I do assume you know the actual difference , and while YOU may not be trying to paint Mendel as a hero and Monsanto as the villain, your insistance on driving a wedge between the concepts is what helps perpetuate the misunderstandings as to what GMO is and it's relative danger.
And how am I making up a damn definition? You insist on using the term "genetic engineering" as a specific technological term and refusing to realize what the two words actually mean. Whether directly splice a gene or mate a strain, you are engeering the genes and corresponding traits of the offspring. It doesn't matter historically people didn't know that genes were involved. I'm not being obtuse with the defninition, you're being to narrow with it. You may not be trying to be deceptive as some might try to be but it's still an ignorant and potentially misleading interpretation of the term. Yours is the custom usage of the term, not mine.
And acceptance that this has happened always is part of what's going to reduce people's natural paranoia over the concept of GMO. There's an interesting chapter that talks about this in Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate. People have an evolutionary hard wiring which leaves them victim to the natural fallacy, basically assuming that everything natural must be best. We have an innate phobia of anything unnatural. The truth is that nature always takes the easiest path, not necessarily the correct one. And modifying organisms to do what nature did not, is not necessarily a bad thing.
People seem to get this with selective breeding, and seem to brush off the dangers involved. For instance, about 150 years ago the Phylloxera aphid almost wiped out all vineyards in France. This was largely because the vines were so carefully bred that they wound up all being exposed to narrow threats. So "genetic engineering" almost wiped out wine in Europe. "Genetic engineering" also saved it when they learned they could graft graft american labrusca stems to European vinifera vines and create phylloxera resistan strains. So genetic engineering almost proved disasterous in the not so distant past several times (and it's likely caused many other disasters that people didn't even properly associated with horticulture and husbandry) but people have accepted that it's an overall decent strategy. They have to get over it again now.
So the point is that if people were to understand that their food has been engineered for ages, they might get over their phobias of this new, faster method of genetic engineering. People screaming "don't be stupid, they're not the same thing" are missing the point.
Last edited by jackstraw94086; 10-08-2012 at 04:27 PM.
No, it wouldn't. Chemical Engineering is a discipline, a field. There are degrees, academic and professional societies that give it definition. There are related/competing fields that also help define the boundaries (though of course there is some overlap).
I think the problem may be that you are looking it and only seeing the results. Yes, both artificial selection and genetic engineering yield new stuff. But they're taught and practiced differently, by different people, involve incredibly different techniques and their results are not entirely overlapping.
I agree that the public should have concerns with artificial selection. I agree that genetic engineering is important for our future. But I don't think disinformation by rebranding them into one entity is going to help anything.
Also: genetic engineering is a subset of, a method of artificial selection, not the other way around.
you're being recklessly obstinate. According to your view, someone like Newton couldn't even be called a physicist because in his day the field was called natural philosophy. Nobody gave him a degree in physics. And Gregor Mendel a bioligist? C'mon who taught him biology in that monestary? You just won't let go of your view of "engineering" as being something that can only be done with a modern degree and perhaps a lab coat. It's not worth continuing this dicsussion.
However, for your own sake, please understand how your last comment is insane. Read the words. You agree that the outcomes and goals are ultimately the same, yet you seem to think the action of deliberately and manually pairing two individuals to mate and produce an offspring that shares common traits is somehow a more general method of engineering genes than "genetic engineering", which even if we take your incredibly narrow definition, entails splicing genes directly in a lab. You're not combining sets of genes, you're taking a full set and inserting new ones. These are two different branches of the same notion. This makes me think you aren't quite prepared to discuss this.
It isn't my terminology.
Are you still trying to claim that "genetic engineering encompasses artificial selection" is the common, accepted understanding rather than the other way around? If so please provide citations.
Your Newton/Mendel diversion seems to suggest that you have abandoned that fantasy and are pushing for me to accept a new definition, one that ignores how it is used by the scientists doing the work. Also retroactively calling what Newton by the specific name (physics) rather than the general name (natural philosophy) is the opposite of what you're trying to do. We're not trying to use the term phsyics for all of what natural philosophy covered but you're trying to use genetic engineering for all of artificial selection.
If we're going to call artificial selection a "method of engineering genes" we might as well throw natural selection (eg having babies) in there too.
The fact that these concepts are NOT currently understood to be united IS the problem. fucks sake. I'm not pushing you to accept a new definition. It's always been there, and it's obvious. It's just that most people haven't thought about it enough to make the connection. This is only English I'm speaking here.
The rest of your post is really not worthy of response, but your desperate wordplay in an attempt to accuse me of wordplay is confusing.
Here's the point of that Newton/Mendel bit. Do you accept that Newton was doing physics, and Mendel was doing biology? I took for granted that you would admit that. Perhaps I was wrong. Do you?
Btw, artificial selection IS a method of engineering offspring with desirable traits. These traits are expressions of genes. In that context they are synonymous. You are engineering combinations of traits/genes. It sounds like your ONLY argument against this is that "genes" weren't discovered until long after the practice artificial selection began. But of course you'll tell me you never said that and once more refuse to say what you mean. And what exactly is your definition of "genetic engineering" then? Seriously, what are you talking about?
btw I'm also disappointed we dont have a bunch of posts complaining about ruining this thread. It's almost not worth carrying on this argument if we don't get those.
Last edited by jackstraw94086; 10-09-2012 at 09:26 AM.
"why are you so annoying" TheKlein25
Originally Posted by a fucking dictionary
Originally Posted by wikipedia
or whatever the fuck you want for "my definition."
Words are so that people can communicate. You are using your own custom definition of genetic engineering that has nothing do with the historical usage of the term, but rather something to do with your interpretation the meaning of the words in the term. And you're doing so to try to manipulate people into something. Fuck that.
And of course Newton was doing physics. And I'm OK calling Mendel not just a biologist but a geneticist. Some person who only bred their strongest stallions with the strongest mares was doing artificial selection even before there was a name for it. But none of them were doing genetic engineering because they weren't cutting up genes.
Last edited by mountmccabe; 10-09-2012 at 09:48 AM.
Smug asshole thought he had it in the bag.
President Obama "did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and walked off the stage in Denver believing he had got the better of Mitt Romney," Toby Harnden reports.
A top Democrat "said that Obama's inner circle was dismayed at the 'disaster' that the first presidential debate had turned out to be and believed that the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn't believe he needed to engage with him... The Democrat, who is aligned with the Obama campaign and has been an unofficial adviser on occasions, said that David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, was stunned that the President left the stage feeling that he had won the debate."
"why are you so annoying" TheKlein25
Not yet, Amy. The polls we saw yesterday and today are the height of the debate's impact on voters, and there is a good case that the trackers are already showing a regression in Romney's support:
Plenty of reason to believe Romney helped himself, but unless we see polls early next week establishing a clear Romney lead, I think a full-blown freakout is premature.
Artificial selection is the generic term. Selective breeding is another, less technical generic term.
There are many types of Artificial Selection. Having a spotted dog fuck a long haired dog hoping for spotted long-haired puppies is Artificial Selection. Isolating DNA that causes long-hair, playing with it and inserting it into the genome of a spotted dog to grow spotted long-haired puppies is a very different thing.
All I've been saying is that narrow definition is what makes people unnecessarily disassociate the concepts. If you placed one ounce of thought into the subject instead of banging away on the dictionary definiton, you'd understand the point is what you perceive as two different thigns is basically the same, and if you accept one then you implicitly accept the other. The strict definition is part of the problem. But if you couldn't get that the first dozen times I don't know what the fuck the point of droning on about it is. Just go away.
People have been engineering traits, and thus the genes, for millenia. NOW STOP with the fucking retarded semantics argument. I would have thought this was beneath you, but you're arguing in a spectacularly desperate fashion here. All you seem to want to do here is say bunch of shit that draws out to an obvious conclusion and then say "no I'm not arguing that". You're not arguing anything. Just cut it out.
I laid it a perfectly clear definition of what you're claiming genetic engineering to be (directly inserting genes), and then you say "that's not my definition". then you post a dictionary defintion which essentially says just that. You obviously don't know what genetic engineers do.
Last edited by jackstraw94086; 10-09-2012 at 09:59 AM.
Rasmussen (yeah, I know, but still) says they're tied today: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll
Huff Post meta-poll says Obama's leading but it's a lot closer than it had been: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1947777.html
By the way, Mitch, where do you weigh in on the highly divisive issue of defining genetic engineering? Are you with the Plain English folks (jackstraw) or the Scientists Think They Can Co-opt The Language folks (mountmccabe)?
But just to be clear, yes, I am using the dictionary definition. I am not the one trying to manipulate folks into something.
The fun part is that we both like GMOs!
Look at the bottom of this post
and I don't know why you insist on calling it manipulation. I'm only asking people to reflect on a the greater concept. If people really understood what GMO is and still are against it then that's fine. I suspect many many folks when they realize that is actually happening (instead of being misguided by propaganda about "frankenfoods" and flimsy concocted cancer studies) then they'd have less aversion to it. Genetic engineering (AS A CONCEPT) is why we have giant fruits and fat cows with ridiculous amounts of milk, etc. There's some bad that comes with the good, but the good far outweighs.
That's all. You don't need convincing of that. Most seem to, and it's because they're understanding is partially constrained by strict terms.
Latest Swing State Polls
Here are the latest polls from the battleground states:
Colorado: Romney 50%, Obama 46% (American Research Group)
Nevada: Obama 47%, Romney 47% (Rasmussen)
North Carolina: Romney 50%, Obama 41% (Gravis)
Ohio: Romney 48%, Obama 47% (American Research Group)
Ohio: Obama 45%, Romney 44% (SurveyUSA)
Pennsylvania: Obama 43%, Romney 40% (Siena)
"why are you so annoying" TheKlein25
everything in politics is momentum .. It has to be with the short attention span of our public & social media.
It probably was a strategy to dull down the 1st debate and hammer Mitt on the Foreign Policy one...
Also when there is a serious international event or threat near an election people tend to vote incumbent ...
(Now I am back to replying to the recent post)
Last edited by mountmccabe; 10-09-2012 at 11:10 AM.