Will nature destroy half the earth because GM crops are unnatural and consequently have stopped evolution?

Question

I think this is true. What do you think?

Answer 1

Can't somebody sacrifice logic and placate her with what she wants to hear?Most plants have been genetically altered by nature already.The sun uses something called back ground radiation to mutate many living organisms.Nature will pick it's own species regardless.

Answer 2

Wha? GM crops do not stop evolution, but they can potentially introduce mutations that would never happen naturally; the consequences may not be fully understood for years but likely include loss of biodiversity and many extinctions. Nature won't destroy the earth, nature is the earth.

Answer 3

If you believe in one of the fundamental laws of science: each organism has a tendency to return to its point of origin.Then I'd say no.Simply put that means even a hybrid or cross mutated species can still become what it was originally.

Answer 4

Humans are not the only ones occupying themselves with genetic plant modification. To confuse matters don't forget transposons genetically alter organisms including food crops. Mc Clintock showed there are mobile genetic elements native to maize. Some 48% of the human genome may be Alu transposons or their relics. Anything we add to a
Anything we add to a plant or animal won't be static nor will it be an unusual event.
Transposons in bacteria called plasmids are our current bane in moving antibiotic resistance into nonresistant strains.
All the mobile elements that participate in the horizontal transfer of genes are called mobile genetic elements (MGE)
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsme2/19/4/19_249/_article
All of this is a part of the horizontal transfer of genes that occurred with the rise of cellular life. Viruses & bacteria where long recognized to do this. Freeman Dyson says 'Now comparing the genomes of the three primordial groups we find evidence of numerous transfers of genetic information from one lineage to another. The farther back the more was exchanged. This implies there were no separate species, that life was a community of various cell kin all sharing their genetic information so clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one could be inherited by all as mobile genetic elements moved freely amongst them. Evolution was communal and rapid."From article by Freeman Dyson
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20370
Viral replication is known to abscond with host DNA as part of the viral genome then insert the stolen DNA in another host cell resulting in a new mutation, this even occurs across species. Recombination is a powerful tool for evolution.
There have been many viral infections that have brought new material to humans because we currently use some 16 genes from this viral source. They are called endogenous retroviruses ERV's. Endogenous means they are now part of the human genome but they were once exogenous or just regular retroviruses (like the AIDS virus). Some viruses have the ability to become incorporated in the host DNA then re-emerge at a later date. This insertion into the host DNA is called endogenization. If they insert into germ cells they become part of the host species. The vast number of these events that occurred in our ancestors left us with these few 'retrogenes'.

Are corn, bacteria and viruses being unnatural when they create transgenic mutants? In context, this is a natural evolutionary method of change. Note that it is natural so there is no pre-selection for benefit, neutrality, or harm from the change. The outcome is random.
What is different from nature is our desire for predictability in the outcome. We want only beneficial changes with no long term detrimental effects from any transgenic organisms we create.
Natural events are random so as soon as we attempt to select a specific kind out outcome from our actions we are being teleocentric, result oriented. Nature has no goal, no direction no expected result. Are humans, choosing to have goals with specific results that natural phenomena can't, unnatural? Or is it the human creating without contemplating all repercussions, the one behaving unnaturally? I believe our ability to think, plan, analyze to the limit of our knowledge is inherent so when we do not use it we are behaving without nature. We may build a new crop plant just like the virus does but the virus can't question itself about what will happen to the other organisms using the plant, we can. To be natural we must use all our abilities.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm
Human retrogenes
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/15/4385
One of our retrogenes may have function in tissue migration and neural crest formation
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/277/41/38803
What happens to the introduced genes over time
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0511307103v1?etoc

Answer 5

If you believe in evolution you may be an idiot.