Janic wrote:The selection made by our ancestors is, strictly speaking, a genetic manipulation. Handle comes from hand. When in a given population, you take some ears to make a seed, you choose the genes it contains. At the expense of others. You manipulate genes ...
Too simple to understand?
On the contrary, it is elementary and even if I intervene little on the subject, I never said the opposite. I'm just pointing out that what you call genetic manipulation, others call it selection, which has nothing to do with a direct intrusion into the cell by ignoring natural barriers of protection against intrusion. We are not on the same scale of value!
It can be compared to vaccination (I know I break my feet with this subject, but it's the same process) Jenner, finds that cowpowers are immune to smallpox after having affected the udder of cows with variola vaccine. It is therefore an EXTERNAL contact without intrusion and therefore passing through the immune system of the skin. Jenner will go through, annihilate this barrier to go directly under the skin assuming that where the immune system of the skin reduces the infection of the vaccine, it would increase the chances of making the next immune system even more effective, that of the blood. and it would have worked except that in the following epidemics the vaccinated were the first and most important victims and this had not been planned or imagined by the health authorities or point that the English State removed the vaccination obligation of this disease.
GMOs is the same story except that the 2 ° barrier protection is also crossed without precautions (which, by the way?)
Too simple to understand?Why confuse with a reversibility or not ???
Because any intervention DANCE the living depends on it! if you do a bypass, it's as irreversible as if you have a heart transplant!Just because it annoys you? Need irrepressible to be right?
Or simple common sense!Reread. I did not say it's irreversible.
It's true, it's me who says it, but not about the selection, but the intrusion. We have 2 centuries of experiments of all kinds on the living and with each new discovery, we realize that we did not know that this or that mechanism, had close links with other complex mechanisms, sophisticated that it takes sometimes try to repair, when it's possible only.
But our do-it-yourselfers do not take this into account since no ethics committee frames these bulb heads that manufacturers do not use for their beautiful eyes, but to produce wholesale industrial products, huge profits, especially since the living can be patented and their turnover has exploded. 7 billion, soon 10 billion customer to the key, it's not nothing and as much as possible, do not lose them stupidly with bio, alternative medicines.Nothing like. I'm not stupid enough (even in your eyes - I hope)
Especially in my eyes, I appreciate your efforts to direct the spirits and the acts towards a better respect of the ground, of the life of this one, so it is not a question of bullshit, but of different point of viewto challenge a truism: if we stop cultivating ("heal" if you want), most varieties (same old) will disappear ...
They will not disappear, any more than trees, flowers, wildlife " where the human hand has not set foot » . According to Darwinism natural selection will sort and the most robust (according to criteria other than ours) will resist as they have done for millennia.b) how does this contradict the fact that creating these varieties has been a "genetic manipulation" by our ancestors (in the literal sense: with their hands, they chose such genes rather than others)?
They did not know anything about genes, not difficult! But by selecting, with their hands, certain seeds, they did it at the expense of others more robust, more adapted to the soil, the climate, etc ... and this concerns especially our time.
We can compare the current corn in our regions, greedy water, with that of the regions of this product where the fields are not just watered, but producing smaller ears, and there is no need for chemical treatments. You must have already mentioned the question, I believe!
Let's go further: on the contrary, the fact that this is reversible even confirms the nature of manipulation: manipulated in the sense of human needs (therefore genetically different), these plants can no longer live alone. I remind you, this is quite true for "old vegetables", so idolized today!
Again, I'm not talking about selection here, but INTRUSION IN FORCE in the genome, without knowing the consequences in the medium or long term. As for plants selected for the needs of man (sic) it is rather selected for industrial needs, they rather conform the needs of their customers to them. it's called marketing!
Biology is the same for all that lives and the lessons we can draw from it are the same; and when the human being claims to have more knowledge and experience than that of all the billions of living beings that have passed from him, for millennia (others say millions but no matter) I find it vain and dangerous to put the spell of life in the hands of these genius handymen, but the story is behind us to remind us that the misused genius has always generated disasters (maybe even global warming)
why always oppose what nature does (what is good) to what man does (it's bad) when they both do the same thing
you said elsewhere that a lumberjack cutting a tree in the descending Moon will have a wood that will not need treatment to keep it, so if the wind fell a tree in the descending Moon this tree will not break down?