Budz.Bunny
Well-Known Member
I can't compete with that thing you see the size of the ballsAnd what would that leave you to offer them?
I can't compete with that thing you see the size of the ballsAnd what would that leave you to offer them?
Pretty sure he's on drugsI now understand your ever tightening spirals.
GMOAren't we all?
But I did see I forgot the load the pic. Sad thing is I haven't even taken one recently. But I did smoke some Crack.
View attachment 5200808
Narcotic candy. Only 5's?Aren't we all?
But I did see I forgot the load the pic. Sad thing is I haven't even taken one recently. But I did smoke some Crack.
View attachment 5200808
Weakkkkkkkkk only 5 mgAren't we all?
But I did see I forgot the load the pic. Sad thing is I haven't even taken one recently. But I did smoke some Crack.
View attachment 5200808
Yield and harvest time that's obviously a good thing too...GM is not good or bad. It doesn't do anything. It can't do anything, because it's not something that can do things. Humans do things.
Make a plant more nutritious. Yes. That is a good thing to do.
Make plant produce toxins. That's bad.
Make a plant resistant to pest and disease. Good if you make sure the genes will not spread. Bad if you don't.
Just picking some obvious examplesYield and harvest time that's obviously a good thing too...
I'm learning more about the science behind I was once very naive and some believe that it's " goin against God" not trying to bring religion into it but I have some opinions on tht of my ownJust picking some obvious examples![]()
Is that what you think?..I think the uncontrolled spread of GMO organisms is extremely unlikely
How would one contain it ? Indoor ? LolIs that what you think?..
GM Pollen Spreads Much Farther Than Previously Thought
www.scientificamerican.com
"the modified genes appeared in normal plants up to 21 kilometers away"
By making the plants sterile.How would one contain it ? Indoor ? Lol
How much does Monsanto pay you? (sorry, this is a joke)By making the plants sterile.
Actually, "GMO" is a commercial term. Biologically, all crop plants are genetically modified, regardless of the method. In terms of ecology, the chaotic and unpredictable changes practiced in the production of new varieties over the past hundred years with the help of chemistry and radiation are potentially more dangerous than point genetic engineering or the slow selection of naturally occurring mutations in the time of Mendel and earlier. However, even such barbaric methods of genetic modification (chemical and radiation methods of changing the genome bring additional latent changes) did not lead to such damage as from the invasion of wild species.
21 km or 121 km is not a potential threat gauge. It is that the introduced genes can provide some kind of evolutionary advantage for crowding out the wild form. If this has not been observed for a hundred years of "dirty" methods of modification, then why should the point methods of genetic engineering bring any more harm? Moreover, a package of previously made changes that are clearly not tailored for survival in the wild has already been attached to these point changes. A fat and tasty pig cannot displace wild boar even if you add a couple of genes beneficial to farmers.