[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reasonable questions



Reply again to Dale,
The area of endosperm vrs embryo  is still very active in research and
publication up to this date, contrary to what you seem to have learned
at some point. .
Your claims about the invariability of endosperm is groundless. The
endosperm is highly variable in content depending on genetic and
environmental considerations and the transgenic DNA content of the  food
milled from corn is predominantly  the endosperm DNA not the embryo, as
the publication that I supplied shows. Furthermore, you made bizarre
claims about the regulation of transgene pollution in maize but like
your claims on transgenic DNA in endosperm you are unwilling to provide
verification for your claims. Now you resort to denigration, it seems
of  anyone who disagrees with your unsupported claims.
You  seem to be trying to obfuscate the actual fact that endosperm
dominates the transgenic pollution of  maize food products and that
pollution depends on pollen spread from transgenic  maize crops and the
environmental and genetic factors influencing production of endosperm.
This matter seems simple enough and it seems your credibility suffers
from unwillingness to provide supporting references for your claims.
Biotechnology seems very unscientific in your hands.Do let us get on to
serious matters , but in the future , you might consider  trying to be a
little less authoritative and a little more research based.
Sincerely, Joe

Dale Wilson wrote:

Joe,



...the paper below used genetics
to  show that grain filling mutations  can vary number of endosperm
cells relative to embryo...



This statement and the rest of your post (and the last several) are
totally beside the point.  This whole thread arose from a question
about expected transgenic contamination in grain arising from
accidental contamination of the sown seed, with a low frequency of
transgenic seeds.

My points have been:

1) Fraction of kernels in the grain crop that are transgenic is
predictable based on the frequency of the transgene in the population.
The gene frequency is not going to change much in the absence of
selection (unless of course pollen from another field blows in).

2) The amount of transgenic material *by weight* is roughly
proportional to the fraction of kernels (by number) that are
transgenic.



Answer:As I pointed out above your figures do not seem to agree with
findings published in journals.



You have not discussed ANY relevant papers.  All the relevant papers
relating to point (1) above are more than 50 years old.  This is
well-established text-book genetics.

Point (2) is common sense, pure and simple.

I think we should stop this thread.  I doubt anyone is interested in
it.  And it seems to me you either have some ineradicable mental block
about this or perhaps are obfuscating.  I am mystified by your
arguments.

Sincerely,
Dale



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

********************************************************

To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html and unsubscribe by typing in your e-mail address or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html



********************************************************

To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html and unsubscribe by typing in your e-mail address or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html