so I watched a thing by neil degrasse tysen today on gmo food, and basically he said, just because it was done in a lab dosent make it unhealthy. now I would like to propose a question or a theory, these plants dont come from a generation as in they dont really reproduce the next years crop its the same plant over and over again, now when it starts to adapt in generation one and goes to seed the seed is eaten or isnt planted so we never really get a generation 2, dosent that cause an evoluationary dead end, like maybe the plant itself would adapt to corn borer as the corn borer atdapts to the pesticide. I know the argument is there no natural apples because those are all crab apple, but those where created by selection not by gene manipulation wich means it made random mutations that are likely beneficial, where as say the gm corn is not allowed to do so. kinda like yeah ok all corn is technically genetically modified because it used to be a grass till we started selectively planting, but that took forever to do and had noumerous mutations. Now we have a hard time identifiying genes and what htey do and still dont understand the entire picture, but selection does, so we are changing a line of code that changes a dominant trait we as humans can see as positive but what is the negative end of that gene we changed, does it not put out a pharmone that draws in predatory bugs to protect itself? I mean theres soo many minute details that science has admited it dosent understand..so how can we with absulute crtanty say gene manipulated lab produced food is indeed healthy. Now Im not saying gm foods the devil, Im saying that evolution should not be halted artificially its smoething that needs to go on and its the chemicals we use on the plants that appear to be causing the negative things supposedly associated iwth the gmo products, also I think lack of biodiversity amoung the foods we eat is a HUGE mistake
Posted on: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 19:58:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015