And maybe you'd like to check YOUR facts, CAPiehl...
Mitochondri are indeed organelles. But they do contain genetic material that is distinct and unrelated to the DNA of the organism itself (e.g., the human). In fact, mitochondrial DNA has been used to investigate different theories of human origins, for example, the 'mitochondrial Eve' search... since mitochondria are inherited from the mother (who donates an egg), you can trace human genetic relationships backwards over time through comparing mitochondrial DNA sequences.
Just your local biologist, trying to get people to keep their facts straight... *grin*
Okay, so apparently what you're saying is that, since we didn't intervene in one genocide situation, we shouldn't do so now? That seems like a great philosophy!
I'm not so sure that 'MP3 is dead in the long run'. I think that you're right about there being a lack of big name bands that release their stuff on MP3, but I also think that that's a transient phenomenon. Artists like Petty and Public Enemy have released music in MP3 -- and nobody was paying them to do it. Of course, in Tom Petty's case at least, he was forced to pull the song from MP3.com by his record label.
The only real impediment to the success of MP3 as a distribution format is the record industry. And all it takes to beat them are a few artists who are willing to buck the tide and release their music on MP3. The record industry monopoly is an unsteady equilibrim at best, and once the balance is tipped, it will probably rapidly swing in the opposite direction.
Even if this doesn't happen, and artists DON'T decide to release their music on MP3, why would MP3 die? You can encode your own, and trade them. I hate to point it out, but MP3 has been growing rapidly for the past couple years with NO major artists actually releasing music on it. It's going to be hard for anybody to kill that.
Genetically modified food
on
Gene Leakage
·
· Score: 1
It would be much more correct to say that, faced with a removal of their normal targets, insects DIE or adapt. Most insects, especially the kind that we're talking about when we refer to GM crops, are parasites/predators SPECIFICALLY of one species of plant. So if that plant becomes "immune" to the insect, it will die. The insects that we're trying to protect our crops from are largely incredibly specialized to parasitize that one particular crop. There are, of course, exceptions like locusts and things, which eat multiple crops, but we don't have any really effective 'GM' means of dealing with these pests.
Even if the insects can 'move', they would move to another plant! So the statement 'the largest target to move onto is humans' is rather irrelevant. We're not going to have wheat rust or corn worms suddenly attacking the populace at large!
Another earlier comment was that GM genes could escape into the ecosystem at large, which would kill off all the insects, causing catastrophic collapse of food chains and whatnot on earth. This was probably just a provocative statement, but I'd like to emphasize that it's just untrue. First, the reason of specialization stated above. Second, people don't seem to fully understand the consequences of genetic interrelationships such as pleitropy or dominance. Even if an insect- or bacterial- resistance gene were to 'escape' into the wild, it would likely be completely useless when inserted into the genome of whatever plant received it. Phenotypes (i.e., the physical traits that we can observe, which are based on the underlying genome of the organism) are intertwined in a very complex manner. In the vast and overwhelming number of cases, simply sticking a random gene somewhere into the genome will not produce a different phenotype. And if it does, it's more likely to fuck up whatever normal genetic architecture existed in the organism in the first place, probably killing or sterilizing the damn thing.
That's my two cents.
Oh, and I can't resist a parting shot... the comment about food practices in the UK, particularly '... we don't allow growth hormone in cattle, so our meat tastes a lot better...'. Do we remember mad cow disease? The UK has had its fair share of biological/agricultural science fuck-ups, so let's not be too quick to tout the merits of any particular system.
Slashdot Mirror
And maybe you'd like to check YOUR facts, CAPiehl...
... since mitochondria are inherited from the mother (who donates an egg), you can trace human genetic relationships backwards over time through comparing mitochondrial DNA sequences.
... *grin*
Mitochondri are indeed organelles. But they do contain genetic material that is distinct and unrelated to the DNA of the organism itself (e.g., the human). In fact, mitochondrial DNA has been used to investigate different theories of human origins, for example, the 'mitochondrial Eve' search
Just your local biologist, trying to get people to keep their facts straight
Okay, so apparently what you're saying is that, since we didn't intervene in one genocide situation, we shouldn't do so now? That seems like a great philosophy!
I'm not so sure that 'MP3 is dead in the long run'. I think that you're right about there being a lack of big name bands that release their stuff on MP3, but I also think that that's a transient phenomenon. Artists like Petty and Public Enemy have released music in MP3 -- and nobody was paying them to do it. Of course, in Tom Petty's case at least, he was forced to pull the song from MP3.com by his record label.
The only real impediment to the success of MP3 as a distribution format is the record industry. And all it takes to beat them are a few artists who are willing to buck the tide and release their music on MP3. The record industry monopoly is an unsteady equilibrim at best, and once the balance is tipped, it will probably rapidly swing in the opposite direction.
Even if this doesn't happen, and artists DON'T decide to release their music on MP3, why would MP3 die? You can encode your own, and trade them. I hate to point it out, but MP3 has been growing rapidly for the past couple years with NO major artists actually releasing music on it. It's going to be hard for anybody to kill that.
It would be much more correct to say that, faced with a removal of their normal targets, insects DIE or adapt. Most insects, especially the kind that we're talking about when we refer to GM crops, are parasites/predators SPECIFICALLY of one species of plant. So if that plant becomes "immune" to the insect, it will die. The insects that we're trying to protect our crops from are largely incredibly specialized to parasitize that one particular crop. There are, of course, exceptions like locusts and things, which eat multiple crops, but we don't have any really effective 'GM' means of dealing with these pests.
... the comment about food practices in the UK, particularly ' ... we don't allow growth hormone in cattle, so our meat tastes a lot better ...'. Do we remember mad cow disease? The UK has had its fair share of biological/agricultural science fuck-ups, so let's not be too quick to tout the merits of any particular system.
Even if the insects can 'move', they would move to another plant! So the statement 'the largest target to move onto is humans' is rather irrelevant. We're not going to have wheat rust or corn worms suddenly attacking the populace at large!
Another earlier comment was that GM genes could escape into the ecosystem at large, which would kill off all the insects, causing catastrophic collapse of food chains and whatnot on earth. This was probably just a provocative statement, but I'd like to emphasize that it's just untrue. First, the reason of specialization stated above. Second, people don't seem to fully understand the consequences of genetic interrelationships such as pleitropy or dominance. Even if an insect- or bacterial- resistance gene were to 'escape' into the wild, it would likely be completely useless when inserted into the genome of whatever plant received it. Phenotypes (i.e., the physical traits that we can observe, which are based on the underlying genome of the organism) are intertwined in a very complex manner. In the vast and overwhelming number of cases, simply sticking a random gene somewhere into the genome will not produce a different phenotype. And if it does, it's more likely to fuck up whatever normal genetic architecture existed in the organism in the first place, probably killing or sterilizing the damn thing.
That's my two cents.
Oh, and I can't resist a parting shot
dm