Science and Exploration

[Little Fish]

Originally Posted by AscotButch

I heard a story the other day on NPR in which they were discussing a book titled Frankencat, about some of the different genetic modifications that are being performed on animals. Specifically, the story was about how spider DNA has been introduced into goats so that when the goat's milk is purified, it contains a significant amount of silk that can be harvested and used in any number of applications. Because silk is super light but very strong, it's being looked at for use in things like bullet proof vests, etc.

This reminds me of when I took Molecular Genetics in college. The scientist who taught discussed how their exists a fish whose blood contains a distinct "anti-freeze" gene. (I'm unclear how it is used originally by the fish.) This anti-freeze gene has since been isolated from the fish, reproduced in a laboratory and ultimately transferred into the genome of a strawberry. The idea was to prevent strawberry crop loss from untimely freezing etc. I'm sure there are people who scoff and otherwise flip out about this but honestly, I think that shit is bitchin' !

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Little Fish

This reminds me of when I took Molecular Genetics in college. The scientist who taught discussed how their exists a fish whose blood contains a distinct "anti-freeze" gene. (I'm unclear how it is used originally by the fish.) This anti-freeze gene has since been isolated from the fish, reproduced in a laboratory and ultimately transferred into the genome of a strawberry. The idea was to prevent strawberry crop loss from untimely freezing etc. I'm sure there are people who scoff and otherwise flip out about this but honestly, I think that shit is bitchin' !

And people wonder why GMO's are bad...

[Ascot]

This was being discussed when I worked at Whole Foods, specifically introducing cod DNA into tomatoes to make them impervious to cold and what the ramifications would be for people who, for example, adhere to a vegan diet.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by AscotButch

This was being discussed when I worked at Whole Foods, specifically introducing cod DNA into tomatoes to make them impervious to cold and what the ramifications would be for people who, for example, adhere to a vegan diet.

The whole Monsanto GMO stuff is going to kill off the human race, along with the bees.

[Corkey]

http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-egypti...180758166.html

On a lighter note, oldest yet sundial found

[Little Fish]

Originally Posted by Corkey

The whole Monsanto GMO stuff is going to kill off the human race, along with the bees.

I don't think there's anything inherently bad with GMO, to be honest. I expect this will be a very unpopular opinion but, it's mine.

I think the implications for vegans is an interesting one though-

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Little Fish

I don't think there's anything inherently bad with GMO, to be honest. I expect this will be a very unpopular opinion but, it's mine.

I think the implications for vegans is an interesting one though-

Bee hive colony collapse is directly effected by Monsanto's GMO's. Now if one can do with out fruit, nuts, or any other plant pollenated by bees, go for it. Personally I don't like scurvy.

[Little Fish]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Bee hive colony collapse is directly effected by Monsanto's GMO's. Now if one can do with out fruit, nuts, or any other plant pollenated by bees, go for it. Personally I don't like scurvy.

Are you talking about Colony Collapse Disorder?

If so, here's some data from the EPA website:
Why it's happening
There have been many theories about the cause of CCD, but the researchers who are leading the effort to find out why are now focused on these factors:

increased losses due to the invasive varroa mite (a pest of honeybees);
new or emerging diseases such as Israeli Acute Paralysis virus and the gut parasite Nosema;
pesticide poisoning through exposure to pesticides applied to crops or for in-hive insect or mite control;
bee management stress;
foraging habitat modification
inadequate forage/poor nutrition and
potential immune-suppressing stress on bees caused by one or a combination of factors identified above.

Additional factors may include poor nutrition, drought, and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bee colonies long distances to provide pollination services.


I think when making broad and sweeping declarative statements, it's most helpful to offer a scientific citation. The best information being the most accurate and thus by definition, evidence based.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Bee hive colony collapse is directly effected by Monsanto's GMO's. Now if one can do with out fruit, nuts, or any other plant pollenated by bees, go for it. Personally I don't like scurvy.

Part of the problem with talking about genetic engineering is that there's the science and then there's the business. I, and I think the other few voices here who are actually in favor of genetic engineering, are talking about the *science*. If Monsanto went out of business this very afternoon, it would not change one whit the promise of genetic engineering nor would it change the science behind it. I am not going to defend Monsanto. I am going to defend genetic engineering because the science behind it is extraordinarily sound.

As I said the other day, genetic engineering is the same thing we've been doing since we got the clever idea of trying to domesticate some plants and animals. The primary differences, the only real significant differences, are that we can do very targeted manipulations instead of, quite frankly, kind of stumbling about in the dark *and* we can cross the species barrier. That's it. Other than that, genetic engineering is the same process as breeders use except the traditional way is slow and only slightly better than random natural selection. For example, a while ago a Russian scientist did a truly elegant experiment to test the hypothesis that the domestic dog was closely related to the grey wolf and that humans selected for friendliness towards humans.

To test this, he took foxes (which are still canines) and only allowed those animals that were most friendly to humans to breed. Within startlingly few generations (less than 20) the foxes had floppy ears, more puppy-like behavior, and instead of the more uniform coats of the fox you got the more color-varied coat we see with domesticated dogs. All of these follow-on effects weren't being selected for, those genes just came along for the ride. So in the ways that selection has been done for the last 15000 years or so, lots of genes have come along for the ride.

People think that because one is 'natural' and the other is 'science' that one is better or different than the other but they are really not. Yes, we're taking genes from fish and putting them in strawberries or tomatoes but we're not taking the fish genome, we're taking a specific gene and moving it across the species barrier and that's all. The reason--the ONLY reason--that nature didn't hit upon the solution of anti-freeze for either strawberries or tomatoes is that both species (the wild variant obviously) came up with a solution for dealing with cold, namely seeds. They didn't *need* anti-freeze in the wild because they did not evolve in locations that were cold long enough for resistance to cold to be selected for and seeds did the job. Again, that's the ONLY reason why those species didn't hit on the trick the fish did--they never had the correct problem for which anti-freeze is the solution. Nature is not guided and it has no foresight. It can't see down the road and it can't back up and take a better path when some species hits upon something clever. At no time did nature think "anti-freeze in strawberries would be good, wait on second thought no". There's nothing to do that thinking. Also nature is not exactly concerned with maximizing species. It is simply concerned with genes being passed down generation to generation. Nature doesn't act for the good of the species, it doesn't even act for the good of the individual, nature acts for the good of the genes.

If we want to talk about Monsanto and its business practices that's one subject and I'll likely agree with a lot that is said. But we're talking about genetic engineering specifically, not what Monsanto is doing with it and the idea that there is good, solid, scientific support for an anti-GMO stance simply isn't true.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...people_.2.html

Cheers
Aj

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by AscotButch

This was being discussed when I worked at Whole Foods, specifically introducing cod DNA into tomatoes to make them impervious to cold and what the ramifications would be for people who, for example, adhere to a vegan diet.

Depends on why that person is vegan. If it's for health reasons (which I am led to believe is a very common reason), unless the DNA changes the nutritional content of the tomato in some non-negligible way, it should be completely irrelevant. If it's for reasons of not wanting to harvest sentient life (read: things with a nervous system/motivational system/ability to feel pain/etc.) as a food source, then unless this DNA gives the tomatoes a bloody nervous system or live fish have to be continuously slaughtered for a source of the DNA (depending upon how the original DNA must be obtained this might be the case until you have a seed population of the modified tomato to work with, but after that, you can probably just have the tomatoes reproduce), it should not be particularly relevant.

Now if it's for reasons of religion or spirituality, or just Luddism or thinking there's some kind of magical essence of fish or whatever, I got nuthin'.

PS, slightly related: I am totally looking forward to vat-grown meat one of these days. Meat that does not require the continual harvesting of sentient animals to obtain. Bacon has already been produced from pig stem cells, which is pretty awesome. Now I'm just waiting for the day the tech advances to the point that we can find meat in the supermarket labeled "NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED IN THE MAKING OF THIS MEAT." The culture shock alone will be priceless.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Little Fish

This reminds me of when I took Molecular Genetics in college. The scientist who taught discussed how their exists a fish whose blood contains a distinct "anti-freeze" gene. (I'm unclear how it is used originally by the fish.) This anti-freeze gene has since been isolated from the fish, reproduced in a laboratory and ultimately transferred into the genome of a strawberry. The idea was to prevent strawberry crop loss from untimely freezing etc. I'm sure there are people who scoff and otherwise flip out about this but honestly, I think that shit is bitchin' !

The gene is in a fish that, if memory serves, lives under one of the ice packs either the Arctic or the Antarctic. It literally evolved a means of keeping its blood from freezing. Like you, I think that it is so amazing and I really wish there were some way to communicate so that the general public would understand that there's no 'essence of fish' that is taken out and put it into a strawberry. Rather, a specific gene that builds a very particular protein, is inserted in another organism which then can build that protein. It's the same protein. It does the same thing. A gene that codes 'for' something codes for that thing not all of the traits of the organism the sequence came from. All living things can transcribe the same DNA because the bases ACGT are the same in fish and in plants and in mammals. It is a sign of the unity of all life on this planet that the gene that says "build eyes here" is the same in the fruit fly, mice and humans.

The fact that the gene originally came from a fish wouldn't trigger a fish allergy because the DNA in the strawberry doesn't 'know' that it came from a fish. It knows that when it gets a signal to start making some protein X, it starts making that protein until some other signal tells it to stop.

Cheers
Aj

[Hollylane]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

The gene is in a fish that, if memory serves, lives under one of the ice packs either the Arctic or the Antarctic. It literally evolved a means of keeping its blood from freezing. Like you, I think that it is so amazing and I really wish there were some way to communicate so that the general public would understand that there's no 'essence of fish' that is taken out and put it into a strawberry. Rather, a specific gene that builds a very particular protein, is inserted in another organism which then can build that protein. It's the same protein. It does the same thing. A gene that codes 'for' something codes for that thing not all of the traits of the organism the sequence came from. All living things can transcribe the same DNA because the bases ACGT are the same in fish and in plants and in mammals. It is a sign of the unity of all life on this planet that the gene that says "build eyes here" is the same in the fruit fly, mice and humans.

The fact that the gene originally came from a fish wouldn't trigger a fish allergy because the DNA in the strawberry doesn't 'know' that it came from a fish. It knows that when it gets a signal to start making some protein X, it starts making that protein until some other signal tells it to stop.

Cheers
Aj

While all of this is amazing, and only possible because of the human brain, I am still appalled. In nature, a strawberry and a fish would never meet. If I buy a strawberry, I want it to be only a strawberry. Thankfully, I can avoid all of these mutations (for now) by purchasing locally grown organic fruits/vegetables, and making sure that other vegetables/fruits that I may buy are non-gmo.

I want to see strong labeling laws, that protect those of us who desire to eat whole foods, that are unaltered from their natural state. The sick part of all of this to me is, that even though I am making these important choices for myself, the fact that these things exist, means that I may still be exposed to them over time.

Altering animals to produce things that they would never produce naturally will never be okay with me, and I don't think it is a matter of me "freaking out", it is simply appalling to me that humans are meddling in nature this way, and subjecting other creatures to experimentation for the purpose of production.

[dreadgeek]

But Hollylane, that strawberry isn't in its natural state. Everything we eat, every fruit and every vegetable and every domesticated animal has been genetically modified. The difference between genetic engineering and what humans have been doing since we invented agriculture is two-fold:
1) Instead of doing things blindly we are being far more targeted and subtle with it.
2) We are able to across the species barrier in ways we couldn't before.

Other than that, the essence of what is happening is exactly the same. We are taking genes and selecting the ones we want/need for our purposes. When I say we are no longer doing things blindly I mean that in the past, all we could do was take one plant or animal that had traits we wanted and cross it with another planet or animal that had traits we wanted. The problem was that many traits don't breed 'true' and there could be genes that were 'hangers on' that might bring in traits we didn't want.

Now, if we want to breed for a particular trait, all we have to do is know what genes or combination of genes code for the appropriate protein.

The second issue, being able to cross the species barrier, I can understand a bit more but it still seems, to me, to rest on an essentialist view of living things. Even you say so below that you want a strawberry to only be a strawberry as if the insertion of a gene that makes a protein that prevents damage from freezing somehow makes it not a strawberry. The *only* reason why strawberries never hit on this neat little trick is that Nature never put that species in the position where the ability to resist extended cold was selected for. Plants have a different mechanism for surviving cold and, in the case of strawberries, it's called 'seeds'. But if strawberries had evolved in an environment where it was *always* cold (like under the ice pack) then they almost certainly would have hit on a similar trick. We are not, however, taking some essence of fish and putting it into a strawberry. We're simply taking a gene that, for reasons of historical contingency and evolutionary history, found itself in a fish and putting it in a strawberry where it does the same thing as it does in the fish. Nothing 'fishy' comes over because the protein *happens* to come from a fish, it isn't necessarily a protein that a fish and only a fish could ever have need of.

So why didn't the strawberry come up with anti-freeze on its own? Here I have to digress into evolutionary biology because it's the only way to make sense. I'm going to use two examples to explain evolutionary contingency, one real and one fanciful.

First the real:

The primate eye is actually built 'upside down'. What one would expect, if the eye had been designed by, say, an optical engineer that the light-sensing cells would be facing the source of light with all of the supporting infrastructure (blood vessels, etc.) behind the eye. That is not, in fact, how the primate eye is built. Instead, the light sensing cells are at the *back* of the eye and all the other structure of the eye is on top of it. This means that our eyes are less efficient then they otherwise could be. Now, if evolution could take steps backward the primate eye could have been rebuilt over evolutionary time so that it was more efficient (the eyes of cephalopods--squids and the like) are actually built the right way round. But evolution can't take back steps it can *only* work with what it already has.

The other example is the potential for human flight. The reason why we *can't* fly isn't that it is impossible for us to develop wings but that all of the things it would take for us to develop wings are simply not available to our species. Those pathways were closed off millions of years ago and there's no way to go back even though the ability to fly like bats would be mightily helpful to our species. Strawberries and fish haven't shared a common ancestor for hundreds of millions of years. The reason why the fish and the strawberry would never meet isn't that nature doesn't *want* them to but because there's no pathway by which they *could* meet. Not because there's something 'wrong' with it but simply because there's no selective benefit for either the fish or the strawberry to trade genes with one another.

Lastly, there's the issue of commonality of genes. While you look nothing like a banana you share 70% of all your genes with bananas. You are also not much like a fruit fly or a mouse (although you are, obviously, much more closely related to a mouse than a fruit fly) yet the very same gene that tells the developing human body "build eyes here" tells both the developing mouse or fruit fly to "build eyes here". To think about the implications of this try this thought experiment. If we took the gene, called 'eyeless', out of a human being and implanted it in a mouse what kind of eye do you think would grow? If you said "a human eyeball" you're wrong. It doesn't. The gene doesn't specify "grow this kind of eyeball here" instead it specifies "whatever kind of eye is appropriate for this species, it goes here". Do we know this to be true? Yes. How? Because we can and have taken that gene from a fruit fly, inserted it into the genome of a mouse where that gene had been 'knocked out' and pasted it in. Mice grew mice eyes where the gene specified it should. The same thing worked in reverse. A copy of the eyeless gene from a mouse, inserted into a fruit fly, caused the fruit-fly to grow a fruit-fly eye in the specified location.

Was there anything 'mouse-like' about the gene? No. In fact, there's a gene--the HOX gene--that specifies the body plan for almost everything living on the planet that *isn't* a bacteria.

DNA is DNA. There's no such thing as 'fish' DNA which is different from and incompatible with banana DNA. DNA either codes for a protein or tells another strand to start or stop.

I'm not saying we should go full-speed ahead with genetic engineering but I am saying that there is a lot of confusion and, in my mind, needless fear of the technology. I am not, let me be clear, defending Monsanto or any other agribusiness. I am talking solely about the scientific questions of genetic engineering.

At the end of the day, selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same kind of thing. Selective breeding is walking, genetic engineering is ballet.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Hollylane

While all of this is amazing, and only possible because of the human brain, I am still appalled. In nature, a strawberry and a fish would never meet. If I buy a strawberry, I want it to be only a strawberry. Thankfully, I can avoid all of these mutations (for now) by purchasing locally grown organic fruits/vegetables, and making sure that other vegetables/fruits that I may buy are non-gmo.

I want to see strong labeling laws, that protect those of us who desire to eat whole foods, that are unaltered from their natural state. The sick part of all of this to me is, that even though I am making these important choices for myself, the fact that these things exist, means that I may still be exposed to them over time.

Altering animals to produce things that they would never produce naturally will never be okay with me, and I don't think it is a matter of me "freaking out", it is simply appalling to me that humans are meddling in nature this way, and subjecting other creatures to experimentation for the purpose of production.

[Hollylane]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

But Hollylane, that strawberry isn't in its natural state. Everything we eat, every fruit and every vegetable and every domesticated animal has been genetically modified. The difference between genetic engineering and what humans have been doing since we invented agriculture is two-fold:
1) Instead of doing things blindly we are being far more targeted and subtle with it.
2) We are able to across the species barrier in ways we couldn't before.

Other than that, the essence of what is happening is exactly the same. We are taking genes and selecting the ones we want/need for our purposes. When I say we are no longer doing things blindly I mean that in the past, all we could do was take one plant or animal that had traits we wanted and cross it with another planet or animal that had traits we wanted. The problem was that many traits don't breed 'true' and there could be genes that were 'hangers on' that might bring in traits we didn't want.

Now, if we want to breed for a particular trait, all we have to do is know what genes or combination of genes code for the appropriate protein.

The second issue, being able to cross the species barrier, I can understand a bit more but it still seems, to me, to rest on an essentialist view of living things. Even you say so below that you want a strawberry to only be a strawberry as if the insertion of a gene that makes a protein that prevents damage from freezing somehow makes it not a strawberry. The *only* reason why strawberries never hit on this neat little trick is that Nature never put that species in the position where the ability to resist extended cold was selected for. Plants have a different mechanism for surviving cold and, in the case of strawberries, it's called 'seeds'. But if strawberries had evolved in an environment where it was *always* cold (like under the ice pack) then they almost certainly would have hit on a similar trick. We are not, however, taking some essence of fish and putting it into a strawberry. We're simply taking a gene that, for reasons of historical contingency and evolutionary history, found itself in a fish and putting it in a strawberry where it does the same thing as it does in the fish. Nothing 'fishy' comes over because the protein *happens* to come from a fish, it isn't necessarily a protein that a fish and only a fish could ever have need of.

So why didn't the strawberry come up with anti-freeze on its own? Here I have to digress into evolutionary biology because it's the only way to make sense. I'm going to use two examples to explain evolutionary contingency, one real and one fanciful.

First the real:

The primate eye is actually built 'upside down'. What one would expect, if the eye had been designed by, say, an optical engineer that the light-sensing cells would be facing the source of light with all of the supporting infrastructure (blood vessels, etc.) behind the eye. That is not, in fact, how the primate eye is built. Instead, the light sensing cells are at the *back* of the eye and all the other structure of the eye is on top of it. This means that our eyes are less efficient then they otherwise could be. Now, if evolution could take steps backward the primate eye could have been rebuilt over evolutionary time so that it was more efficient (the eyes of cephalopods--squids and the like) are actually built the right way round. But evolution can't take back steps it can *only* work with what it already has.

The other example is the potential for human flight. The reason why we *can't* fly isn't that it is impossible for us to develop wings but that all of the things it would take for us to develop wings are simply not available to our species. Those pathways were closed off millions of years ago and there's no way to go back even though the ability to fly like bats would be mightily helpful to our species. Strawberries and fish haven't shared a common ancestor for hundreds of millions of years. The reason why the fish and the strawberry would never meet isn't that nature doesn't *want* them to but because there's no pathway by which they *could* meet. Not because there's something 'wrong' with it but simply because there's no selective benefit for either the fish or the strawberry to trade genes with one another.

Lastly, there's the issue of commonality of genes. While you look nothing like a banana you share 70% of all your genes with bananas. You are also not much like a fruit fly or a mouse (although you are, obviously, much more closely related to a mouse than a fruit fly) yet the very same gene that tells the developing human body "build eyes here" tells both the developing mouse or fruit fly to "build eyes here". To think about the implications of this try this thought experiment. If we took the gene, called 'eyeless', out of a human being and implanted it in a mouse what kind of eye do you think would grow? If you said "a human eyeball" you're wrong. It doesn't. The gene doesn't specify "grow this kind of eyeball here" instead it specifies "whatever kind of eye is appropriate for this species, it goes here". Do we know this to be true? Yes. How? Because we can and have taken that gene from a fruit fly, inserted it into the genome of a mouse where that gene had been 'knocked out' and pasted it in. Mice grew mice eyes where the gene specified it should. The same thing worked in reverse. A copy of the eyeless gene from a mouse, inserted into a fruit fly, caused the fruit-fly to grow a fruit-fly eye in the specified location.

Was there anything 'mouse-like' about the gene? No. In fact, there's a gene--the HOX gene--that specifies the body plan for almost everything living on the planet that *isn't* a bacteria.

DNA is DNA. There's no such thing as 'fish' DNA which is different from and incompatible with banana DNA. DNA either codes for a protein or tells another strand to start or stop.

I'm not saying we should go full-speed ahead with genetic engineering but I am saying that there is a lot of confusion and, in my mind, needless fear of the technology. I am not, let me be clear, defending Monsanto or any other agribusiness. I am talking solely about the scientific questions of genetic engineering.

At the end of the day, selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same kind of thing. Selective breeding is walking, genetic engineering is ballet.

Cheers
Aj

I do understand the science and technology behind it all Aj, I can even dig deep, and find a way to relate to how you feel about it.

For me, I want more of what I would be likely to find at the Portland Farmer's Market, and less of what I find primarily at places like Fred Meyers. Without going into my whole belief system here, I'll just say in other words, I'd like zero ballet, and a lot more walking when it comes to my food. Personally, I don't believe that because we can do something, means that we absolutely should do that something.

Maybe, just maybe, these pathways don't exist in nature, for a multitude of reasons.

On a side note...

I truly appreciate the thought and care that you put into your response. Though I don't agree with you in this instance (not about the facts you presented, just on how we use science and technology where food is concerned), I frequently do agree with you. On many occasions, you have brought up things that send me diving down a rabbit hole looking for more information, thus expanding my mind.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Hollylane

I do understand the science and technology behind it all Aj, I can even dig deep, and find a way to relate to how you feel about it.

For me, I want more of what I would be likely to find at the Portland Farmer's Market, and less of what I find primarily at places like Fred Meyers. Without going into my whole belief system here, I'll just say in other words, I'd like zero ballet, and a lot more walking when it comes to my food. Personally, I don't believe that because we can do something, means that we absolutely should do that something.

Maybe, just maybe, these pathways don't exist in nature, for a multitude of reasons.

On a side note...

I truly appreciate the thought and care that you put into your response. Though I don't agree with you in this instance (not about the facts you presented, just on how we use science and technology where food is concerned), I frequently do agree with you. On many occasions, you have brought up things that send me diving down a rabbit hole looking for more information, thus expanding my mind.

Thanks for the response. Can I ask you a couple of follow-up questions?

1) Since you agree that a protein is just a protein, why does it matter where it came from? I mean I could understand if the protein were, say, one that causes persons with an allergy to peanuts to have a reaction but provided its *not* one that causes an allergic reaction why does it matter?

2) What do you mean by maybe the pathways don't exist in nature for a multitude of reasons?

This is the deeper question, to me, and the reason I'm a little confused about it is this; it seems to me that the explanation I gave, just to take one for instance, why strawberries never developed anti-freeze on their own is sufficient to explain why that genetic pathway had to wait until we came along to show up in that species. For example, it would be extremely useful if humans could see down into the infrared and up into the ultraviolet. We *know* it's possible because there are other animals that can see into either one but our genome was simply never faced with the correct set of problems that would push us toward being able to do so. It's not that there's some grand design nor is it that there's something *wrong* with being able to see a little farther along the EMF spectrum than we already do, rather it's that not only Homo sapiens but primates as a whole were never in any environment where the selection pressure pushed *any* of us toward being able to see into the IR or the UV parts.

That explanation is sufficient to explain why we can't see UV or IR and there doesn't need to be any other reason. Likewise, the fact that strawberries--because they are flowering plants--never had the problem of "what do you do when your entire life-cycle is spent underneath an ice pack" is sufficient to explain why they never developed anti-freeze. Since strawberries are native to latitudes where winter is, more or less, what those of us living in the temperate zones are used to the long-standing plant solution toward the cold (e.g. produce seeds which can spend the winter underground) and that has been sufficient to preserve strawberry genes down the ages. No other explanation is really required. Why go to the trouble of evolving anti-freeze when the cold that could kill you is only 90 days long and you can just keep your genes in a seed for that period of time? No reason. Just like primates came up with a pretty decent solution for not being able to see well in the darkness--don't be active at night. Hominids came up with an even more elegant solution--fire.

I'm asking these questions of you not because I'm trying to prove some point but because most of the time when I've engaged others in this topic they haven't understood the science and so they've had some rather profound misconceptions about the nature of genes, the nature of proteins, the nature of DNA or they haven't really grasped that, for instance, while fruits *want* to be eaten vegetables, on the whole, *don't*. (I'm speaking metaphorically, of course, neither fruits nor vegetables 'want' anything.) So what is the problem with genetic engineering, in general? Not Monsanto's business practices (that's a separate issue) but with genetic engineering specifically?

Why is it unnatural to take a gene that does precisely what we want done and *only* that thing and implant it in a species unnatural when if we simply selectively bred for resistance to cold and got to, more or less, the same protein but it took us a thousand generations (plant not human) to get there it would be natural? It's the same protein, it does the same thing, the only difference is one is a one-step process and the other is a blind, multi-step process with each step along the way having a risk of picking up genes we don't want and which might have deleterious effects.

Thanks for answering. It's a rare treat to be able to ask someone who understands the biology, can do "gene's eye view" thinking, grasps the 'central dogma' of modern molecular biology (that genes code for proteins) and still is opposed to genetic engineering in the terms you've expressed above.

Cheers
Aj

[Hollylane]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Thanks for the response. Can I ask you a couple of follow-up questions?

1) Since you agree that a protein is just a protein, why does it matter where it came from? I mean I could understand if the protein were, say, one that causes persons with an allergy to peanuts to have a reaction but provided its *not* one that causes an allergic reaction why does it matter?

2) What do you mean by maybe the pathways don't exist in nature for a multitude of reasons?

This is the deeper question, to me, and the reason I'm a little confused about it is this; it seems to me that the explanation I gave, just to take one for instance, why strawberries never developed anti-freeze on their own is sufficient to explain why that genetic pathway had to wait until we came along to show up in that species. For example, it would be extremely useful if humans could see down into the infrared and up into the ultraviolet. We *know* it's possible because there are other animals that can see into either one but our genome was simply never faced with the correct set of problems that would push us toward being able to do so. It's not that there's some grand design nor is it that there's something *wrong* with being able to see a little farther along the EMF spectrum than we already do, rather it's that not only Homo sapiens but primates as a whole were never in any environment where the selection pressure pushed *any* of us toward being able to see into the IR or the UV parts.

That explanation is sufficient to explain why we can't see UV or IR and there doesn't need to be any other reason. Likewise, the fact that strawberries--because they are flowering plants--never had the problem of "what do you do when your entire life-cycle is spent underneath an ice pack" is sufficient to explain why they never developed anti-freeze. Since strawberries are native to latitudes where winter is, more or less, what those of us living in the temperate zones are used to the long-standing plant solution toward the cold (e.g. produce seeds which can spend the winter underground) and that has been sufficient to preserve strawberry genes down the ages. No other explanation is really required. Why go to the trouble of evolving anti-freeze when the cold that could kill you is only 90 days long and you can just keep your genes in a seed for that period of time? No reason. Just like primates came up with a pretty decent solution for not being able to see well in the darkness--don't be active at night. Hominids came up with an even more elegant solution--fire.

I'm asking these questions of you not because I'm trying to prove some point but because most of the time when I've engaged others in this topic they haven't understood the science and so they've had some rather profound misconceptions about the nature of genes, the nature of proteins, the nature of DNA or they haven't really grasped that, for instance, while fruits *want* to be eaten vegetables, on the whole, *don't*. (I'm speaking metaphorically, of course, neither fruits nor vegetables 'want' anything.) So what is the problem with genetic engineering, in general? Not Monsanto's business practices (that's a separate issue) but with genetic engineering specifically?

Why is it unnatural to take a gene that does precisely what we want done and *only* that thing and implant it in a species unnatural when if we simply selectively bred for resistance to cold and got to, more or less, the same protein but it took us a thousand generations (plant not human) to get there it would be natural? It's the same protein, it does the same thing, the only difference is one is a one-step process and the other is a blind, multi-step process with each step along the way having a risk of picking up genes we don't want and which might have deleterious effects.

Thanks for answering. It's a rare treat to be able to ask someone who understands the biology, can do "gene's eye view" thinking, grasps the 'central dogma' of modern molecular biology (that genes code for proteins) and still is opposed to genetic engineering in the terms you've expressed above.

Cheers
Aj

I haven't been on much lately, and I just saw this. I'm prone to being succinct in my answers Aj, even more so when I've just arrived home from work. So, I hope that my short answer helps.

Basically, I think that necessary evolution of plants and animals happens in its own time. It is probably my Native American side that recoils from tampering with plants and animals, and changing them by inserting proteins or anything else into them, that would not be possible through a natural evolutionary process or through selective processes.

[Little Fish]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

The gene is in a fish that, if memory serves, lives under one of the ice packs either the Arctic or the Antarctic. It literally evolved a means of keeping its blood from freezing. Like you, I think that it is so amazing and I really wish there were some way to communicate so that the general public would understand that there's no 'essence of fish' that is taken out and put it into a strawberry. Rather, a specific gene that builds a very particular protein, is inserted in another organism which then can build that protein. It's the same protein. It does the same thing. A gene that codes 'for' something codes for that thing not all of the traits of the organism the sequence came from. All living things can transcribe the same DNA because the bases ACGT are the same in fish and in plants and in mammals. It is a sign of the unity of all life on this planet that the gene that says "build eyes here" is the same in the fruit fly, mice and humans.

The fact that the gene originally came from a fish wouldn't trigger a fish allergy because the DNA in the strawberry doesn't 'know' that it came from a fish. It knows that when it gets a signal to start making some protein X, it starts making that protein until some other signal tells it to stop.

Cheers
Aj

Yes. This exactly. Thanks for the reference!--pretty amazing stuff!
(I almost went into genetics *sigh*...)