LOL bananas

Either way, I'd stick to the definitions of the people who actually work in the field and know what they're talking about over incredibly loose unhelpful ones 

Which fossils and genetic sequencing proved were quite different from wolves as we know them. Which is kind of the point, since while domesticated organisms changed genetically, so have their wild counterparts.

I mean, even more extreme would be to ask if cows would turn back into aurochs. They'd go feral or exitinct, but they wouldn't revert.

Don't be ridiculous. The domesticated dog wasn't derived from the modern wolf. Both descended from a common ancestor

Then they are still Geneticly modified. ;P I mean hell, in a lot of cases, there is very little difference between removing a gene and making it dormant. Anyways. Gotta run, stuff to do right now. Have fun.

The ones that survived would be more wolf like, but they wouldn't be wolves. And in a lot of cases without human intervention most of the heavily modified animals and plants wouldn't survive a "few generations".

Are you saying, given a few years (relativily speaking) of no humans, dogs will return to wolves?

Within a few generations without human intervention, the same traits resurface. because again, the genes aren't changed. Only the population.

The genes for those traits are still present though. You're not manipulating the genotype, rather than the phenotype of the population.

The fact that it's a more indirect method compared to, say, CRISPR is irrelevant.

Selective breeding is a form of genetic manipulation, since you're restricting or eliminating unfavored genetic patterns from being expressed in the target organisms.

As it should be... People whine about GMO, but most of it is because they don't understand that biotech is usually just a faster way of doing the exact same thing thousands of years of crossbreading does.

You can call it whatever you like, but again, that definition is so wide as to be worthless and few people would agree with the definition.

The commonly accepted definition of "genetic modification" by the scientific community involves biotechnology and direct manipulation of genetic material

But.. While slower.. That's -exactly- what crossbreeding is.. Genetic modification.

Which is patently ridiculous. They didn't modify the genetic makeup of these organisms; just manipulated the odds of traits deemed as favorable being expressed. 

By that definition, literally everything that humans have domesticated is a GMO.

Why? It's completely geneticly modified to be almost completely distinct from what a real banana is.

By looser definitions of GMO. So loose as to be worthless pretty much.

So.. All banannas that anyone eats.. organic or not.. is a GMO..

Aren't they usually called palatains? But yeah, the only reason those cultivars survive at all is because of humans.

That said, there are still wild banana plants which do reproduce sexually. If you don't mind gigantic seeds in them.

This makes them highly susceptible to disease due to the stagnant genetic pool and inability to adapt.

The domesticated kind reproduced asexually, meaning that the ones present today have the genetics of the same banana plants circa whenever bananas were domesticated

Why would they be?

Shouldn't banana's be extinct now?

You leave my male harem alone.

Yeah, but unfortunately, it was Fire Emblem Fates.

Fire Emblem Fates didn't force the gay pairings to have kids, not even for adoption. Granted, there were only 2 canon gay/bi options amoungst a sea of hetero, but still.

It pissed off more people than usual since when the game was getting hyped much was made that you could have your character be gay as the first of May, and also the fact that the achievement for that event in the DLC was called "Growing Up"

Never played the game, but that works as well! Textbook mindless natalism.

Huh, I figured you were talking about that Assassins Creed Oddessy DLC that forces your character to have a kid regardless of your choices, previous behaviour, or current situation.

Some context: I am bemoaning the fact that Modern Family is currently demonstrating why it should have already ended. Because not only it is making its annoying characters even worse, but Haley's storyline is taking her in a direction I hate.

So when a lazy cop-out in the story happens, I'm going to object to the shoehorning.

I think you misunderstand me. History is rife with instances wherein having children turned out not to be the right decision, and people with normal intelligence saw it coming. So people like myself find it infurating when television writers broadly pretend this doesn't happen.

So it's not weird that it shows up in a lot of fiction. Since it shows up in a lot of nonfiction.

But you know, like... the majority of people do it.

And no characters call out this course of action for the stupidity it is. Believe it or not, not everyone is cut out to have kids, and having children is not an extraordinary life accomplishment.

Yup. Like writers knocking up a (usually female) character for no good reason, often when said character has not previously expressed the desire for children, or children would heavily set back their life plans, or the other biological parent is not a good relationship partner.

I mean, there's more to it, and varying levels of related concepts and blah blah blah, but I'm not gonna go further in the shoutbox.

It's the "everyone's gotta make babies" school of thought. It varies but in media it manifests as "all characters end up married with kids or dead". For contrast an anti-natalist concept would be China's One Child policy.

.... pro-natalist?

Pro-natalist clichés in fiction are overrated. But no Hollywood writer can come up with new ideas. Argh.

How does the giant gimmicky Bumblebee toy have such an incredible leg transformation compared to the MPM

I mean it's Vigo. We are like the buzzing of flies to him.

Perfectly. His talent is only surpassed by Tommy Wiseau

How well he can play them is another story.

Blasphemy. Nicolas Cage can play anybody.

I'm just glad we're in a timeline where Nicolas Cage was too busy to play Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. As much as I may like Cage, there was no way he could have done that and Viggo was infintely better for the part.