David Hare-Scott > writes
>
>"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.

So, its the genes that count.

>> 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.

Much, much faster.

>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.

What is 'natural' and what is 'artificial'?
Who cares?

>> 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.

Was it a question or a statement?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.