Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

From:	Ty (76.171.239.200)
Subject:	Re: Personally, I don't worry about it...
Date:	September 7, 2010 at 11:33 am PST

In Reply to: Re: Personally, I don't worry about it... posted by Dr. Doug Graham on September 7, 2010 at 8:44 am:

This paragraph is way off the hybrid issue…
How would I answer the chiro question? Well, I am not a chiro, nor have I ever been treated by one. So, I don’t think I can give a very informed answer, but the scientist in me does want to be skeptical. However, your opinion of chiropractic care may be of some interest to a good number of people. I know that you are well-versed in both chiropractic and natural hygiene, and to me, these seem to be a bit contradictory. Natural hygiene asserts that one must simply provide an adequate environment (good food, water, sunlight, exercise, mental poise, etc.), and the body will heal itself. This is at odds with the medical model. I think natural hygienists will oppose things such as herbal remedies for specific ailments. In the same vein, it seems natural hygienists would oppose techniques such as acupuncture and chiropractic. After all, don’t these professions involve doing an exam, and then inserting needles in specific spots or making specific adjustments based on the results of that exam? That seems identical to the allopathic medical model (and herbal remedies), only the mode of treatment is different, and none of them seem in line with the tenants of natural hygiene. To endorse both chiropractic and natural hygiene seems a contradiction to me, and so I am genuinely curious to know how you justify it. Also, to elaborate on your initial answer to this question, in your mind, does everyone “need” regular chiropractic care? If all people need chiropractic care, then do all need acupuncture too? The two seem pretty similar to me. If you don’t mind, in your own family, do you ever adjust anyone anymore? Or do you suggest them to fast instead? Thanks.

Back on the hybrid topic…
I agree with you that, technically, almost all life forms are hybrids by the biological / genetic definition (but not the taxonomic one…in the wikipedia article). There are three points to make here.

First, geneticists do not actually use the word this way. When they use it, they are referring to a particular trait, or gene, and distinguishing between organisms which have two identical copies of the gene (hence are “true-breeding” in that trait) and organisms which have two different copies (which are hybrid in that trait). Now, because plants & animals have so many genes, all of them are bound to have at least one gene in which they are hybrid, and so I guess we could call them hybrid overall, and I see this as essentially being why what you say is right.

Second, is the word “almost”. By the genetic definition, an organism needs to have multiple copies of each gene in order to have a chance to be considered a hybrid. However, organisms with only one copy of each gene exist (they are referred to as haploid, and an example is bacteria), and I still don’t really see how they could be considered hybrid by the genetic definition (but bacteria are neither plant, nor animal, so what you said regarding them is technically correct, as far as I can see).

Third, when most people express fear regarding the consumption of “hybridized” fruit, they are referring to the taxonomic definition. So, when giving your standard response, it sounds like you have answered their question, but you actually haven’t.

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home