"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> David Hare-Scott > writes
> > GM by direct intervention at the gene level may turn out in the long run
to
> >be good, bad or indiferent but lumping it in with selective breeding over
> >thousands of years is just pointless.
>
> Why?

Because both the genetic changes and the methods used to create them are
completely different.

>
> Selective breeding is a lot faster than 'thousands of years'
> particularly if its easy to select.
>

True, it may be faster than thousands of years. I just picked that figure
as humans have been doing it for that long with food species. It doesn't
make any difference to my point.

> Note that a range of plants (eg ryegrasses in australia) have developed
> resistance naturally in very much less than 1000's of years.
>

OK and if you do selective breeding with microbes you can get genetic
changes in very short times. But this information doesn't contribute much
to the original question.

David