Highly Recomended Videos: 1) Food Inc. 2) The Future of Food
Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward
Har dee har.
Well, you said "You can cause bacteria to evolve by changing their environment, but the genes can't just get into them. That's absurd." My only point is that you're scientifically wrong about that. Bacteria can and do absorb and incorporate exogenous genetic material.
So, moving on past that error, if you take frog genes and put it in a fish, and then you eat the fish, yes the bacteria could absorb frog genes. My original point however, and the thing that's key here, is that as far as I know, the risk could not be any greater than the risk from just eating the frog to begin with, which is practically none.
Well, you said "You can cause bacteria to evolve by changing their environment, but the genes can't just get into them. That's absurd." My only point is that you're scientifically wrong about that. Bacteria can and do absorb and incorporate exogenous genetic material.
So, moving on past that error, if you take frog genes and put it in a fish, and then you eat the fish, yes the bacteria could absorb frog genes. My original point however, and the thing that's key here, is that as far as I know, the risk could not be any greater than the risk from just eating the frog to begin with, which is practically none.
Like I said weeks ago, please show how that is possible.frogbyte wrote:Har dee har.
Well, you said "You can cause bacteria to evolve by changing their environment, but the genes can't just get into them. That's absurd." My only point is that you're scientifically wrong about that. Bacteria can and do absorb and incorporate exogenous genetic material.
So, moving on past that error, if you take frog genes and put it in a fish, and then you eat the fish, yes the bacteria could absorb frog genes. My original point however, and the thing that's key here, is that as far as I know, the risk could not be any greater than the risk from just eating the frog to begin with, which is practically none.
Let's suppose it it is possible. Then why can it only with something that has been modified. Why can't it do that with the genes of any and all food we eat? Why can't the bacteria in the air do it with every single piece of living matter they come into contact with?
To be specific. Why would a frog gene have to be in a fish for bacteria to splice itself? Why doesn't that happen when you eat a frog?
How do they do that?frogbyte wrote:Bacteria can and do absorb and incorporate exogenous genetic material.
Under what circumstances?
Where do they get the genetic material?
How was that discovered, or how do we know about it?
Viruses can have exogenous genetic material inserted into their genomes, and can be caused to insert genetic material into the genomes of higher organisms, but I haven't heard of bacteria just acquiring exogenous material.
This is not new science - here's a study from 2006 which at least touches on it anyway: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/public ... 115=198125. I think first read about it in "Discover" I believe a few years ago, but I can't find that original article is online.
I found http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n2 ... g1000.html which may be a similar article from 2003 - not sure if deals with exogenous genes specifically, but it apparently deals with the web (ie, not a tree) of life, whereby unrelated species exchange genes.
As for the frog question - yes I agree, it -can- happen when you eat a frog, and I see no reason it'd be any more likely when you eat a fish with frog genes. Bacteria have had millions of years to steal frog genes - if any of them were particularly useful, they'd have incorporated them already.
The only danger would be from new genes (as that 2006 article indicates regarding our breeding of antibiotic-resistance genes.)
I found http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n2 ... g1000.html which may be a similar article from 2003 - not sure if deals with exogenous genes specifically, but it apparently deals with the web (ie, not a tree) of life, whereby unrelated species exchange genes.
As for the frog question - yes I agree, it -can- happen when you eat a frog, and I see no reason it'd be any more likely when you eat a fish with frog genes. Bacteria have had millions of years to steal frog genes - if any of them were particularly useful, they'd have incorporated them already.
The only danger would be from new genes (as that 2006 article indicates regarding our breeding of antibiotic-resistance genes.)
You again show how little you know about it. These two articles are about horizontal gene transfer. This happens with bacteria only under certain conditions, and only with other similar strains of bacteria.
Unless you are eating drug resistant bacteria, your gut bacteria can't become drug resistant. It certainly can't get it from a gene that came from a multi-celled organism.
How is it not obvious that what you are saying is impossible? I really don't get it.
Is there some kind of obsession with proving me wrong on something....anything?
Would it help if I posted something where I just completely talk out of my ass, so you can then correct me?
I'll do it. Just give me a list of topics you have at least a little knowledge of and I'll just make up some crazy stuff that sounds kind of plausible. Then you can correct me, and I'll say "oh yea, you were right about that".
How about programming? You are a developer of some kind right? You know languages other than shell and perl right? Well just pick one and I'll write an article all about it, which you can then debunk. Would that work for you?
Unless you are eating drug resistant bacteria, your gut bacteria can't become drug resistant. It certainly can't get it from a gene that came from a multi-celled organism.
How is it not obvious that what you are saying is impossible? I really don't get it.
Is there some kind of obsession with proving me wrong on something....anything?
Would it help if I posted something where I just completely talk out of my ass, so you can then correct me?
I'll do it. Just give me a list of topics you have at least a little knowledge of and I'll just make up some crazy stuff that sounds kind of plausible. Then you can correct me, and I'll say "oh yea, you were right about that".
How about programming? You are a developer of some kind right? You know languages other than shell and perl right? Well just pick one and I'll write an article all about it, which you can then debunk. Would that work for you?
