General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumskillbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Got three of the letters right, anyway.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It's science, man.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Genetically modified expressly intends "modified by intent." Natural selection has no intent.
Domestication, however, does. and I do think a strong argument could be made for humans being a self-domesticating species.
longship
(40,416 posts)Somebody's conveniently ignoring the thousands of years of what people call agriculture (see that?) where humans have been doing exactly what you claim that they haven't.
And do you know what -- since apparently you do not? It was all modification by intent!
There is no qualitative difference between cross-breeding and genetic modification. They both do the same damned thing. The only difference is specificity. That makes genetic modification better.
You are oh so busted.
Drops mic.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm amused that you think we're in disagreement.
Humans can probably not be considered GMO (thus the joke of the OP) unless we consider the possibility that humans are self-domesticating, selecting our own mates to achieve a desired overall result. As we - as a species - tend to favor other individuals who do well within the societies we form, i think the argument could go either way - either humans are adapting towards a human-created environment via natural selection, or we are - consciously or unconsciously - breeding towards descendants that can work better within that environment.
I've pointed out plenty of times that the drive to label all GMO's is easily subverted by simple biology, in that every domestic plant and animal is genetically modified, through intentional breeding, from a prior non-modified wild ancestor. all it takes is Tyson Foods (or whoever) counter-suing to force all domesticated meat and produce to be labeled, and that's it - and science would be on their side.
longship
(40,416 posts)Will leave my post up, though.
Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)Compared to a virus, humans do not evolve. Too slow, as species go: Homo-Sapien, Sapian is left at the starting-gates, as viruses like HIV/ AIDS mutate [Chinese satellites attempting to create ancient Sputnik code] faster than imaginable, while insects gain extra life-cycles, during climate change. We're dead!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Yes. Humans evolved. And as a species, we are still evolving. Every population of species is constatly evolving. Environmental pressures and generative rates do of course mean some evolve "faster" than others, but evolution is still occurring. Even very slow-breeding species in very stable environments are evolving, through what's called 'genetic drift."
As for our ability to cope with disease and parasites, I think you might be surprised. New diseases, of course, create a fairly horrific toll among a species. Such as the impact that influenza, smallpox, and measles had on Native Americans... or the effect syphilis and bubonic plague had on Europeans. Rapid, catastrophic death tolls, like "judgement from god" stuff. But there were survivors of the pandemics. There are always survivors, so long as the base population is large enough. Those survivors have stronger immune systems, which get passed on to their offspring. Who breed with other resistant offspring, and so cement disease resistance. It may take multiple generations, but it'll happen.
We're probably fucked, yup. Our great-great grandchildren will manage, though.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Humans do, and are, evolving however. Not as fast as many other organisms, true, but that doesn't mean we aren't.
So Far From Heaven
(354 posts)braddy
(3,585 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)petronius
(26,602 posts)houseplants...
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Why you gotta hate on them for their culinary choices?
Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)Those were Roaming GNOmes