Wasps Have Injected New Genes Into Butterflies

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wasps Have Injected New Genes Into Butterflies

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday September 17, 2015 @06:59PM from the making-a-change dept.

sciencehabit writes: If you're a caterpillar, you do not want to meet a parasitic wasp. The winged insect will inject you full of eggs, which will grow inside your body, develop into larvae, and hatch from your corpse. But a new study reveals that wasps have given caterpillars something beneficial during these attacks as well: pieces of viral DNA that become part of the caterpillar genome, protecting them against an entirely different lethal virus. In essence, the wasps have turned caterpillars into genetically modified organisms.

103 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This happens a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 19:07 · Score: 0

Evolution is true, but the 19th century model that it happened just through parent->child mutations is way out of date.
There are lots of virus fragments in mammalian DNA for example, and some of them are used for critical mammalian functions, such as turning off the foreign body rejection mechanism which would otherwise destroy developing embryos.
1. Re:This happens a lot by Roodvlees · 2015-09-17 20:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Although I would not say 'true'. Science just provides understanding, we can't 'know' anything for sure. I don't think saying 'true' or talking about 'facts' achieves the desired effect of giving scientific understanding the status it deserves. Instead people confuse it for absolute knowledge (like religions claims) and think of a case where a scientist said they were sure and had 'facts', but were later proven wrong. Then they think you're trying to fool them.
  
  --
  Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
2. Re:This happens a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  Oh for crying out loud, heretic! Are you trying to sow doubt about global warming, and the need for government salvation from Satanic Christian carbon?
3. Re:This happens a lot by Psychophrenes · 2015-09-17 21:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  For the curious ones, this is called Horizontal Gene Transfer : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4. Re:This happens a lot by ChromeAeonium · 2015-09-17 22:21 · Score: 2
  
  No, it is still very much not out of date. Although horizontal gene transfer's role in evolution is still being understood, and it may be that the syncytin gene you reference is viral in origin, that certainty doesn't invalidate the standard Darwinian model so much as it adds on to it. To say it plays a larger role in evolution than mutation, at least right now with today's evidence, is quite an extraordinary.
5. Re:This happens a lot by Sique · 2015-09-17 22:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, the model is not outdated, only some interpretations of it.
  From a 19th century point of view (when Genetics were still unknown), there was no difference between mutation and horizontal gene transfer. It was a small change in one individuum, which could be transfered to the offspring (if it didn't transfer to the offspring, it wasn't evolution at all). And this change wasn't acquired by experience and learning, as the Lamarckism postulates.
  When Genetics was discovered, and the mechanism of the DNA and replication was understood, it was clear that this was the main mechanism of transferring information from one generation to the next, and that errors in transcribing allowed for a slow gene drift and thus for the acquiring of new properties. It was never claimed that this was the sole mechanism, it was just the one that was well understood and studied.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
6. Re:This happens a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  While "truth" has a lot of baggage with it and probably should be used with caution, it can mean anything from absolute truth in philosophy to, "True as far as we know," in science. And I think science should continue to use the word fact where appropriate, and what people need to learn is that facts are not absolute and always open to questions (even if in some cases the questions would have to get convoluted...). The world is not a binary true/false kind of place, and all information comes with a variety of confidence. Changing the wording to make it seem like non-absolute truths are the special case doesn't help.
7. Re:This happens a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  However, we inherited the gene from our early mammalian ancestor, despite the fact it was an insectivorous shrew-like creature and quite unlike ourselves.
  If it hadn't been done,we would not be mammals. There would have been something alive and doing well, just as they had done for around 4 billion years before mammals appeared.
  Live birth is an option. It's not a necessity.
8. Re:This happens a lot by myowntrueself · 2015-09-18 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  For the curious ones, this is called Horizontal Gene Transfer : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  What it means for the study of evolution is that, instead of dealing with a nice straightforward tree structure which is easy to explore and search, we find that evolution is actually a graph, complete with cycles and potentially flow in multiple directions. This is a LOT harder to work with.
  And this is just retroviral gene transfer. Then theres hybridisation which turns out to happen in nature a LOT more than had been thought. There was a paper a while back that hypotisised that humans could have arisen from a pig-chimp hybrid. This was backed with genetic and physiological evidence and totally wasn't an April fools prank.
  Evolution is fucking complicated! No wonder that Darwins 'On the origin of species' never even touched on the subject of how species originate.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
9. Re:This happens a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed.
  Truth - Animals adapt to their surroundings.
  Truth - The Theory of Evolution provides an explanation for this phenomena to the best of our knowledge and measurements.
  Hypothesis -- All animals adapt to their surroundings because of Evolution*
  *False, because many animals adapt to their surroundings within a single lifetime or within hand-countable generations, which does not allow for our models of Evolution to take place with its randomized mutations and probabilities of inheritance, mate selection interference, etc.
10. Re:This happens a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  You make an excellent point. The True Scottsman's model of Evolution is completely correct! It's these runts and upstarts that are always getting it wrong.
11. Re:This happens a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Give it a freaking rest already.
12. Re:This happens a lot by Carewolf · 2015-09-18 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution is true, but the 19th century model that it happened just through parent->child mutations is way out of date.
  There are lots of virus fragments in mammalian DNA for example, and some of them are used for critical mammalian functions, such as turning off the foreign body rejection mechanism which would otherwise destroy developing embryos.
  But that is because we mammals are part herpes, descendent from one very sick virgin platypus and her immaculate conception by Herpes.
13. Re:This happens a lot by neoritter · 2015-09-21 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to read the "pig-chimp hybrid" paper you're referring to. When Darwin's evolution was out, there had been for a while arguments that humans actually came from pigs. So I almost don't believe this wasn't an april fool's joke.
Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by penguinoid · 2015-09-17 19:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Chaos and doom! Watch out for the butterfly effect.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
1. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by Dave+Whiteside · 2015-09-17 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be daft , we#'re all controlled by the WASPs
  they inject the butterfly's with mutant DNA so they can fap in the forest and cause hurricanes
  
  --
  who where what when now?
2. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by JimSadler · 2015-09-17 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  Those wasps are obviously right wingers trying to live for free on the backs of others.
3. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  Those wasps are obviously left wingers trying to live for free on the backs of others. (Far more true.)
  FTFY.
4. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  Those wasps are obviously left trying to live for free on the backs of others.
  Get your facts straight. A) Stop drinking Kool-aid. B) Stop believing every piece of liberal trash you see spray painted on a subway wall. C) Stop hanging around friends with an IQ lower than 20 who make minimum wage at McDonalds while saying 'The Man' is holding them down. D) Stop listening to Muse.
5. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, most of the welfare goes to the right wingers' mainstays: rich people and corporations.
  Social Security is paid for by the people who pay in and isn't a handout any more than your savings saved in a bank are a handout to you when you withdraw money.
6. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, most of the welfare goes to the right wingers' mainstays: rich people and corporations.
  Social Security is paid for by the people who pay in and isn't a handout any more than your savings saved in a bank are a handout to you when you withdraw money.
  What world do you come from? That is 100% incorrect.
7. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by Falos · 2015-09-18 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  > "nuh-uh"
  Try again.
  
  Not that GP was perfect, either.
8. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by Falos · 2015-09-18 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  > making minimum wage at McDonalds
  The lucky ones?
  
  --daysUntilRobocooks;
9. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Avoid figs too.
10. Re:Killer GMO butterflies causing hurricanes by ChrisMaple · 2015-09-18 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Social Security is more like mandatory gambling or mandatory insurance. Your payout is determined by, but not limited by, the amount you put in. As long as you live (assuming SS doesn't collapse) you keep getting money. A savings account, on the other hand, only provides money until there's no money left.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Oh no no no! by GeekWithAKnife · 2015-09-17 19:13 · Score: 0

What are you talking about? genetically modified stuff should be labelled.

Are you suggesting that practically anything organic has been genetically modified "naturally"?! but GMO, artificial, organic, evolution, biology, god, atheists /mind_blown

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
1. Re:Oh no no no! by dunkelfalke · 2015-09-17 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  You are so busy setting up your straw man that you don't even recognize that there is nothing natural about being stung by a parasitic wasp and having forcefully modified one's DNA. It is as artificial as it gets.
  I mean, if we follow your path of thought to its logical conclusion then having me beating you up with a club would be having you evolved broken bones naturally.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
2. Re:Oh no no no! by cfalcon · 2015-09-17 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  Artificial means man-made, so it is not artificial.
  It's certainly not developing as the caterpillar "intends", that's for sure.
3. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  What are the consequences though? I'm not talking about after 100.000 years of evolution, but after 100 years of ignorance and tampering by humans.
  Captcha: preempt
4. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 20:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You geeks are so short-sighted.
  Look, there ain't anything inherently bad about GMO. It's just the combination of GMO with incredibly powerful, greedy-without-bounds, out of control corporations what is possibly going to eliminate us from this planet (cockroaches will survive, mind you).
  The day Monsanto and the likes disappear I'll reconsider my position on GMO.
  Comprende?
5. Re:Oh no no no! by Roodvlees · 2015-09-17 20:41 · Score: 2
  
  The difference is that people trust natural selection to weed out the mistakes. They don't trust human intelligence to find all the possible problems. So they think of a human messing around as a bigger risk than natural processes messing around. Because some people think everything in nature can be trusted and is 100% safe...
  
  --
  Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
6. Re:Oh no no no! by dunkelfalke · 2015-09-17 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.merriam-webster.com...
  "not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something natural"
  Not natural indeed.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
7. Re:Oh no no no! by cfalcon · 2015-09-17 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  Errr... not sure where you are going with that. The top definition is man-made, because that's what it means. And certainly, nothing about the wasp is non-natural. A wasp stabbing a caterpillar is neither artificial nor non-natural nor unreal.
  Also, what is that gray box? The one you copy pasted that from? It's not the definition of the word (which you imply by your copy past). The top definition according to merriam-webster is:
  humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made
  If I type in "red", the #1 definition is: "of the color red / having red as a distinguishing color", but the gray box (that you quoted from) says "having the color of blood". That's a not a traditional definition, I dunno what that is.
8. Re:Oh no no no! by muecksteiner · 2015-09-17 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite. There is also the added problem with Monsanto et al. that due to their technological prowess, they might be capable of introducing entirely artificial genetic modifications that prove to be disastrous in the wild, but would not really have been possible via natural means like the one observed with the wasps and caterpillars.
  A good analogy would be that nuclear fission is fairly harmless under normal circumstances: there are plenty of radioactive isotopes around in nature in trace amounts, and in some select locations the background radiation actually turns out to be quite high, due to entirely natural causes. But none of this is really an issue in practice. Add human intervention to assemble enough of the stuff to get to critical mass, though, and you can easily ruin everyone's day with some artificial sunshine.
9. Re:Oh no no no! by Sique · 2015-09-17 21:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Several issues with this stance:
  Horizontal gene transfer has been known for a long time, moreso, the mechanics of transfering a gene via retroviral DNA- or RNA-fragments into a cell came first, and only then there was the idea, that we could transfer arbitrary genes via the same mechanism. Thus GMO is a result of discovering the mechanism of horizontal gene transfer.
  If horizontal gene transfer happens, if affects only a single individuum, the one getting hit with the retrovirus carring the new DNA and thus acting as gene shuttle. In the most cases, the DNA transfer will not affect the offspring, as the gonades aren't hit by the virus, and thus the genetic modification will die with the individuum. Sometimes, the DNA transfer affects the gonades and either the individuum will become completely infertile, or it will not have viable offspring. Thus the gene transfer dies with the next generation. Only if the DNA proves to be advantageous for the individuum and its offspring, it will spread within the population, and it will take hundreds of generations until it has affected the whole population.
  This is different from GMO, where millions of individua at the same time with the same genetic modification will be released at once, and we don't have hundreds of generations to watch the effects to the species itself and to its environment and biotopes.
  As a side note: What if two patented crops from different companies crossbreed and carry both patented genes? Which company then has the right to sue the other for patent violation?
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
10. Re:Oh no no no! by ChromeAeonium · 2015-09-17 21:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's just the combination of GMO with incredibly powerful, greedy-without-bounds, out of control corporations what is possibly going to eliminate us from this planet
  
  Well, that's not an overly dramatic exaggerated misrepresentation at all.
  
  The day Monsanto and the likes disappear I'll reconsider my position on GMO.
  That's absurd. That's like saying cooked food is bad because you don't like McDonalds. Even if we assume that all the urban legends about Monsanto are true, and that for some strange reason they really are these Saturday morning cartoon super villains that so many people take them for, are you really going to oppose things like the Rainbow papaya (university made, by the University of Hawai'i & Cornell University), Golden Rice (NGO made, by the International Rice Research Institute), Bt eggplant (government made, by Bangladesh), ect. on the basis that someone else is doing something wrong with the same technology?
11. Re:Oh no no no! by ChromeAeonium · 2015-09-17 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  What? That's like saying Venus fly traps, bombardier beetles, Agrobacterium, fireflies, and viruses are not natural. I assure you, they are. Nature does some pretty strange things.
12. Re:Oh no no no! by ChromeAeonium · 2015-09-17 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, no , no, this is natural transgenics, and that makes things fine, because evolution just smooths things out like that, like it did with the appendix. That was the reaction to natural transgenes in sweet potatoes anyway You joke this might have an impact on the GMO controversy. It won't. Horizontal gene transfer has been known to exist for a long time; amazing what a little hand waving, armchair speculation, and goalpost moving can do to buffer an ideology.
  But this doesn't really come as much of a surprise. I think that as more genomes are sequenced and compared to other sequences, we'll probably turn up a lot more examples of horizontal gene transfer. We've already seen a similar case in the plant parasite, striga.
13. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 22:21 · Score: 0
  
  > That's absurd. That's like saying cooked food is bad because you don't like McDonalds.
  Except that McDonald's market domination (in the sector "cooked foods") is negligible compared to Monsanto's market domination (in the sector "agrobusiness").
  Except that McDonalds isn't (successfully) lobbying governments around the world to rule out home cooking.
  Except that McDonalds hasn't bought out whole university departments and has a thumb on publication of their results.
  So -- barring a few insignificant details, yes, Monsanto is like McDonalds.
  (Not that McDonalds wouldn't like to be where Monsanto is, *that* is just the dangerous aspect of our economic system I was referring to).
14. Re:Oh no no no! by ChromeAeonium · 2015-09-17 22:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Except that McDonald's market domination (in the sector "cooked foods") is negligible compared to Monsanto's market domination (in the sector "agrobusiness").
  Yes, there's only Pioneer, Syngenta, BASF, Dow, Bayer CropScience, ect. Ever been to any of their operations? I have. Those are far from negligible alternative seed sources.
  
  Except that McDonalds isn't (successfully) lobbying governments around the world to rule out home cooking.
  And what, exactly, are you implying Monsanto is lobbying governments to forbid? The only ones I see doing that are the anti-GMO groups who would ban even publicly funded GE research.
  
  Except that McDonalds hasn't bought out whole university departments and has a thumb on publication of their results.
  So I've been told. Well, I happen to be in one of those often accused of being bought out university departments, and damnedest thing, I keep missing those lucrative selling out seminars. Accusations of conspiracy are the last resort of the wrong. If I was willing to sell myself out for Monsanto or the like I'd just up and work for them and take a nice pay raise while I'm at it. Now, if you have proof of this cabal (which must clearly be clearly global, given the genetic engineering research the world over), and I really am being left out of all that good old Monsanto corruption money without so much as a free Monsanto T-shirt to show for it, I'm willing to hear it, but it better be good, because I think you just made that up.
15. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  The whole concept of "non-natural" or "artificial" is kinda dumb. Humans sure as hell are part of nature. If some alien species would observe us from far away I'm not even sure they could tell the difference. Ants build nests, have cattle, harvest crops, grow food, communicate in complex ways.
16. Re:Oh no no no! by dunkelfalke · 2015-09-17 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  "man-made" is an overtly narrow definition, because by that definition machine-made stuff is suddenly not artificial anymore. Thus it makes more sense to use the actual etymological root of this word ("made by art or skill").
  As for the wasp, the wasp itself is natural, the caterpillar as well. The genetic modification performed by the wasp is anything but. It introduces completely new treats and would have created a new species if not the fact that the caterpillars are doomed after the sting anyway.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
17. Re:Oh no no no! by jenningsthecat · 2015-09-17 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  are you really going to oppose things like the Rainbow papaya (university made, by the University of Hawai'i & Cornell University), Golden Rice (NGO made, by the International Rice Research Institute), Bt eggplant (government made, by Bangladesh), ect. on the basis that someone else is doing something wrong with the same technology?
  I think the concern here is that, even with the best of intentions and with GMO foods that in the short term provide great benefits, we still can't be sure we're not missing something crucial. Potential problems from GMO foods, (such as possibly bad genetic modifications showing up in the human genome as a result of food genes that likely wouldn't have occurrred outside of a laboratory), might not show up for years, or even a generation or two. And they might even not be immediately traceable to GMO foods.
  There's a lot we don't know about the potential long-term effects of GMO foods. Should we be doing these experiments on human subjects, often without the informed consent of said subjects?
  
  --
  'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
18. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  And using the same dictionary to look up what natural means:
  2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
  2b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
  10a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated
  10b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial
19. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Many environmentalists, anti-GMO people, organic food proponents, etc., are just anti-corporate advocates behind a thin veil. By far not all, as there are plenty of people in those groups who are there for the actual cause. But I've found it annoying and counterproductive with people hiding one cause behind another, even if I completely agree with both causes, because it results in so much BS.
20. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Sterile seed tech, 100% all natural
21. Re:Oh no no no! by thinkwaitfast · 2015-09-18 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  What's your position on Bayer and BASF?
22. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  A good analogy would be that nuclear fission is fairly harmless under normal circumstances: there are plenty of radioactive isotopes around in nature in trace amounts, and in some select locations the background radiation actually turns out to be quite high, due to entirely natural causes. But none of this is really an issue in practice. Add human intervention to assemble enough of the stuff to get to critical mass, though, and you can easily ruin everyone's day with some artificial sunshine.
  an EXCELLENT analogy and illustrates perfectly why man made GMOs really shouldn't be feared like you seem to. Just like wasps GMO butterflies, nature makes its own nuclear reactors that even hit critical mass. Look into Gabon, Africa for just one example of naturally occurring critical mass
23. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  As a side note: What if two patented crops from different companies crossbreed and carry both patented genes? Which company then has the right to sue the other for patent violation?
  And there's our cue to ignore your whole post. Neither company would be able to sue the other. If it was an individual doing the cross breeding or assisting the cross breeding, it would be that individual getting sued and he'd be sued by both companies. Does anyone sue monsanto when a farmer replants seed? no they sue the farmer. Critical thinking for some reason goes right out the window when it comes to GMOs.
24. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  As a side note: What if two patented crops from different companies crossbreed and carry both patented genes? Which company then has the right to sue the other for patent violation?
  This is easy, it is possible (even common) to infringe on the patents of multiple companies. Both patent owners could sue whoever is producing or selling the plants without a license. If one company wants to offer seeds containing both patented genes, they would have to license the patent that they were infringing.
25. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  By your definition, NO modifications to DNA are natural.
26. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  "man-made" is an overtly narrow definition, because by that definition machine-made stuff is suddenly not artificial anymore. Thus it makes more sense to use the actual etymological root of this word ("made by art or skill").
  As for the wasp, the wasp itself is natural, the caterpillar as well. The genetic modification performed by the wasp is anything but. It introduces completely new treats and would have created a new species if not the fact that the caterpillars are doomed after the sting anyway.
  One of the primary factors in determining if something is 'natural' or 'artificial' is intent and planning. Or as you pointed out, made by art or skill. The Wasp is not intending to make the alterations, nor is it using art or skill to do so. Thus, it's a natural modification, not an artificial one.
27. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  No, what is absurd is confusing the technology/ability with the End Product you make with that technology. Which seems to be a problem with people on both 'sides' of the GMO arguments.
  I don't have a problem with genetic tinkering. I do have a problem with people assuming that anything and everything made via tinkering is automatically Good or automatically Bad.
28. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  How does advantageous gene mutations not lead to infertility or death of offspring, while disadvantageous ones does?
29. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  So, let's say Monsanto is the wasp...
30. Re: Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  There is a lot we don't know about a lot of things. The fix for that isn't to stop experimenting. What a ludicrous proposal.
31. Re: Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  They are just contrarians, going with the flow. "It's right to rebel" and all that.
32. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  "You cannot go against nature,
  because when you do /
  go against nature,
  it's part of nature too."
  - Love & Rockets
33. Re:Oh no no no! by the+gnat · 2015-09-18 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I happen to be in one of those often accused of being bought out university departments, and damnedest thing, I keep missing those lucrative selling out seminars.
  Yeah, I never had any luck with that myself when I was in grad school.
  The whole GMO debate just looks completely insane from a practicing scientist's point of view - it's like we were arguing about microscopes, or test tubes. It's quite shocking for people who consider themselves bleeding-heart liberal environmentalists to discover that they're viewed as evil corporate shills for suggestion that GMOs have legitimate uses. The level of fear-mongering, ignorance, outright lies, and sometimes spittle-flecked hatred is so disturbing that it's taken all the fun out of mocking right wing science-deniers. And occasionally it descends to violence, like the assholes who destroyed the Golden Rice (note: not a Monsanto product) plot in the Philippines. I'd almost prefer dealing with creationists, but that isn't my field.
  (PS. Of course it absolutely does not help the cause that Congress just made compulsory GMO labeling illegal. That was stupid, corrupt, and counter-productive.)
34. Re:Oh no no no! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  Because infertility and death are disadvantageous.
35. Re:Oh no no no! by ChromeAeonium · 2015-09-18 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. I think a lot of the problem is that people are very disconnected from agriculture, and tend towards having little knowledge of basic botany. Agriculture has become so successful over the past century (in developed countries anyway) that we've gone from having half the population engaged in farming to less than 2%. And when it comes to plant knowledge, very few people have much of it. I've heard people claim that GE crops don't produce any seeds, and that's scary. Not because they actually believe that about GMOs, but because some of the top GE crops, corn, soy, and canola, are grown for their seeds; people who say that have just revealed that they don't actually know what seeds are. Personally, I think that plant & agricultural science should be required to be taught for at least a quarter of high school biology classes.
  I disagree about the validity of the GMO labeling thing. We don't label any other crop improvement method, and no one makes a fuss about them. There's no one demanding labels for selective breeding, hybridization of inbred lines, doubled haploids, wide crossing/embryo rescue, radiation induced mutagenesis, induced polyploidy, somaclonal variants, bud sport selection, ect. Go to the store and pears don't say they were grafted on quince, blueberries don't even say which species of blueberry they are, apples won't say which bud sport they are, corn chips won't say which varieties of corn they used, watermelon juice won't say the ploidy level of the watermelons, tomatoes won't say if they have S. pimpinellifolium genes in them, ect. To single out one and only one aspect of crop improvement, while not saying the how or why or what of the thing (what gene is inserted, why it is used, how it works, ect.), while not doing anything to counteract the perception of inferior quality that you know people will get form that label, I argue is deceptive. It is telling a certain bit of the truth, but only up to a certain point. I call that a lie of omission, and that's still a lie. It's no different than the 'evolution is only a theory' stickers creationists tried to force a while back in that, while it is technically true, it is also deceptive because to does not give the whole truth and everyone knows it was just an attempt to slander the thing it was targeting.
  I have no problem if people want to label things as non-GMO voluntarily, and they are free to do that just like they are free to label things as kosher, halaal, vegan, ect. But I do not agree with forcing it. It is not like sugar contents or presence of soy or gluten or allergens or anything else that can have an actual physical impact on someone. This is a lifestyle choice, not a nutritional necessity, and legal regulations should not exist to cater to ideologies, religions, or lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, the argument if they are unlabeled goes "If they're so safe why are they hidden?" which almost sounds reasonable if you know nothing of the other methods I mentioned. Of course, these same people will point to countries where labeling is mandatory and say "If they're so safe why do they have to be labeled?" so it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, but I find don't preferable. Let the opponents of genetic engineering complain; they were going to complain anyway. The thing I find really irritating is that GE crops are so much more controlled and documented than anything else. Eight species (corn, cotton, canola, soybean, papaya, summer squash, alfalfa, and sugar beet, with potato and apple coming soon) are all that is used. If, rather than spend all that time protesting and trying to pass unnecessary laws, anti-GMO people take the five seconds necessary to educate themselves about their own beliefs and remember to avoid those, or buy non-GMO labeled/organic versions, one can avoid GE crops, if that is one's choice. Try doing that for any other crop improvement method.
36. Re:Oh no no no! by the+gnat · 2015-09-18 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think a lot of the problem is that people are very disconnected from agriculture, and tend towards having little knowledge of basic botany. Agriculture has become so successful over the past century (in developed countries anyway) that we've gone from having half the population engaged in farming to less than 2%.
  And to the extent they know anything about agriculture, it's entirely anecdote-driven and usually disconnected from the broader reality. I'm a big supporter of local organic family farms (seriously - there's a farmer's market across the street once a week), but I'm also self-aware enough to realize that my upper-middle-class buying habits are not representative of how most of the world is (or will be) fed. (And, just to be clear, I'm also totally comfortable eating GMO food, and would even preferentially buy GMO products to support them - which reminds me, I need to find some of that new fake cheese.)
  I have no problem if people want to label things as non-GMO voluntarily, and they are free to do that just like they are free to label things as kosher, halaal, vegan, ect. But I do not agree with forcing it.
  I agree that the labeling drive is misleading and unfair, but I'd rather err on the side of more information and more democracy than less, and I'm never comfortable seeing companies buy the laws they want. This is one case where Monsanto actually deserves the slime being flung at them. I also think that not nearly enough information about legally-mandated testing (not just GMOs, but especially pharmaceuticals) is made public, and this is sometimes to the detriment of the public. (This is as much a scientific gripe as a public-interest one: the fact that so much primary data of all types is disorganized or simply unavailable, plus the added insult of the scientific literature being mostly paywalled, is a constant frustration.)
  I think this is ultimately a battle that can only be won in the long term, and only by patience and accepting the rules of the game. I'm confident that in the long term (especially as science advances), the environmental and commercial benefits of GMOs will prove so overwhelming - and the supposed health risks non-existent - that the dreaded label will be no more frightening than "may contain traces of wheat products". We're doing far more damage to ourselves and the environment by our continued over-consumption of meat products, which just keeps getting worse as more countries rise out of poverty and chase the dream of bacon cheeseburgers for everyone. Sooner or later we're going to need to find a middle ground: look ahead fifty years, and imagine that you can pay $30 [adjusted for inflation] per pound for lean ground beef, or $3/pound for something that looks and tastes exactly like lean ground beef, but with less cholesterol, made out of GMO'd yeast protein. Which do you think most people are going to buy?
37. Re:Oh no no no! by ChrisMaple · 2015-09-18 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  There needs to be a word to cover the concept "not made by man", and the chosen word is "natural". If you include man-made things in the "natural" concept, the word distinguishes nothing and has no communicative value.
  We are men, and it is reasonable that a significant portion of our vocabulary refers to men and their activities, and distinguishes them from all other possibilities.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
38. Re:Oh no no no! by ChrisMaple · 2015-09-18 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's just the combination of GMO with incredibly powerful, greedy-without-bounds, out of control corporations what [sic] is possibly going to eliminate us from this planet
  So it's only corporations that can do evil with GMOs? A privately held company couldn't? An individual? A government?
  Grow up.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
39. Re:Oh no no no! by Talderas · 2015-09-21 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Like create humans.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
40. Re:Oh no no no! by Talderas · 2015-09-21 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's so frustrating for me because I have an Aunt who is theistic but not religious. She fully subscribes to the anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-traditional medicine, yadda yadda yadda. She has a very poor grasp of the science behind all this stuff, her defense against vaccines when I suggest that those that do not take vaccines should not be permitted in public schools was, "I know that my child is protected from those viruses because I gave my child the right nutrients and exposed him in a way that he can't possibly be infected." A serious WTF moment to me. Her fights against GMO are constantly centered around Monsanto and how evil that company is, usually by misquoting what happened in various cases. When I bring up the problems with total food production and how the population would not be sustainable without GMO she behaves dismissively.
  Discussing anything that was a creation from the human mind is pretty much pointless but neither her or her boyfriend ever seek to challenge their preconceived notions. They brought up whether the moon landing occurred! I pointed out the physical evidence (reflectors) on the surface and the simple fact that if it were faked the Soviets would have been in a prime position to prove it wrong. Then they brought up some pointless red herring about how the film from the moon doesn't behave right and some recent statement from NASA about how a trip to Mars is complicated by the Van Allen belts when they had to do it to get to the moon in the first place.
  Bah!
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
41. Re:Oh no no no! by Rakarra · 2015-09-22 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  The level of fear-mongering, ignorance, outright lies, and sometimes spittle-flecked hatred is so disturbing that it's taken all the fun out of mocking right wing science-deniers. And occasionally it descends to violence, like the assholes who destroyed the Golden Rice (note: not a Monsanto product) plot in the Philippines.
  The actual debates over Golden Rice and the Rainbow Papaya give a depressing look at how much the goalposts are moved in the debates too.
  G: "Golden Rice, fortified with beta carotene, could save 40,000 lives a day!"
  A: "It might not be poison this time, but it doesn't produce enough beta carotene, so it's useless. Don't use it. Cultivate a home garden, ghetto kids!"
  G: "It's not feasible to suggest that these dirt-poor people with no yards or houses grow beans and pumpkins."
  A: "Well they can't afford yellow rice."
  G: "Most of it will be given to farmers for free."
  A: "Oh, that's terrible, it will contaminate local food supplies!"
  G: "You're right, it didn't have enough beta carotene. Here's a new version that has far more beta carotene."
  A: "Well that's a problem, beta carotene and Vitamin A are dangerous. They can cause direct toxicity or abnormal embryonic development."
  G: "Only one study showed problems with Vitamin A, and you'd have to 20 bowls of golden rice to ingest the same level."
  A: "The National Research Council says genetic engineering has a higher chance of introducing unanticipated changes."
  G: "The NRC said it had higher change of introducing changes like narrow crosses, but a lower chance of introducing other more dangerous changes."
  A: "Some retinoids derived from beta carotene cause birth defects."
  G: "Every leafy green vegetable has these retinoids. You said people should grow their own food."
  A: "Keeping rice GMO-free is an issue of consumer choice and human rights. Genetic Engineering is controlled by multinational corporations and governments. Governments forcing this is bad."
  G: "But how to solve the deficiency problem?"
  A: "We recommend the plan to make Vitamin A fortification compulsory. And mix it in with the staples of sugar, flour, and margarine. The Philippines made that law and it worked there. Governments forcing that is good."
  G: "But those contained the retinoids that you said--"
  A: "Sorry, I was busy protesting China's clinical trials, where Golden Rice was fed to 24 children! Children! It's never been tested in animals, and we know that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are toxic and cause birth defects."
  The arguments are circular. There is no winning.
  * (Mostly taken from this excellent Slate article. )
This is pretty common in other organisms by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 19:19 · Score: 0

The human genome, for example, is full of DNA from sources originating from non-humans and from things that aren't direct ancestors. In fact, that's true of any genome. The human genome is full of viral and bacterial DNA, some of which is actually pretty important. Certain viruses actually provide protection against other diseases, too. For example, cowpox in a human inserts itself into our DNA and provides immunity against smallpox. So thanks to one virus inserting itself into our DNA, we have essentially wiped out one of the nastiest diseases in human history. Pretty neat, huh?
1. Re:This is pretty common in other organisms by DrXym · 2015-09-17 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  Small pox is (virtually) eradicated thanks to immunization. It has nothing to do with the genetic code of the virus being incorporated into the DNA but because the immune system of vaccinated people has been taught to recognize and attack the virus before it can multiply or spread. The word "vaccine" derives from the vaccinia virus which causes small pox. A close relative of the virus causes cow pox and it was discovered that infecting someone with the latter gave them protection from the former.
2. Re:This is pretty common in other organisms by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 20:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Errr..what? And here I was thinking that most vaccines work by injecting people with a weakened variety of the virus and therefore inducing the body to create anti bodies? Which is different from injecting genetic code into our DNA.
  Am I wrong?
3. Re:This is pretty common in other organisms by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 21:24 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterologous_vaccine
  Far from being as common as that.
  The BCG vaccine was almost systematic in some developed countries until about ten years ago, though.
4. Re:This is pretty common in other organisms by DrXym · 2015-09-17 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the "It has nothing to do with the genetic code of the virus being incorporated into the DNA". I hope you're responding to the GP.
5. Re:This is pretty common in other organisms by Mashiki · 2015-09-17 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Am I wrong?
  You're wrong, kinda. Some vaccines use a weakened or dead version, there's also a few out there that use a live version that's not infectious. Others use near-cousins of the same type that occurs in other animals but isn't really transmittable to humans unless specific conditions occur.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
6. Re:This is pretty common in other organisms by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 22:10 · Score: 0
  
  It seems I quoted the wrong person :)
7. Re:This is pretty common in other organisms by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 22:54 · Score: 0
  
  Errr..what? And here I was thinking that most vaccines work by injecting people with a weakened variety of the virus and therefore inducing the body to create anti bodies? Which is different from injecting genetic code into our DNA.
  Am I wrong?
  No, I don't think so. If it actually did modify your base DNA, wouldn't it pass from parent to child? From what I know, vaccines don't. Plus, if it modified your DNA, why would one need booster shots? I'm pretty sure it works by causing your body to create and maintain antibodies that target the virus, not by permanently modifying your DNA to do so.
8. Re:This is pretty common in other organisms by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  No, that's actually correct. Most vaccines work by inserting genetic code into human DNA that provides immunity against some kind of virus or bacteria.
  W. T. F. ?
  Ummm, please read this description of how vaccines actually work from a reputable source. Please. Really.
evolution is for cows by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 19:20 · Score: 0

You are all cows. You say moooo. MOOOOOO cows MOOOOOOO!
YOU COWS!!!
1. Re:evolution is for cows by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 20:04 · Score: 0
  
  You call everyone cows in every thread, saying that cows say a certain thing. But you are the only one saying that thing. This means you are a crypto-cow. gtfo bovine shill!
Ban those wasps! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 19:37 · Score: 0

Have the wasps studied the effects of their GMO caterpillars? Have those caterpillars been PROVEN SAFE? Who knows what those caterpillars can do in the wild? Those wasps have stepped into on the province of God! Quick, ban those wasps!
Seems unlikely by wonkey_monkey · 2015-09-17 19:42 · Score: 4, Funny

If you're a caterpillar
If you're not sure whether any of your readers might be caterpillars, you probably shouldn't be in publishing.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Seems unlikely by Culture20 · 2015-09-17 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't believe the types of media genetically modified caterpillars consume.
2. Re:Seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  Hedging your bets against the insect furry population.
3. Re:Seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  I am a caterpillar, you insensitive wasp.
4. Re:Seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  This was actually copied from an article in Cocoon Living magazine.
5. Re:Seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  You should then find wonkey's thoughts interesting and subscribe to his blog in order to eat the paper the blog is written to.
6. Re:Seems unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  I am a WASP, you insensitive JAP!
7. Re:Seems unlikely by antdude · 2015-09-18 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever, Wonkey Monkey! I am an ant, dude!
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 19:51 · Score: 0

So viruses don't obey species encapsulation ? New that.
The most dangerous is the Monsanto Wasp by fustakrakich · 2015-09-17 19:57 · Score: 1

It stings with a patented formula.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:The most dangerous is the Monsanto Wasp by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  But as it has now been revealed, all genetic manipulation is synonymous to symbiosis and therefore all natural and good for you!
so are gummi worms GMO or not?? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 20:17 · Score: 0

Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
non sequitor by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 20:24 · Score: 0

... given caterpillars something beneficial ...

I don't see how babies dying is beneficial. This whole summary is nonsensical.
Ummmmm by dwywit · 2015-09-17 21:04 · Score: 2

Don't the caterpillars *DIE* when the wasp eggs hatch?
This seems to imply that not only do at least some of the stung caterpillars live through the "birth" of their guests/parasites, they live long enough to metamorphose, and then reproduce.

--
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
1. Re:Ummmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 21:35 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps sometimes the eggs fail to hatch?
2. Re:Ummmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Eggsactly.
  Wasps have failure modes too. Or the wasp stung, but wind took it before it had time to transfer eggs.
3. Re:Ummmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-17 22:30 · Score: 0
  
  It's in TFA. Rarely, a Caterpillar does survive, and somehow manages to reproduce, viral load intact. Little Waspie not viable?
  Or it goes all John Hurt Chestbuster just after doing the nasty.
  In any event, Ridley Scott should direct the Documentary...
Not really. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 01:49 · Score: 0

Most of the viral DNA passed on contributed to the death of the host. Only those that made no difference to the survivability in the time elapsed, or those that were beneficial have been passed on.
MOST of the viral DNA copying has been detrimental to the species.
This piece is a bit like saying the leopards have benefited the deer by making them faster runners.
This observation so troubled Darwin. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2015-09-18 03:46 · Score: 1

Darwin was moving away from theistic explanations of natural world for quite sometime. But despite rejecting Biblical explanations of natural sciences, he still believed on God. One of the things that pushed him towards full fledged atheism was the observation that these wasps would lay eggs and paralyze the caterpillars. So that the caterpillars do not die and decay, they stay alive to provide food for the hatched wasp larvae. The caterpillars being eaten alive revolted him and he could not believe a merciful God would that to His creatures. Death of his 10 year old daughter also pushed him away from God. But still, out of deference to his wife he desisted publishing the Origin of species, till his hand was forced by Wallace.
And no, there was no deathbed conversion.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:This observation so troubled Darwin. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  You know who else it troubled? Dan O'Bannon... he saw a TV programme describing these wasps, and it gave him nightmares!
2. Re:This observation so troubled Darwin. by tehcyder · 2015-09-21 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Darwin was moving away from theistic explanations of natural world for quite sometime. But despite rejecting Biblical explanations of natural sciences, he still believed on God. One of the things that pushed him towards full fledged atheism was the observation that these wasps would lay eggs and paralyze the caterpillars. So that the caterpillars do not die and decay, they stay alive to provide food for the hatched wasp larvae. The caterpillars being eaten alive revolted him and he could not believe a merciful God would that to His creatures. Death of his 10 year old daughter also pushed him away from God. But still, out of deference to his wife he desisted publishing the Origin of species, till his hand was forced by Wallace.
  And no, there was no deathbed conversion.
  So had he never wondered why a merciful God would let human beings die in childbirth, or of cancer or whatever?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not necessarily by dfm3 · 2015-09-18 05:04 · Score: 1

the caterpillars may may not necessarily kill their hosts immediately after hatching, I'm not sure about this particular species, but there are examples of parasites that live and grow for quite a while within their insect hosts before killing them. See: horsehair worms.

Besides, I suspect that this viral DNA has more to do with keeping the insect alive _until_ the eggs hatch...
GMO, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-18 05:27 · Score: 0

Oh great, not we have to label them as GMO before selling them as food. Damn those wasps.