first steps. Again,
the genetic engineers of the time didn't leave notes.
In article <XBdj4.42$O37...@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >In article <2X2j4.550$wk2....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >> >In article <GFMi4.859$%W4....@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> >> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
Certainly the human mediated effort to _decrease_ the frequencies of
certain genetic combinations can also constitute genetic engineering.
However, not in the manner that you had originally described it. I do
not feel that hunting a species into extinction constitutes genetic
engineering any more than terrorists blowing up a building constitutes
engineering. Neither would constitute engineering (although
engineering may be involved in the means of destruction in both cases).
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Tracy Aquilla
[snip]
>
> You look at your way I'll look at it mine
We always do. As Oz might put it, "t'was ever thus."
Jim Webster
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>>Or anything else you want to rock - Certainly homosexuals have no
>>hope of reproduction but the drive is still there ( so I'm told ) ;-)
>
>
>Yes. The drive has obviously become perverted in homosexuals --
>something has gone 'wrong'. It is difficult to imagine how a genetically
>based homosexual drive can be a factor ensuring its own reproduction.
I have heard arguments that it was useful from a species point of view.
However it was put forward by someone who based their ideas of homosexual
society on the Theban "Sacred Band", an elite 300 stong homosexual hoplite
formation who fought and died to the last man. I can see there being a
greying of the boundries between camaradarie and explicit homosexuality and
perhaps it might be in that area that researchers wanting a reason for the
continuing of the factor could be found.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
>--
Tim Lamb
pagebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>However it was put forward by someone who based their ideas of homosexual
>society on the Theban "Sacred Band", an elite 300 stong homosexual hoplite
>formation who fought and died to the last man.
which has been puzzling me for 40 years. Thanks, Jim. You must have had
the benefit of a classical education.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Torsten Brinch
>><..> the human mediated effort to _decrease_ the frequencies of
>>certain genetic combinations can also constitute genetic engineering.
>>However, not in the manner that you had originally described it. I do
>>not feel that hunting a species into extinction constitutes genetic
>>engineering any more than terrorists blowing up a building constitutes
>>engineering. Neither would constitute engineering (although
>>engineering may be involved in the means of destruction in both cases).
But which human mediated efforts to decrease the frequencies
of certain genetic combinations would you call genetic engineering
and which wouldn't you call genetic engineering, and how do you
make the distinction?
Same question as above, but with 'decrease' substituted with
'increase'?
[P.S. It is of no convenience to anybody that you mingles posts
from different subthreads. Kindly, please don't do it. It messes
up the reference system of threaded newsreader systems.]
Torsten Brinch
>In article <WBdj4.41$O37...@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>> >> This discussion is about maize, more specifically your claim,
>> >> that ancient breeders engineered the yellow sperm trait
>> >> into maize a few thousands years ago.
><..> I would like to know
>where you stand on products created for one intended use
>and and presently used for something unrelated to that
>intended use.
The distinction is irrelevant. If something has been engineered
for some intended use, then it has been engineered.
A primary engineering effort can of course not be neutralized
by a secondary engineering effort.
>One reason you gave for objecting to my calling the introducing the
>yellow endosperm trait into maize 'genetic engineering' was simply
>because you feel that human breeders had no intention at the time of
>finding that trait. I'm simply pointing to other, more modern, examples
>of this and asking where you stand on these.
>If these do not fall within your definition of being engineered, there's
>no sense in me trying to convince you that introducing the yellow
>endosperm trait into maize was also an example of genetic engineering.
One cannot say, that ancient folks stumbled across a plant
with a certain trait and at the same time say that these people
engineered that trait into the plant. It is abject nonsense,
as I have already told you. If you want to set forth a hypothesis
as to the origin of yellow endosperm in maize then you must
choose. You cannot have it both ways.
>> Stone Henge and Easter Island statues are irrelevant diversions.
>> I have questioned your claim regarding maize. Please stick to
>> the question at hand.
>Again, I would like to know where you stand on these. If you will
>insist that there is no 'proof' that these are engineered structures,
>there is no sense in my trying to <snip>
The implication of that statement is ridiculous, Marty, and
slightly insulting. Come on.
>> >> It is your hypothesis, and I should have thought you had considered
>> >> which of the scenarios which is endowed with plausibility before
>> >> you cared to set your hypothesis forth.
<..>
>Sure there are some steps that might be less likely (or impossible) to
>be first steps, but there are still many potential first steps. Again,
>the genetic engineers of the time didn't leave notes.
Oh. I would be happy if you would sketch out just a single plausible
scenario consistent with your hypothesis that ancient breeders
engineered the yellow endosperm trait into maize a few thousands
years ago.
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> >Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
>
>
> >><..> the human mediated effort to _decrease_ the frequencies of
> >>certain genetic combinations can also constitute genetic engineering.
> >>However, not in the manner that you had originally described it. I do
> >>not feel that hunting a species into extinction constitutes genetic
> >>engineering any more than terrorists blowing up a building constitutes
> >>engineering. Neither would constitute engineering (although
> >>engineering may be involved in the means of destruction in both cases).
>
>
> But which human mediated efforts to decrease the frequencies
> of certain genetic combinations would you call genetic engineering
> and which wouldn't you call genetic engineering, and how do you
> make the distinction?
>
> Same question as above, but with 'decrease' substituted with
> 'increase'?
Well, for one, inbreeding in maize would tend to cause a decrease the
frequencies of certain genetic combinations and an increase in others.
I would consider inbred line development in maize a form of genetic
engineering (since maize is naturally a wind pollinator and would
normally be severely affected by inbreeding). I would consider any such
human mediated increase of decrease in certain genetic combinations that
are directed toward shaping a plant or animal to be more useful to man
to be genetic engineering. With lack of any historical records, I would
consider those that go against the flow of natural selection, but
clearly toward propagation of a trait desirable to man, to be genetic
engineering.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >In article <WBdj4.41$O37...@news.get2net.dk>, "Torsten Brinch"
> ><ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> This discussion is about maize, more specifically your claim,
> >> >> that ancient breeders engineered the yellow sperm trait
> >> >> into maize a few thousands years ago.
>
>
> ><..> I would like to know
> >where you stand on products created for one intended use
> >and and presently used for something unrelated to that
> >intended use.
>
> The distinction is irrelevant. If something has been engineered
> for some intended use, then it has been engineered.
> A primary engineering effort can of course not be neutralized
> by a secondary engineering effort.
So, wouldn't it be genetic engineering if ancient breeders, in planting
different maize -or- proto-maize varieties together in a field, looking
for one trait in the progeny but in addition/instead finding a yellow
kernel (that resulted from combining a number of different mutations in
gene of the carotenoid pathway) and deciding that this was useful (for
whatever reason) and then deciding to purposefully propagate this trait
and purposefully introduce it into other maize -or- proto-maize
varieties? I think so.
>
> >One reason you gave for objecting to my calling the introducing the
> >yellow endosperm trait into maize 'genetic engineering' was simply
> >because you feel that human breeders had no intention at the time of
> >finding that trait. I'm simply pointing to other, more modern, examples
> >of this and asking where you stand on these.
>
> >If these do not fall within your definition of being engineered, there's
> >no sense in me trying to convince you that introducing the yellow
> >endosperm trait into maize was also an example of genetic engineering.
>
> One cannot say, that ancient folks stumbled across a plant
> with a certain trait and at the same time say that these people
> engineered that trait into the plant. It is abject nonsense,
> as I have already told you. If you want to set forth a hypothesis
> as to the origin of yellow endosperm in maize then you must
> choose. You cannot have it both ways.
No, but the yellow endosperm trait could have been found by ancient
breeders in conjunction with other genetic engineering efforts, and they
might have decided that it was a valuable trait, and then propagated and
incorporated this trait into several different maize varieties.
> >> Stone Henge and Easter Island statues are irrelevant diversions.
> >> I have questioned your claim regarding maize. Please stick to
> >> the question at hand.
>
> >Again, I would like to know where you stand on these. If you will
> >insist that there is no 'proof' that these are engineered structures,
> >there is no sense in my trying to <snip>
>
> The implication of that statement is ridiculous, Marty, and
> slightly insulting. Come on.
I don't understand why you're insulted by this. I really don't mean to
offend. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from on this.
I can only guess from your reluctance to answer this, that you must feel
that since there is no 'proof' that these are human engineered
structures (or that any human activity was involved in their
construction), one cannot say that they are. Please correct me if my
interpretation is wrong. However, if my assumption is correct, I guess
we'll simply have to agree to disagree as to what constitutes
engineering.
> >> >> It is your hypothesis, and I should have thought you had considered
> >> >> which of the scenarios which is endowed with plausibility before
> >> >> you cared to set your hypothesis forth.
> <..>
>
>
> >Sure there are some steps that might be less likely (or impossible) to
> >be first steps, but there are still many potential first steps. Again,
> >the genetic engineers of the time didn't leave notes.
>
> Oh. I would be happy if you would sketch out just a single plausible
> scenario consistent with your hypothesis that ancient breeders
> engineered the yellow endosperm trait into maize a few thousands
> years ago.
See above. I can't say that this is how it happened, but it seems to me
to be a single plausible scenario. However, no matter how ancient
breeders accomplished it, it is clear that that this was a human
mediated event. Otherwise, I would expect yellow endosperm to be found
in wild grasses, and that yellow grained rice would have been found long
ago.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Torsten Brinch
It couldn't be said to be engineering the yellow endosperm trait
into maize. But the scenario you set up would indeed constitute
engineering -- in the sense of making skillful use of the trait once
it was there. Which evidence supports this scenario?
>> >One reason you gave for objecting to my calling the introducing the
>> >yellow endosperm trait into maize 'genetic engineering' was simply
>> >because you feel that human breeders had no intention at the time of
>> >finding that trait. I'm simply pointing to other, more modern, examples
>> >of this and asking where you stand on these.
>>
>> >If these do not fall within your definition of being engineered, there's
>> >no sense in me trying to convince you that introducing the yellow
>> >endosperm trait into maize was also an example of genetic engineering.
>>
>> One cannot say, that ancient folks stumbled across a plant
>> with a certain trait and at the same time say that these people
>> engineered that trait into the plant. It is abject nonsense,
>> as I have already told you. If you want to set forth a hypothesis
>> as to the origin of yellow endosperm in maize then you must
>> choose. You cannot have it both ways.
>No, but the yellow endosperm trait could have been found by ancient
>breeders in conjunction with other genetic engineering efforts, and they
>might have decided that it was a valuable trait, and then propagated and
>incorporated this trait into several different maize varieties.
I think it is possible that the trait originated as a mutation in maize at
some point in time. The alternative would be that the trait has been
present from the very earliest plant stock which could reasonably be
said to be maize. But in neither case it would be correct to say that
ancient breeders engineered the trait into maize.
<..>
>> >Again, I would like to know where you stand on these. If you will
>> >insist that there is no 'proof' that these are engineered structures,
>> >there is no sense in my trying to <snip>
>> The implication of that statement is ridiculous, Marty, and
>> slightly insulting. Come on.
>I don't understand why you're insulted by this. I really don't mean to
>offend. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from on this.
>I can only guess from your reluctance to answer this, that you must feel
>that since there is no 'proof' that these are human engineered
>structures (or that any human activity was involved in their
>construction), one cannot say that they are. Please correct me if my
>interpretation is wrong.
It is ridiculous. There is not even the remotest possibility
that Stone Henge and the statues on Easter Island could
be anything but the result of engineering. The slightly
insulting bit is that you imply that I might think that there
is. In the context that judgement is of course just boringly
irrelevant. But, again in the context, you are seeding the
thought that your opponent's reluctance to accept your
arguments might simply be explained by his blatant
stupidity. I consider that bad form.
>> >> >> It is your hypothesis, and I should have thought you had considered
>> >> >> which of the scenarios which is endowed with plausibility before
>> >> >> you cared to set your hypothesis forth.
>> <..>
>> >Sure there are some steps that might be less likely (or impossible) to
>> >be first steps, but there are still many potential first steps. Again,
>> >the genetic engineers of the time didn't leave notes.
>> Oh. I would be happy if you would sketch out just a single plausible
>> scenario consistent with your hypothesis that ancient breeders
>> engineered the yellow endosperm trait into maize a few thousands
>> years ago.
>See above. I can't say that this is how it happened, but it seems to me
>to be a single plausible scenario. However, no matter how ancient
>breeders accomplished it, it is clear that that this was a human
>mediated event. Otherwise, I would expect yellow endosperm to
>be found in wild grasses, and that yellow grained rice would have
>been found long ago.
It is not clear that it was a human mediated event. You base this
on a non sequitur. From the fact that yellow endosperm is not
found in wild grasses and did not appear in rice until it was
engineered into it, nothing can be concluded about the origin
of the trait in maize.
Torsten Brinch
>> >>certain genetic combinations can also constitute genetic engineering.
>> >>However, not in the manner that you had originally described it. I do
>> >>not feel that hunting a species into extinction constitutes genetic
>> >>engineering any more than terrorists blowing up a building constitutes
>> >>engineering. Neither would constitute engineering (although
>> >>engineering may be involved in the means of destruction in both cases).
>>
>>
>> But which human mediated efforts to decrease the frequencies
>> of certain genetic combinations would you call genetic engineering
>> and which wouldn't you call genetic engineering, and how do you
>> make the distinction?
>>
>> Same question as above, but with 'decrease' substituted with
>> 'increase'?
>
>
>Well, for one, inbreeding in maize would tend to cause a decrease the
>frequencies of certain genetic combinations and an increase in others.
>I would consider inbred line development in maize a form of genetic
>engineering (since maize is naturally a wind pollinator and would
>normally be severely affected by inbreeding). I would consider any such
>human mediated increase of decrease in certain genetic combinations that
>are directed toward shaping a plant or animal to be more useful to man
>to be genetic engineering.
So would the genocide during WW2 constitute genetic engineering
in your language? Undoubtedly it was a human mediated decrease
of certain genetic combinations directed toward shaping an animal.
And it was clearly seen as useful to the men who set up and performed
a skilled and scientifically based engineering effort to achieve
a 'final solution' to the Jew gene contamination problem.
If I understand you correctly the other, more general, example I gave,
extinction of species, would have to be divided into two, based on
the clause 'directed towards'. If a directed extermination campaign
is being performed, then it would be called genetic engineering within
your language use -- whereas in the case that the extinction is a
non-intended side-effect from other activities, you would not say
that it constitutes genetic engineering.
>With lack of any historical records, I would
>consider those that go against the flow of natural selection, but
>clearly toward propagation of a trait desirable to man, to be genetic
>engineering.
That begs the question what is to be understood by something going
against the flow of natural selection. How do you recognize it when it
does? That distinction would be crucial to your definition, since
natural selection may well favor and propagate a trait desirable to
man, within an artifical setting like agriculture.
Harold Lindaberry
Torsten Brinch wrote:
No one ever said that all genetic engineering projects were directed toward
scientific beneficial ends - usually when directed towards political or
religious ends they may be counter productive ie. biological warfare - marrying
within a specific group eliminating a specific group - I expect one might
classify arab - jewish conflict in the same light as hitler ? Kosavov the
reverse process - the crusades ?
> Undoubtedly it was a human mediated decrease
> of certain genetic combinations directed toward shaping an animal.
> And it was clearly seen as useful to the men who set up and performed
> a skilled and scientifically based engineering effort to achieve
> a 'final solution' to the Jew gene contamination problem.
>
> If I understand you correctly the other, more general, example I gave,
> extinction of species, would have to be divided into two, based on
> the clause 'directed towards'. If a directed extermination campaign
> is being performed, then it would be called genetic engineering within
> your language use
It would in mine but that doesn't necessarily make it bad IMO ie. small pox,
HIV, cholera, malaria, ETC. I think you get the point or at least hope so
> -- whereas in the case that the extinction is a
> non-intended side-effect from other activities, you would not say
> that it constitutes genetic engineering.
I wouldn't but each to his own interpretation - Most human biological
engineering projects require continued human intervention to maintain themselves
- unless of course you include moving non native species then it's " Katy bar
the door ".
>
>
> >With lack of any historical records, I would
> >consider those that go against the flow of natural selection, but
> >clearly toward propagation of a trait desirable to man, to be genetic
> >engineering.
>
> That begs the question what is to be understood by something going
> against the flow of natural selection.
IMO you don't change natural selection you just change the players competing
in the food chain
> How do you recognize it when it
> does? That distinction would be crucial to your definition, since
> natural selection may well favor and propagate a trait desirable to
> man, within an artifical setting like agriculture.
If we assume man is a bona fide part of the system then WHAT IS IS - that's
my point of view,
Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998
Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS
Marty Sachs
<ia...@inetdotuni2.dk> wrote:
> Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...
> >So, wouldn't it be genetic engineering if ancient breeders, in planting
> >different maize -or- proto-maize varieties together in a field, looking
> >for one trait in the progeny but in addition/instead finding a yellow
> >kernel (that resulted from combining a number of different mutations in
> >genes of the carotenoid pathway) and deciding that this was useful (for
> >whatever reason) and then deciding to purposefully propagate this trait
> >and purposefully introduce it into other maize -or- proto-maize
> >varieties? I think so.
>
>
> It couldn't be said to be engineering the yellow endosperm trait
> into maize. But the scenario you set up would indeed constitute
> engineering -- in the sense of making skillful use of the trait once
> it was there. Which evidence supports this scenario?
Again, there is no documentation of this, as there is no documentation
of purposeful human involvement in the construction of Stone Henge and
the statues on Easter Island. However, I cannot see any other plausible
explanation for the existence of yellow endosperm in maize than the
purposeful bringing together of different plants with different
mutations in the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway enabling these genes to
be expressed in the endosperm. Now these mutant genes may have gone
along for the ride with other traits that early genetic engineers were
putting together, perhaps due to genetic linkage (again, the hows of
this have not been documented). Since carotenoids serve no useful
purpose to the plant in the endosperm, if this coming together of
mutants happened in a natural setting, natural selection would have
worked against its propagation (which is why we don't see any wild
grasses with yellow endosperm). It would take a human noticing this
(one possible scenario: 'hey, this kernel is yellow; that's really neat,
let's save it and grow it up next year instead of eating it) and
purposefully propagating it and incorporating it into several different
maize varieties to explain what early European explorers found in the
late 1400s; that many distinct races of maize have yellow kernels.
> >No, but the yellow endosperm trait could have been found by ancient
> >breeders in conjunction with other genetic engineering efforts, and they
> >might have decided that it was a valuable trait, and then propagated and
> >incorporated this trait into several different maize varieties.
>
>
> I think it is possible that the trait originated as a mutation in maize
> at some point in time. The alternative would be that the trait has been
> present from the very earliest plant stock which could reasonably be
> said to be maize. But in neither case it would be correct to say that
> ancient breeders engineered the trait into maize.
It would have needed to be a series of mutations that came together at
some point. It is possible that this coming together happened at a very
early stage in the development of maize, but after maize was quite
distinct from teosinte. However, since there was purposeful transfer of
this trait from one variety to another, one would be correct to say that
the trait was engineered into the maize variety that originally lacked
it.
> >I don't understand why you're insulted by this. I really don't mean to
> >offend. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from on this.
> >I can only guess from your reluctance to answer this, that you must feel
> >that since there is no 'proof' that these are human engineered
> >structures (or that any human activity was involved in their
> >construction), one cannot say that they are. Please correct me if my
> >interpretation is wrong.
>
> It is ridiculous. There is not even the remotest possibility
> that Stone Henge and the statues on Easter Island could
> be anything but the result of engineering. The slightly
> insulting bit is that you imply that I might think that there
> is. In the context that judgement is of course just boringly
> irrelevant. But, again in the context, you are seeding the
> thought that your opponent's reluctance to accept your
> arguments might simply be explained by his blatant
> stupidity. I consider that bad form.
All I wanted was a simple answer to a simple question. I'm sorry if you
consider this out of line.
> >See above. I can't say that this is how it happened, but it seems to me
> >to be a single plausible scenario. However, no matter how ancient
> >breeders accomplished it, it is clear that that this was a human
> >mediated event. Otherwise, I would expect yellow endosperm to
> >be found in wild grasses, and that yellow grained rice would have
> >been found long ago.
>
> It is not clear that it was a human mediated event. You base this
> on a non sequitur. From the fact that yellow endosperm is not
> found in wild grasses and did not appear in rice until it was
> engineered into it, nothing can be concluded about the origin
> of the trait in maize.
Just as you can say 'there is not even the remotest possibility that
Stone Henge and the statues on Easter Island could be anything but the
result of engineering' without documentation. I certainly agree with
you on this. It would be highly implausible to consider any 'natural'
alternative explanation. Because of the nature of maize (a wind
pollinator, the structure of the cob, the fact that yellow endosperm is
not a trait that would be propagated in a natural setting), the fact
that kernel color was important to ancient maize breeders for as far
back as we have history and would be something that would be easily
noticed by even the most ancient people; it is highly implausible to
consider any 'natural' alternative explanation.
Best regards,
-Marty Sachs
Jim Webster
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ...
>
>of certain genetic combinations directed toward shaping an animal.
>And it was clearly seen as useful to the men who set up and performed
>a skilled and scientifically based engineering effort to achieve
>a 'final solution' to the Jew gene contamination problem.
I don't think you will find that there was a Jew gene contamination problem
in that a very high proportion of the Jews in Eastern Europe were probably
descended from Khazar stock. While recent work has show that there are still
some very pure "high priestly" families left in the Jewish world, it is
unlikely that there is a set of genes that make you Jewish.
However this minor quibble aside I have been watching the debate with
interest and I do wonder if Marty's definition of "genetic engineering "
includes selective breeding. If it does then the elimination of a gene by
exterminating the carriers is a form of selective breeding and hence may be
genetic engineering. Note, it could also be regarded as social engineering
as well.