For eons plants and animals evolved the old-fashioned way. Then we developed artificial selection and agriculture really took off. Which brings us to present day:
Today, however, humans can skip the cross-breeding process in many cases. In genetic modification, scientists insert new genes directly into plants’ DNA. In some cases, we’ve given crops genes from totally different species. ... The mere fact that something is a GMO doesn’t tell us all that much, however, about how the plant actually functions. Rather, the way a GMO plant works stems from the new genes and traits themselves, whether they were inserted by scientists or came from the same species. So scientists assess GMOs’ safety based not on whether they’re GMO, but on what their new genes actually do and the resulting changes in the plants. And since GMOs cover such a wide range of traits, we have to assess them one by one.
If anyone has a succinct, data-driven, scientific case for why GMOs—as a method for creating new strains—are
inherently dangerous or a significant danger to our health, many of us who are skeptical about those concerns will be happy to consider it.
- A bad cold is not the flu.
- A new study on penis size concludes ... well, the results are mixed.
- For some weird reason it made me feel better, as an informed American in the land of willful ignorati, that a Canadian MP who rejects evolution was tweeting this stuff all week:
"For myself, I don’t believe in evolution," he said, adding that his views were "a personal stance" rather than party policy. 'Stop calling evolution fact!'
Interim Ontario PC Leader Jim Wilson was quick to distance himself from Nicholls's anti-evolution views, saying "it obviously didn’t help our position." Ontario PC house leader Steve Clark and leadership candidate Christine Elliott also disowned the remarks.
But Lunney has come to Nicholls' defence. "[Just] stop calling #evolution fact!" tweeted Lunney, who said he had no problem calling it a "theory."
- I for one welcome our vegetable overlords ...
- What fuels public rejection of science the most?
In particular, being a biblical literalist — endorsing the statement, “The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word” — was a much bigger factor than liberalism or conservatism in explaining why some people disagreed with the use of science in “concrete government policy decisions,” and also why they were against federal science funding.