Potency differences between phenotypes

[Thundercat]

I never said that selective breeding IS "GMO", which seems to be where your hangup is. Sorry, I agree with the Harvard scientists too. Your reading comprehension sucks so bad.

You're such a good person, pat yourself on the back some more.

I'm contributing by stemming the flow of misinformation from "experts", and their ridiculous notions.

Like the one you have about identical genome from parent to offspring. Who would think that??? You apparently. When you combine two different things, you get a third new thing separate from the other things. When you are selecting things that you like in the parents, you pick the offspring that most express it and try and bring that out more, which is modifying genes (the natural way).

I don't get how you don't understand that. It's not disputable, selective breeding does modify genes. That doesn't make them "GMO".

You didn't stem any bad information, you laughed at another poster for saying "big GMO" in reference to Monsanto. Then tryin to say that everything is GMO because ....your quote from the firs post..."selective breeding is GMO...". Which is wrong it's it not which is what that Harvard link said.

So if you agree with Harvard then you agree with me... Then you should stop trying to attack my character and intellect.

I'm not sure exactly what ideas you think I have about breeding that are wrong, but that's just another attack on me as I was trying to make my post relevant to the conversation.

Please explain to me what I said about breeding that was incorrect... Otherwise why not stop being angry and realize at most you made a wrong statement about selective breeding because you think it really is GMO or at the very least you poorly worded what you meant and got corrected so that new growers that read this didn't make the mistake of thinking that they are the same.

How do you not understand the difference between modification and selection?

 

[Dr. Who]

They are both just gene modification techniques and are compared extensively. What level of evidence do you require?

That was my whole point. “Genetic drift” (not shift) is an entirely different concept that I was not discussing at any point.

GOTTCHA!

There is NO SUCH THING as "Genetic Drift" in the way your thinking! "Bottleneck effect" is a term that applies to your misused one..This is a big misconception!
There is environmental "drift". BEST to say "Shift"....It is NOT a shifting of a plant genetically!

No, they are not in the way you are thinking of them!

Your mixing x's and o's or trying to put a round peg in a square hole..... I suggest you do more then read a few abstract's or news blurb's....

 

[dstroy]

You didn't stem any bad information, you laughed at another poster for saying "big GMO" in reference to Monsanto. Then tryin to say that everything is GMO because ....your quote from the firs post..."selective breeding is GMO...". Which is wrong it's it not which is what that Harvard link said.

So if you agree with Harvard then you agree with me... Then you should stop trying to attack my character and intellect.

I'm not sure exactly what ideas you think I have about breeding that are wrong, but that's just another attack on me as I was trying to make my post relevant to the conversation.

Please explain to me what I said about breeding that was incorrect... Otherwise why not stop being angry and realize at most you made a wrong statement about selective breeding because you think it really is GMO or at the very least you poorly worded what you meant and got corrected so that new growers that read this didn't make the mistake of thinking that they are the same.

How do you not understand the difference between modification and selection?

I thought you had to work. Sorry I made you so upset. Don’t project, I’m not angry. I just think you’re really stupid.

 

[dstroy]

GOTTCHA!

There is NO SUCH THING as "Genetic Drift" in the way your thinking! "Bottleneck effect" is a term that applies to your misused one..This is a big misconception!
There is environmental "drift". BEST to say "Shift"....It is NOT a shifting of a plant genetically!

No, they are not in the way you are thinking of them!

Your mixing x's and o's or trying to put a round peg in a square hole..... I suggest you do more then read a few abstract's or news blurb's....

Uh I suggest you rethink what you’re saying because it makes no sense. Gotcha!

 

[Dr. Who]

Uh I suggest you rethink what you’re saying because it makes no sense. Gotcha!

Your lack of actual education on the subject, betray's your inability to understand....

Done here....IGNORE is on..

You should point the portal gun at your head and find a new growing universe.....C137 already has it's Rick.
How about C132 from the last episode?

 

[dstroy]

Your lack of actual education on the subject, betray's your inability to understand....

Done here....IGNORE is on..

You should point the portal gun at your head and find a new growing universe.....C137 already has it's Rick.
How about C132 from the last episode?

Thanks. I mean, claim all you want but I definitely know what I’m talking about. Sorry I rustled your jimmies so much. Do you have an army of followers stroking your ego or something? Can’t handle a little opposition?

Real cool telling me I’m on ignore. I guess you win then cause you decided you couldn’t handle being called wrong so you have to ignore.

 

[Thundercat]

I thought you had to work. Sorry I made you so upset. Don’t project, I’m not angry. I just think you’re really stupid.

And once again when faced with the truth even from multiple sources you resort to childish insults to hide. I'm at work now thanks for being concerned. I've been nothing but nice to you all along simply trying to help you better understand science. However as Dr. Who has also now shown you don't have the ability to get past your own ego to understand the science. I asked you questions and tried to have a conversation but you keep getting angry and resorting to insults.

To which I say good day sir!

 

[dstroy]

And once again when faced with the truth even from multiple sources you resort to childish insults to hide. I'm at work now thanks for being concerned. I've been nothing but nice to you all along simply trying to help you better understand science. However as Dr. Who has also now shown you don't have the ability to get past your own ego to understand the science. I asked you questions and tried to have a conversation but you keep getting angry and resorting to insults.

To which I say good day sir!

Again, don’t project. I’m not angry. I was presented with nothing, no new facts. This has nothing to do with ego, I’m wrong all the time. Just not this time.

Good day? Guess we're done here then?

Bless your little heart.

 

[dstroy]

GOTTCHA!

There is NO SUCH THING as "Genetic Drift" in the way your thinking! "Bottleneck effect" is a term that applies to your misused one..This is a big misconception!
There is environmental "drift". BEST to say "Shift"....It is NOT a shifting of a plant genetically!

No, they are not in the way you are thinking of them!

Your mixing x's and o's or trying to put a round peg in a square hole..... I suggest you do more then read a few abstract's or news blurb's....

You couldn’t be more wrong.

https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/advanced/topics/PopGenetics/Pages/geneticdrift.aspx

I mean like so hilariously wrong. This is such a waste of my time.

I never mentioned anything like this either. You’re confusing topics. Selective breeding and GMO are not related to this.

The bottleneck effect isn’t what you think either, though it is related to GENETIC DRIFT (not shift).

lol

 

[Khyber420]

Wtf is “big GMO”?

I don’t want to go back to chewing on teosinte, I prefer sweet corn..

Selective breeding creates “GMO’s” through trait selection instead of gene editing, which is what most of the modern cultivars are. Heavily worked lines.

So what I THINK you’re trying to say is that you think it’s weird to insert fish genes into rice and that you don’t have any problem with the general food we eat, or with selective breeding which is just slower genetic editing.

The non GMO label in America means nothing, there is no oversight. Anyone can buy the label if they have the money. Additionally, due to our food transport and sorting systems, there is a 100% chance that you are unknowingly ingesting GMO foods.

Uh no that's not at all what I'm referring to at all actually. I suggest you look up Monsanto GMO Canola and Round Up if you need the prototypical definition of big dirty gmo and the impacts on small farmers.

Selective breeding is not GMO. That's like saying a Pitbull is a genetically modified organism. Good luck patenting a Pitbull, GMO Canola that is bio-engineered to be resistant to the non selective herbicide RoundUp on the other hand is patented, and it's killed oldschool landrace Canola (and small farmers) all over the world for various, mostly economic reasons.

I'm not some dumb anti vaxer who thinks GMO causes Cancer.

 

[dstroy]

Uh no that's not at all what I'm referring to at all actually. I suggest you look up Monsanto GMO Canola and Round Up if you need the prototypical definition of big dirty gmo and the impacts on small farmers.

Selective breeding is not GMO. That's like saying a Pitbull is a genetically modified organism. Good luck patenting a Pitbull, GMO Canola that is bio-engineered to be resistant to the non selective herbicide RoundUp on the other hand is patented, and it's killed oldschool landrace Canola (and small farmers) all over the world for various, mostly economic reasons.

I'm not some dumb anti vaxer who thinks GMO causes Cancer.

Man, you cant read either. You understand that what comparison is no? You understand that both are gene modification techniques?

The only difference is that with one, foreign genes get inserted at a specific point, and there’s no chance involved.

Monsanto has never ever sued a small farmer that didn’t blatantly violate their patent for “roundup ready” products. Which you would know if you did more than read conspiracy theories. They don’t sue cause some of your shit got pollenated, there are zero ways to control that effectively. What you are doing is called “fear mongering”, there is no crisis. If you want to help small farmers, vote for them to get more subsidies than large farmers to help them survive. When you buy their seeds, you sign something that says you will not make seeds from their seeds, and if you do they sue you. Small farmers can’t afford RR seeds, make their own to survive and get caught. They broke the law, that’s theft (on a grand scale). Simple. Is it right? I don’t think so, but that’s the law.

That said, glyphosphate is bad, and we shouldn’t use it anymore on food. Roundup is glyphosphate, and roundup ready products are bad news because they perpetuate its use.

I originally laughed because there is no such thing as “big gmo” because anyone who can afford to make a gmo product successfully is already an enormous company. It’s like saying RIP peace. Stupid.

They don’t patent the seed either, like some want to argue, only their RR markers. It is so easy to tell if it’s a case of cross field pollination. Farmers just need to be cautious about where they source their seeds until a legal precedent is set about buying seeds from someone and you had no idea they were RR (which is total bullshit, that dude had no idea). But hopefully RR products get pulled altogether.

If you’re going to hate on GMO seed producers, don’t forget about DuPont and Syngenta. Everyone always talks about Monsanto but those companies also exist and perform similar activities.

 

[Dr. Who]

And once again when faced with the truth even from multiple sources you resort to childish insults to hide. I'm at work now thanks for being concerned. I've been nothing but nice to you all along simply trying to help you better understand science. However as Dr. Who has also now shown you don't have the ability to get past your own ego to understand the science. I asked you questions and tried to have a conversation but you keep getting angry and resorting to insults.

To which I say good day sir!

Did you read his paper he listed?

Totally off the board for what we are talking about.

Where did micro sized strain amounts come in? Allele frequency changes from drift - defined by populations of the strain at only 5 plants. Standard expected deviations of .22 or 22%..
Ok, I understand that but, Who in the world has only 5 plants, making up the whole population of the strain?

% of any kind of drift in real world populations is so small that it's not even considered as an actual drift....... "Drift" never did like that term... I had a prof that taught actual "drift" is not what anybody thinks. Mutational changes to a gene in large populations of plants tend to peter out from natural selection...In the proper clime.

Here he's pointing to whole strain representations of 50 or less plants? Why hells - bells, the paper even lines out the genetic inbreeding coefficient and asexual reproduction problems that will climb due to that very limited genetic strain representation! Not to mention that the pathogen problem can come in and totally change the whole design.

We were talking about GMO's and natural selection,,,right?
Not to mention that came from the actual question of
Potency differences between phenotypes

Never did actually answer the OP's question either, did he?

Goes on to talk about self importance....FAH....Whats this about then? Use of big words and science that maybe less then 5% of those on here can understand....

He started with this shit -

Selective breeding creates “GMO’s” through trait selection instead of gene editing, which is what most of the modern cultivars are. Heavily worked lines.

I strongly disagree with his wording. If I were to grade that in a college setting......D at best GMO = FAIL........Natural selection is real deal genetic shift... NOT a GMO that is specifically targeted genetic manipulation!

Just can't wrap his head around that one, can he?

No more for me here.... I ain't ducking shit. Just choosing not to waste more time.

 

[dstroy]

Did you read his paper he listed?

Totally off the board for what we are talking about.

Where did micro sized strain amounts come in? Allele frequency changes from drift - defined by populations of the strain at only 5 plants. Standard expected deviations of .22 or 22%..
Ok, I understand that but, Who in the world has only 5 plants, making up the whole population of the strain?

% of any kind of drift in real world populations is so small that it's not even considered as an actual drift....... "Drift" never did like that term... I had a prof that taught actual "drift" is not what anybody thinks. Mutational changes to a gene in large populations of plants tend to peter out from natural selection...In the proper clime.

Here he's pointing to whole strain representations of 50 or less plants? Why hells - bells, the paper even lines out the genetic inbreeding coefficient and asexual reproduction problems that will climb due to that very limited genetic strain representation! Not to mention that the pathogen problem can come in and totally change the whole design.

We were talking about GMO's and natural selection,,,right?
Not to mention that came from the actual question of
Potency differences between phenotypes

Never did actually answer the OP's question either, did he?

Goes on to talk about self importance....FAH....Whats this about then? Use of big words and science that maybe less then 5% of those on here can understand....

He started with this shit -


I strongly disagree with his wording. If I were to grade that in a college setting......D at best GMO = FAIL........Natural selection is real deal genetic shift... NOT a GMO that is specifically targeted genetic manipulation!

Just can't wrap his head around that one, can he?

No more for me here.... I ain't ducking shit. Just choosing not to waste more time.

Good thing you aren't in charge of grading shit.

Edit: I think you smoked too much of that super valuable super weed you keep talking up but havent sent in for testing.

 

[Dr. Who]

Reflection: I guess i just have a hard time with the science behind such small #'s.. Having dealt with the mass #'s in the various forms of the agricultural industry I've been a part of..

A complete strain limited to 5 plants......It's almost hard for me to wrap my head around...
I can see the actual interest in studying that type of thing but, I have a hard time applying it to anything in agriculture I am used to dealing with..

Ok @dstroy Respect for your dedication and interests....

Later...

 

[Dr. Who]

super valuable

You said, not me.

I gave actual working #'s to the OP's question.

GMO - Definition

Genetically modified organism (GMO), organism whose genome has been engineered in the laboratory in order to favour the expression of desired physiological traits or the production of desired biological products. In conventional livestock production, crop farming, and even pet breeding, it has long been the practice to breed select individuals of a species in order to produce offspring that have desirable traits. In genetic modification, however, recombinant genetic technologies are employed to produce organisms whose genomes have been precisely altered at the molecular level, usually by the inclusion of genes from unrelated species of organisms that code for traits that would not be obtained easily through conventional selective breeding.

You listed what? FAIL

 

[Thundercat]

Did you read his paper he listed?

Totally off the board for what we are talking about.

Where did micro sized strain amounts come in? Allele frequency changes from drift - defined by populations of the strain at only 5 plants. Standard expected deviations of .22 or 22%..
Ok, I understand that but, Who in the world has only 5 plants, making up the whole population of the strain?

% of any kind of drift in real world populations is so small that it's not even considered as an actual drift....... "Drift" never did like that term... I had a prof that taught actual "drift" is not what anybody thinks. Mutational changes to a gene in large populations of plants tend to peter out from natural selection...In the proper clime.

Here he's pointing to whole strain representations of 50 or less plants? Why hells - bells, the paper even lines out the genetic inbreeding coefficient and asexual reproduction problems that will climb due to that very limited genetic strain representation! Not to mention that the pathogen problem can come in and totally change the whole design.

We were talking about GMO's and natural selection,,,right?
Not to mention that came from the actual question of
Potency differences between phenotypes

Never did actually answer the OP's question either, did he?

Goes on to talk about self importance....FAH....Whats this about then? Use of big words and science that maybe less then 5% of those on here can understand....

He started with this shit -


I strongly disagree with his wording. If I were to grade that in a college setting......D at best GMO = FAIL........Natural selection is real deal genetic shift... NOT a GMO that is specifically targeted genetic manipulation!

Just can't wrap his head around that one, can he?

No more for me here.... I ain't ducking shit. Just choosing not to waste more time.

Honestly Dr. he seems like a troll to me. I posted a paper from Harvard clearly stateing that selective breeding is not a form of GMO.

He can't seem to swallow the difference between the words modification which is altering the existing genes to be something different completely, and selection which simply picks which existing genes that the breeder "hopes" to isolate.

When I realized yesterday that he had no actual rebuttal for the truth and was just going to argue and insult with no validity I got over him. I don't know if he is always like this or if getting corrected for making a stupid comment just stirred him up. Either way it's sad to see people so blinded by ego they can't accept reality.

 

[Thundercat]

Also back on topic, @Dr. Who do you happen to have the name or a link for that hand held tester you were pleased with? Getting something like that would be pretty cool if it's actually accurate.

 

[dstroy]

Man, you cant read either. You understand that what comparison is no? You understand that both are gene modification techniques?

The only difference is that with one, foreign genes get inserted at a specific point, and there’s no chance involved.

Monsanto has never ever sued a small farmer that didn’t blatantly violate their patent for “roundup ready” products. Which you would know if you did more than read conspiracy theories. They don’t sue cause some of your shit got pollenated, there are zero ways to control that effectively. What you are doing is called “fear mongering”, there is no crisis. If you want to help small farmers, vote for them to get more subsidies than large farmers to help them survive. When you buy their seeds, you sign something that says you will not make seeds from their seeds, and if you do they sue you. Small farmers can’t afford RR seeds, make their own to survive and get caught. They broke the law, that’s theft (on a grand scale). Simple. Is it right? I don’t think so, but that’s the law.

That said, glyphosphate is bad, and we shouldn’t use it anymore on food. Roundup is glyphosphate, and roundup ready products are bad news because they perpetuate its use.

I originally laughed because there is no such thing as “big gmo” because anyone who can afford to make a gmo product successfully is already an enormous company. It’s like saying RIP peace. Stupid.

They don’t patent the seed either, like some want to argue, only their RR markers. It is so easy to tell if it’s a case of cross field pollination. Farmers just need to be cautious about where they source their seeds until a legal precedent is set about buying seeds from someone and you had no idea they were RR (which is total bullshit, that dude had no idea). But hopefully RR products get pulled altogether.

If you’re going to hate on GMO seed producers, don’t forget about DuPont and Syngenta. Everyone always talks about Monsanto but those companies also exist and perform similar activities.

You said, not me.

I gave actual working #'s to the OP's question.

GMO - Definition

Genetically modified organism (GMO), organism whose genome has been engineered in the laboratory in order to favour the expression of desired physiological traits or the production of desired biological products. In conventional livestock production, crop farming, and even pet breeding, it has long been the practice to breed select individuals of a species in order to produce offspring that have desirable traits. In genetic modification, however, recombinant genetic technologies are employed to produce organisms whose genomes have been precisely altered at the molecular level, usually by the inclusion of genes from unrelated species of organisms that code for traits that would not be obtained easily through conventional selective breeding.

You listed what? FAIL

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.

 

[Dr. Who]

 

[dstroy]

Yeah I'm just as tired of you as you are of me. That doesn't make you right.