Potency differences between phenotypes

dstroy said:

You've been out of school too long. I clearly know the definition and difference between the two. Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. It's not up for debate. Things change.

Click to expand...

So again, you think your smarter then Harvard cool that says so much about you . Quit trolling with bad information. You've clearly been out of school too long since you seem to think you can make up your own definitions to things.

Thundercat said:

So again, you think your smarter then Harvard cool that says so much about you . Quit trolling with bad information. You've clearly been out of school too long since you seem to think you can make up your own definitions to things.

Click to expand...

I agree with the Harvard "article", you absolute idiot. I said that already. That's what science does, it makes up new definitions for things, like ALL THE TIME...

You're the one who just can't seem to differentiate similar things.

Lmao you really are inca able of having an actual conversation you just like to insult others when shown your wrong. The Harvard article said " selective breeding is NOT a form I GMO". So thanks for playing you are clearly wrong here. You might have better success interacting with others if you learned to control yourself and actually communicate in an effective adult manner.

Here is another link that again says selective breeding is not GMO.

http://2017.igem.org/wiki/images/2/21/T--SECA_NZ--PresentationGMSelectiveBreeding.pdf.

It's even got pictures for you.

Thundercat said:

Lmao you really are inca able of having an actual conversation you just like to insult others when shown your wrong. The Harvard article said " selective breeding is NOT a form I GMO". So thanks for playing you are clearly wrong here. You might have better success interacting with others if you learned to control yourself and actually communicate in an effective adult manner.

Here is another link that again says selective breeding is not GMO.

http://2017.igem.org/wiki/images/2/21/T--SECA_NZ--PresentationGMSelectiveBreeding.pdf.

It's even got pictures for you.

Click to expand...

You understand that genetic modification and a genetically modified organism aren't the same thing right? Guess not.

You are arguing about something that I was never even arguing about. That's how stupid you are.

Very sad indeed, your ego far surpasses your knowledge and ability to comprehend the science. I wish you the best of luck, you'll need it, hell we all need it now a days.

Thundercat said:

Very sad indeed, your ego far surpasses your knowledge and ability to comprehend the science. I wish you the best of luck, you'll need it, hell we all need it now a days.

Click to expand...

Saying this doesn't make you right.

Genetic modification is a completely separate topic from genetically modified organisms unless you're talking about the specific modification process. Selective breeding is not natural selection, it is artificial selection which is a form of genetic modification.

Super simple. Don't know what you're not getting but you definitely should not feel confident in your stance that genetic modification = GMO.

dstroy said:

Saying this doesn't make you right.

Genetic modification is a completely separate topic from genetically modified organisms unless you're talking about the specific modification process. Selective breeding is not natural selection, it is artificial selection which is a form of genetic modification.

Super simple. Don't know what you're not getting but you definitely should not feel confident in your stance that genetic modification = GMO.

Click to expand...

The links I posted and the science are what make me right thanks. I don't need your approval.

You are the one that keeps altering the topic, and contradicting yourself. If you agree with the Harvard article then you would stop contradicting it and yourself by claiming you agree and then saying that selective breeding is still GMO. Maybe try emailing Harvard and explaining that the are wrong..... Explain to them they don't know the difference, please, and then post the reply for us.

No one ever mentioned natural selection. We were talking about selective breeding which does not modify any genes. It encourages the expression of specific phenological traits. No genetic modification involved.

A GMO is an organism which has had it's genes genetically modified, your right it is pretty simple. You just refuse to accept that breeding is not modifying what is already there. Breeding takes what is there and simple encourages it to show up again.

Genetic modification alters the gene sequence of an organism to get one specific result with no variation. Often times including adding DNA from other organisms.

I clearly understand and can effectively word and communicate that understanding. You choosing to repeat the same false statements an resort to insults makes it very clear that you do not properly understand and are simply defending your erroneous opinions because your ego won't let you learn. Very sad indeed.

You have provided zero support for your incorrect beliefs. Sadly your opinion is not a source or authority. You can keep trying to justify your incorrect beliefs or you can actually choose to learn. But from most I your previous posts having witty replies like "your stupid" that you probably aren't going I learn much.

Thundercat said:

The links I posted and the science are what make me right thanks. I don't need your approval.

You are the one that keeps altering the topic, and contradicting yourself. If you agree with the Harvard article then you would stop contradicting it and yourself by claiming you agree and then saying that selective breeding is still GMO. Maybe try emailing Harvard and explaining that the are wrong..... Explain to them they don't know the difference, please, and then post the reply for us.

No one ever mentioned natural selection. We were talking about selective breeding which does not modify any genes. It encourages the expression of specific phenologic traits. No genetic modification involved.

A GMO is an organism which has had its genes genetically modified, you're right it is pretty simple. You just refuse to accept that breeding is not modifying what is already there. Breeding takes what is there and simple encourages it to show up again.

Genetic modification completely alters the gene sequence of an organism to get one specific result with no variation. Often times including adding DNA from other organisms.

I clearly understand and can effectively word and communicate that understanding. You choosing to repeat the same false statements an resort to insults makes it very clear that you do not properly understand and are simply defending your erroneous opinions because your ego won't let you learn. Very sad indeed.

You have provided zero support for your incorrect beliefs. Sadly your opinion is not a source or authority. You can keep trying to justify your incorrect beliefs or you can actually choose to learn. But from most of your previous posts having witty replies like "you're stupid" that you probably aren't going to learn much.

Click to expand...

FTFY

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/

Simple Selection
The easiest method of plant genetic modification (see Operational Definitions in Chapter 1), used by our nomadic ancestors and continuing today, is simple selection. That is, a genetically heterogeneous population of plants is inspected, and “superior” individuals—plants with the most desired traits, such as improved palatability and yield—are selected for continued propagation. The others are eaten or discarded. The seeds from the superior plants are sown to produce a new generation of plants, all or most of which will carry and express the desired traits. Over a period of several years, these plants or their seeds are saved and replanted, which increases the population of superior plants and shifts the genetic population so that it is dominated by the superior genotype. This very old method of breeding has been enhanced with modern technology.

An example of modern methods of simple selection is marker-assisted selection, which uses molecular analysis to detect plants likely to express desired features, such as disease resistance to one or more specific pathogens in a population. Successfully applying marker-assisted selection allows a faster, more efficient mechanism for identifying candidate individuals that may have “superior traits.”

Great article thanks for posting something like an adult. While that article does mention various types of breeding as "modification" it is very loosely throwing the term around. And the title better describes the intent of the article then some of the later wording.

That was your original point wasn't it. If you use a broad enough definition you could call everything GMO. Using accurate definitions gives much better understanding to the differences between genetic engineering and selective breeding though. Which was my original point. You made a poorly worded comment that lumped everything together under an inaccurate label.

The more precise definition provided by Harvard and many other scientists would by my preferred route of education. I try to avoid making broad generalizations that can easily confuse people like yourself into over simplifying things.

Thundercat said:

Great article thanks for posting something like an adult. While that article does mention various types of breeding as "modification" it is very loosely throwing the term around. And the title better describes the intent of the article then some of the later wording.

That was your original point wasn't it. If you use a broad enough definition you could call everything GMO. Using accurate definitions gives much better understanding to the differences between genetic engineering and selective breeding though. Which was my original point. You made a poorly worded comment that lumped everything together under an inaccurate label.

The more precise definition provided by Harvard and many other scientists would by my preferred route of education. I try to avoid making broad generalizations that can easily confuse people like yourself into over simplifying things.

Click to expand...

You can't use the term GMO on anything other than a GMO (unless you're using it allegorically). The definition is already broad purposefully, to encompass any organism.

I also like that you think you can refute the NCBI. "just cause".

It's a journal database man, like one of the largest most well respected on the planet, ran by the national institute of health. Ever hear of pubmed? That's them.

Harvard researchers cite pubmed all the time, they even have a procedure in place to do it:

https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/pubmed-medline

The NIH is also considered a primary source of information; the most accurate. More accurate than me or you.

Sorry.

You are correct you wouldn't call anything other then a GMO a GMO. Which Is why you shouldn't called selectively bred plants GMOs as they have not had their genes modified in any manner.

https://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/

The article you quoted was titled as genetic manipulation, which is a much more accurate term for selective breeding. I was surprised when they started lumping all of it together and calling it modification.

Like I said I don't like to make generalizations that muddy the waters of a situation. Selective breeding is an extension if the natural breeding process.

GMOs didn't exist until people started directly altering the genetic code of organism.

It's astounding that you would want to lump together two very different things.

Thundercat said:

You are correct you wouldn't call anything other then a GMO a GMO. Which Is why you shouldn't called selectively bred plants GMOs as they have not had their genes modified in any manner.

https://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/

The article you quoted was titled as genetic manipulation, which is a much more accurate term for selective breeding. I was surprised when they started lumping all of it together and calling it modification.

Like I said I don't like to make generalizations that muddy the waters of a situation. Selective breeding is an extension if the natural breeding process.

GMOs didn't exist until people started directly altering the genetic code of organism.

It's astounding that you would want to lump together two very different things.

Click to expand...

Now we're right back to you didn't understand what I wrote in the first place, and think that you do. Selective breeding is like GMO foods, in that they are both forms of genetic modification (a simple allegory, that went way over your head).

You are demonstrably wrong and continue trying to argue invalid points.

There is nothing to nitpick. Your lack of understanding isn't my problem, it's yours.

Sorry.

dstroy said:

Now we're right back to you didn't understand what I wrote in the first place, and think that you do. Selective breeding is like GMO foods, in that they are both forms of genetic modification (a simple allegory, that went way over your head).

You are demonstrably wrong and continue trying to argue invalid points.

There is nothing to nitpick. Your lack of understanding isn't my problem, it's yours.

Sorry.

Click to expand...

Sorry you can justify what you wrote however you want. I posted just as valid of a link as you, and it said the exact opposite. So I am not demonstrably wrong, and I didn't have any issue understanding you. I stated from the beginning that you were using poor terminology to make blanket statements and were not very accurate. Selective breeding does not create a GMO. Your first statement was not an allegory.

Which simply brings us full circle to you trying to defend an inaccurate opinion on what a GMO actually is. You haven't done anything other then try to expand the definition to the broadest possible terms while bypassing what the term GMO actually refers to.

Thanks again for showing your character throughout this discussion. It will make future interactions with you very simple. You've made it very clear you have no interest in being accurate with your terminology so once again I see no point in discussing this with you. Your welcome to continue using the wrong words for things if you would like. Please keep calling bracts "calyxs" and stigma "pistils" too.

Not knowing you are wrong is one thing, choosing to knowingly use wrong terminology is a sign of your ignorance.

I still hope you have a great day though!

Hopefully the OP made use of some of the good info earlier in the thread.

Thundercat said:

Sorry you can justify what you wrote however you want. I posted just as valid of a link as you, and it said the exact opposite. So I am not demonstrably wrong, and I didn't have any issue understanding you. I stated from the beginning that you were using poor terminology to make blanket statements and were not very accurate. Selective breeding does not create a GMO. Your first statement was not an allegory.

Which simply brings us full circle to you trying to defend an inaccurate opinion on what a GMO actually is. You haven't done anything other then try to expand the definition to the broadest possible terms while bypassing what the term GMO actually refers to.

Thanks again for showing your character throughout this discussion. It will make future interactions with you very simple. You've made it very clear you have no interest in being accurate with your terminology so once again I see no point in discussing this with you. Your welcome to continue using the wrong words for things if you would like. Please keep calling bracts "calyxs" and stigma "pistils" too.

Not knowing you are wrong is one thing, choosing to knowingly use wrong terminology is a sign of your ignorance.

I still hope you have a great day though!

Hopefully the OP made use of some of the good info earlier in the thread.

Click to expand...

You're right, I meant analogy not allegory.

That's all that you're right about though.

You can keep talking all you want, you're wrong, you argued for something that I wasn't even arguing about, and were wrong about that too.

Do the right thing, read some more about the subject instead of sticking with that one thing from Harvard that just describes what a GMO is, and that is all.

It doesn't even describe the different types of GMO (transgenic, mutagenic, gene silencing), or why it is so hard to define what a GMO actually is.

It's not even published in a journal either, just an article with references. My source came straight from a journal.

the Harvard article cites the NCBI as well:



http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/

REMEMBER WHEN YOU TRIED TO SAY THAT SOURCE WAS INVALID?

pepperidge farm remembers...


Stop trying to argue with me.

Lmao I never was argueing . I was correcting you because you are wrong.

I never said your source was invalid so obviously your reading comprehension sucks.

You obviously have Zero interest in learning and only wish to try to fight and troll. Good luck to you, you've officially become only the 4th person to reach my ignore list in the last 11 years on this site .

Selective breeding creates genetically modified organism. Are people really arguing over this?

Good lord

So is Neal D. Tyson an idiot because he says gmo's are created by selective breeding. You can google it and watch a video of him saying such.

thenotsoesoteric said:

So is Neal D. Tyson an idiot because he says gmo's are created by selective breeding. You can google it and watch a video of him saying such.

Click to expand...

I never called anyone an idiot, or tried to argue. I was never rude or insulted anyone either. I'm sorry if it came off that way at all. I've been researching this all heavily the last few days because of this discussion, and frankly it really seems like one of those things that it highly depends on who you ask. I have no problem agreeing to disagree and moving on, I've tried a couple times, but allowed myself to be pulled back in. I can find just as many links that say breeding is not GMO, as there are that say it is. It basically comes down to how broadly you want to blanket the definition of that terminology.

Back on topic again, I would love to talk to a full-time breeder that actually runs large batches of seed stock about the OP question. I'm certain they don't test all the phenotypes they get, but of anyone, they should have the greatest population of each strain to show variations.