> Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes.
This is not "obvious". Actually, I think it's obviously wrong. That's like saying, "Oh, nuclear research doesn't matter, nature could just randomly create a nuclear bomb." Well, no. (Although nuclear reactors do happen naturally.) If you're trying to create super-organisms/weapons, chances are, you'll succeed.
I am NOT talking about NATURE I was specifically talking about mutagenesis. That is scientists purposefully subjecting seeds to radiation to cause random mutations in the hope of causing beneficial changes to the plant.
If you are going to attack my argument at least take the time to understand it.
I think I understand your argument. You're saying that random development is just as dangerous as directed development. I gave you an example of the opposite (nature's "random" development (e.g. evolution, geological forces, formation of planets, ...) hasn't given us anything as small & deadly as a nuclear bomb).
You analogy isn't really on point. It's more of a difference between a controlled reaction (targeted gene splicing) and randomly smashing pieces of enriched uranium and watching what happens (non-site-specific mutagenesis).
This is not "obvious". Actually, I think it's obviously wrong. That's like saying, "Oh, nuclear research doesn't matter, nature could just randomly create a nuclear bomb." Well, no. (Although nuclear reactors do happen naturally.) If you're trying to create super-organisms/weapons, chances are, you'll succeed.