Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 18 May 2004 12:54:06 -0600 |
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>> there is an essential difference between naturally evolving genetic and
man
>> directed
I'm curious. When did man become not a part of nature? How do you know we
are not just a "tool" being used to impart certain changes in the
ecosystem?
>> favorising gluten content of wild grains to makes "better" breads to
realise
>> way down the road we have reach toxic levels that hinder absobtion of
other
>> nutrients )
Can't argue with you there. But bread isn't paleo anyway.
>> artificially selecting some traits of a food to satisfy some humans
desires
>> or values to makes a "better food" miss the whole point of genetic
>> evolution .
Why is it you assume we are not actually capable of "improving" something?
All things being equal, what is really wrong with a "bigger" squash? My
point was sometimes this happens "naturally".
>> Wheat is obviously the most striking ex of that
Again, who cares about genetic manipulation of wheat if they don't eat it?
And, if we avoid grain feds animals...
>> they killed 19 millions of chickens to stop the avian flu
"Nature" has killed off hundreds, perhaps thousands, of species. Man is an
absolute amateur when it comes to that :)
>> when it comes to genetically modified organisms ( GMO)
My post wasn't about gene splicing.
|
|
|