Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hehehe. Dude, ALL domestically cultivated food is modified = does not contain the original genetic make up of the original plant or animal. Artificial selection does that. This applies whether or not the food is organically grown, and whether or not the modification occurs in a field, a barn, or a petri dish.
Are you trying to spin your way out of your ignorant argument ? just admit you were wrong it's ok to be wrong sometimes.
or·gan·ic food (ōr-gan'ik fūd)
Food grown or raised without the use of additives, coloring, synthetic chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, hormones), radiation, or genetic manipulation and meeting criteria of the U.S.D.A. Standard National Organic Program.
organic food - definition of organic food in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated. ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated. All peas are genetically manipulated. All green beans have been manipulated. ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated. Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.
Are you trying to spin your way out of your ignorant argument ? just admit you were wrong it's ok to be wrong sometimes.
or·gan·ic food (ōr-gan'ik fūd)
Food grown or raised without the use of additives, coloring, synthetic chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, hormones), radiation, or genetic manipulation and meeting criteria of the U.S.D.A. Standard National Organic Program.
organic food - definition of organic food in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated. ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated. All peas are genetically manipulated. All green beans have been manipulated. ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated. Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.
Here is the difference that you seem to be confused over. Cross pollination is natural which falls under the term as organic .Genetic modifications are when scientists alter the genome of foods. Selective breeding would also be consider natural and not altering the genome.
The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated. ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated. All peas are genetically manipulated. All green beans have been manipulated. ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated. Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.
Here is the difference that you seem to be confused over. Cross pollination is natural which falls under the term as organic .Genetic modifications are when scientists alter the genome of foods. Selective breeding would also be consider natural and not altering the genome.
Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.
Here is the difference that you seem to be confused over. Cross pollination is natural which falls under the term as organic .Genetic modifications are when scientists alter the genome of foods. Selective breeding would also be consider natural and not altering the genome.
Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.
you are selectively breeding for natural traits ,not introducing traits that never existed in the species...huge diffrenece
debunked by who?..slap dick?he idea of degeneration goes back to the 18th century, and had significant influence on science, art and politics from the 1850s to the 1950s. These concepts meant that humanity's development was no longer fixed and certain, but could change and evolve or degenerate into an unknown future, possibly a bleak future that clashes with the analogy between evolution and civilization as a progressive positive direction.Do you really understand evolution ?
more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.
As a consequence, theorists assumed the human species might be overtaken by a more adaptable species or circumstances might change and suit a more adapted species. Degeneration theory presented a pessimistic outlook for the future of western civilization as it believed the progress of the 19th century had begun to work against itself.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Art
3 See also
4 References
5 Bibliography
6 External links
History[edit source | editbeta]
One of the earliest scientists to advocate degeneration was Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, they were believers in the "Degeneration theory" of racial origins. The theory claims that races can degenerate into "primitive" forms. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were white and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting. Buffon believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[1]
By the mid 18th century, naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus recognised a large number of species, each with its own place in nature and with adaptation to a particular geographical location. Both points made the story of Noah's Ark seem untenable, with its prospect of organisms migrating from one point over vast stretches of hostile territory. From 1749 onwards Buffon published a series of volumes of his Natural History in which he proposed that creatures had arisen by divinely ordained laws, separately in the old world and in the Americas. Where humans and families of animals were found in both continents, he suggested that they had migrated from the old world at a time when the world was warmer and routes were open, but had changed to suit the new conditions by degeneration from the ideal type. For an example of this "degeneration of animals", he described the cat family, in which the lion was distinct from the cougar, and the leopard from the jaguar, but differed even more from each other. From this he concluded "that these animals had one common origin and that, having formerly passed from one continent to another, their present differences have proceeded only from the long influence of their new situation." He wavered as to whether truly new species were produced by this process, and it is unclear as to whether this concept can be thought of as an early theory of evolution.[2]
George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll claimed that modern savages were degenerate descendants from originally civilized peoples. He opposed evolution and followed cultural degeneration.[3]
By 1890 there was a growing fear of degeneration sweeping across Europe creating disorders that led to poverty, crime, alcoholism, moral perversion and political violence. Degeneration raised the possibility that Europe may be creating a class of degenerate people who may attack the social norms, this led to support for a strong state which polices degenerates out of existence with the assistance of scientific identification.
In the 1850s French doctor Bénédict Morel argued more vigorously that certain groups of people were degenerating, going backwards in terms of evolution so each generation became weaker and weaker. This was based on pre-Darwinian ideas of evolution, especially those of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who argued that acquired characteristics like drug abuse and sexual perversions, could be inherited. Genetic predispositions have been observed for alcoholism and criminality.
The first scientific criminologist Cesare Lombroso working in the 1880s believed he found evidence of degeneration by studying the corpses of criminals. After completing an autopsy on murderer Villela he found the indentation where the spine meets the neck to be a signal of degeneration and subsequent criminality. Lombroso was convinced he had found the key to degeneration that had concerned liberal circles.[4]
In the twentieth century, eradicating "degeneration" became a justification for various eugenic programs, mostly in Europe and the United States. Eugenicists adopted the concept, using it to justify the sterilization of the supposedly unfit. The Nazis took up these eugenic efforts as well, including extermination, for those who would corrupt future generations. They also used the concept in art,
For further information, see Daniel Pick's book Faces of Degeneration, or the work of Sander Gilman.
In Alexey Severtzov's typology of the evolution directions this term is used in an ethically neutral way; it denotes such an evolutionary transformation that is accompanied by a decrease in complexity, as opposed to aromorphosis (accompanied by increase in complexity, cp. anagenesis[5]), and idioadaptation (this term designates such an evolutionary transformation that is accompanied by neither a decrease nor increase in complexity, cp. cladogenesis) (see, e.g., Korotayev 2004).
Degeneration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the law of degeneration is a debunked pseudo science like phrenology
of course slapdick would use a debunked theory to bolster an imaginary creator.
Debunked
What is your hang up concerning slapping dick ?
YES! It's obvious you don't!what designer? the one you make up, and have no evidence for.How is this a puzzler ? the designer chose the method of reproduction for all groups of organisms.
Funny that a unguided and random process would produce such mechanisms of reproduction.
asexual reproduction is far older the sexual reproduction, so once again you are talking out your ass.
Do you have a clue of what you're talking about ?
Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.
you are selectively breeding for natural traits ,not introducing traits that never existed in the species...huge diffrenece
Why is it so different? Look at dogs today. Look at what 30,000 years of selective breeding has done to them (particularly the last 100 years). Dogs are a completely new species from their wolf ancestors. Corn is still corn.
welcome to another episode of off on a tangent with eot's !
welcome to another episode of off on a tangent with eot's !
no you're not..welcome to another episode of off on a tangent with eot's !
it was your little friend that brought up dog breeding and genetically modified foods i am just correcting his misconceptions
Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated. ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated. All peas are genetically manipulated. All green beans have been manipulated. ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated. Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.
Here is the difference that you seem to be confused over. Cross pollination is natural which falls under the term as organic .Genetic modifications are when scientists alter the genome of foods. Selective breeding would also be consider natural and not altering the genome.
Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.
welcome to another episode of off on a tangent with eot's !
as always you're wrong.How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology?Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.Here is the difference that you seem to be confused over. Cross pollination is natural which falls under the term as organic .Genetic modifications are when scientists alter the genome of foods. Selective breeding would also be consider natural and not altering the genome.
Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.
you are selectively breeding for natural traits ,not introducing traits that never existed in the species...huge diffrenece
Why is it so different? Look at dogs today. Look at what 30,000 years of selective breeding has done to them (particularly the last 100 years). Dogs are a completely new species from their wolf ancestors. Corn is still corn.
why is it different...because we are not fusing spider genes with dog genes thats how its different and dogs and wolfs are in fact in the same species..thats why they can breed naturally together...if you take away selective breeding and dogs are left to interbreed on their own, revert to a stereotypical form within a few generations -- stocky animals with yellowish, medium coats, furry tails, short muzzles and upright ears.
NO THANKS i'm staying ..welcome to another episode of off on a tangent with eot's !
You do not have anything to add but ignorance and stupidity to this thread ,take a hike slapdick!
you can always dream...why is it so different? Look at dogs today. Look at what 30,000 years of selective breeding has done to them (particularly the last 100 years). Dogs are a completely new species from their wolf ancestors. Corn is still corn.
why is it different...because we are not fusing spider genes with dog genes thats how its different and dogs and wolfs are in fact in the same species..thats why they can breed naturally together...if you take away selective breeding and dogs are left to interbreed on their own, revert to a stereotypical form within a few generations -- stocky animals with yellowish, medium coats, furry tails, short muzzles and upright ears.
they also fuse genes from plants to animals and vice versa. These guys just do not understand genetics well enough to argue it.
as always you're wrong.How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology?Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.
In: Biology
Answer:
Selective breeding is one form of biotechnology important in agriculture and medicine, because when scientists manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, they are using biotechnology.
How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology
sure slapdick....as always you're wrong.How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology?Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.
In: Biology
Answer:
Selective breeding is one form of biotechnology important in agriculture and medicine, because when scientists manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, they are using biotechnology.
How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology
Still your ignorance shows up.
