Summary: Bt corn, one of the nation’s most widely grown crops, is a genetically engineered plant that makes its own insecticide. Introduced in 2003, Bt corn allows growers to produce large crops while using fewer chemicals because the corn naturally produces a toxin (considered harmless to humans and livestock) which poisons the western corn rootworm that threatens it. Created by the Monsanto Co. by splicing a gene from a soil organism called Bacillus thuringiensis into the plant, the hybrid and similar varieties account for 65% of all U. S. corn acres and end up in thousands of everyday foods such as cereal, sweeteners and cooking oil.
But over the last few summers, rootworms have been seen increasingly feasting on the roots of Bt corn in parts of four states — Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska. Apparently, rootworms in some Bt cornfields have “evolved” a resistance to the corn’s formidable defenses. Although the problem seems to have eased in Minnesota in recent years, it is hard to detect because winds or wet soil have to topple the corn plants for the damage to be observed. According to U. of Minnesota entomologist Kenneth Ostlie, we may be seeing only the tip of the iceberg.
Scientists say farmers who do not rotate Bt corn with other crops could be partly to blame. High corn prices may be the reason they don‘t do this. However, farmers could help by rotating their crops and also by planting non-BT corn within or next to BT cornfields. That could entice non-resistant rootworms to mate with resistant rootworms which would dilute their genes. Another possible help might be to switch between Bt corn varieties that produce different toxins or multiple toxins. Damaged fields might also be treated with insecticides to kill the resistant rootworms.
Seed companies are supposed to cut off farmers who violate Environmental Protection Agency planting rules which require growers to devote 20% of their fields to non-Bt corn. Many farmers apparently ignore that rule. And Monsanto was recently criticized by EPA for not doing enough to monitor the resistance problem among rootworm populations. For their part, Monsanto denies there is conclusive proof the rootworms really are immune to the toxin, but it says it does take the situation seriously.
At present, the U.S. food supply is not in any immediate danger due to the fact the rootworm problem is so isolated. Scientists are concerned though because, while they fully expected the rootworms to eventually develop a resistance to the Bt corn toxin, the signs of possible resistance have emerged sooner than they imagined.
To read the entire article, click on YAHOO NEWS.
Comment: This story appears to be another case of natural selection, but, despite the word “evolved” that popped up in the story, it is not an example of Darwinian (amoeba-to-man) evolution. From time to time we would do well to remind ourselves of the difference between natural selection and evolution. Evolutionists still confuse the issue by suggesting evidence for the former is also evidence for the latter.
Natural selection is sometimes also called “survival of the fittest.” If the resistant rootworms do have a genetic trait that protects them from the corn’s toxin, they are indeed better fit and able to survive in the Bt cornfields than rootworms lacking that trait. Thus, natural selection would in this case lead to more of the toxin-resistant rootworms.
For Darwinian evolution to have happened to these rootworms though, some new genetic information would have had to have been introduced into their genomes. There is no evidence that this happened. The genetic information already present in some of the rootworms was what led to their ability to better resist the toxin. Scientists know of no way new genetic information can naturally enter the genome of any creature. The resistant rootworms and the non-resistant rootworms are all still rootworms. No new type of creature has evolved.
The famous peppered-moth experiment of biologist Bernard Kettlewell also illustrates the difference between natural selection and Darwinian evolution. Kettlewell’s tests showed that dark-colored moths survived much better on tree trunks darkened by soot from factories than did light-colored moths because predator birds could not spot them as easily. The same was true of light-colored moths surviving better on light-colored tree trunks. Some lecturers still point to this example as evidence for evolution, but it is not, because it is freely admitted that both light-colored and dark-colored moths existed before factories with their smoky chimneys were built. Therefore, nothing new had evolved.
We can take comfort in the fact that natural selection is not involved when it comes to selecting those people who are being saved for eternal life. If nature did the selecting, we would all be selected out of the picture, because by nature we are all guilty of sin (Romans 3:23). Thankfully, God will on the last day do the selecting, and every person who has repented of his sins and come to faith in Jesus Christ will have those sins washed away and be selected for eternity in heaven (1 Corinthians 6:11).
PRINT (Black type on white background)
********************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail your request to admin@lutheranscience.org].
********************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Why is chewing on apricot pits dangerous?
When chewed, an apricot pit can release about 1.5 milligrams of cyanide. A lethal dose for an adult is around 100 milligrams. One 41-year-old woman was rushed to the hospital after eating 30 of the pits. The pits sometimes are sold as a relief for constipation.Source: Discover (September, 2011)
********************************************
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including those containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity or advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
0 comments:
Post a Comment