1481
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by sag@lemm.ee to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 year ago

Genetically modified? That's a stretch.

Like many other cultures, bananas and apples were selectively reproduced to obtain fruits with more to eat. Corn, carrots, every single kale and cabbage, potatoes, oranges and even strawberries can go into this basket.

The wild banana has almost nothing to eat, being filled with large seeds and we can still find wild apples, by nature very tart but still edible. Every single cereal we plant and harvest today was originally nothing more than a wild grass.

But to call the work of millenia and who knows how many generations of farmers genetic modifications is a bit over the top.

GMOs are very recent introductions and normally for obtaining pest, drought or disease (more) resistant plants.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

We absolutely genetically modified pretty much all of our food. We just did it by selective breeding.

The only difference with modern GMO is we've learned to do it directly much faster. We don't need a random mutation to add a trait anymore.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Selective breeding and grafting modified the genetics

Bananas all being clones

There’s no reason to separate the terms

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

A skyscraper and a toolshed are both buildings technically speaking. So in that sense you are correct, only technically correct.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I would have said a skyscraper made of metal and a skyscraper made of cement are both skyscrapers for your analogy but sure

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Let's analyse that.

Selective breeding increases the frequency of a given set of genes, already present in a species, in order to better manifest specific, more advantageous - either nature or human chosen - traits.

Random mutations can occur when biological reproduction happens but unless extreme and radical - which often prove fatal for the offspring - are not relevant for the species in the immediate.

These principles are applicable to both plants and animals.

Now grafting takes a part of one plant - usually a small branch - uses another plant to provide the root system - usually something that grows much faster than the graft - and this process multiplies asexually the plant from which the branch was oroginally cut. No genes are carried over between the two plants.

This is valid to get a bunch of trees out of a single one in a very short time but it will not introduce new genes into the crop.

Quince trees are often used as root stock to graft other trees, like pear and apple. If the seeds from those grafted trees were to be sprouted, planted and nurtured to maturity, apples or pears would grow but of completely new varieties. The quince trees used to provide the root for grafting would provide zero genes to the new varieties.

Can you expand on why you consider grafting as a tool for genetic manipulation?

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

it will not introduce new genes into the crop.

Under normal circumstances new genes would be, but the new plant isn’t considered a new species (like tigons not being a species)

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

normal circumstances

As in a quince tree cross polinate a pear tree or an apple tree?

[-] XTornado@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

GMOs are very recent introductions and normally for obtaining pest, drought or disease (more)

Those bastards!!!!

resistant plants.

Oh...ok.....

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

How dare people and companies make plants that help people eat. Most disgusting thing ever.

[-] mudmaniac@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The wild banana has almost nothing to eat, being filled with large seeds and we can still find wild apples, by nature very tart but still edible. Every single cereal we plant and harvest today was originally nothing more than a wild grass.

I cannot help thinking about the first proto-human that started munching on the tips of wild grass.

  • "Hey Unk, check out Krug over there, chewin on the grass. That shit's messed up."
  • "I dunno Greg. Looks pretty tasty to me."
[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago

Our ancestors were primarily leaf eaters, so moving to grass wouldn't be that unusual. But let's picture the first proto-human that decided to go for the carcass of another animal, either killed by a predator or by fire or lightning. That would have been an event.

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure most primates are omnivores so they'd have been hunting as well just more in an opportunistic way

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago

If we are to go back far enough, we are bound to find an ancestor mostly herbivore. On that level, going for the scenario I mentioned would have been some event.

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
1481 points (95.6% liked)

Comic Strips

12655 readers
2022 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS