Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Rich_Acanthisitta_70 t1_ivgo1tq wrote

This is what watermelon used to look like in the 17th century. A lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat used to look a lot different.

45

[deleted] t1_ivgr8bd wrote

[deleted]

18

Rich_Acanthisitta_70 t1_ivgs2kd wrote

Several are from wikimedia commons and the link to each plant is under its pic. It's not remotely intuitive, but of the ones I was going to link, I thought this one had the better side by side pics. This is one of the others that was better sourced.

13

Miguel-odon t1_ivmfpp6 wrote

I eat wild grapes all the time. Not blueberry size.

1

The_Revisioner t1_ivi4c7f wrote

Especially since I don't think there GMO cucumbers... At least not on shelves.

−4

pittaxx t1_iviwf8p wrote

The article isn't taking about GMO, we were modifying plants through selective breeding for thousands of years before we knew what genes are.

3

The_Revisioner t1_ivjh4nr wrote

The second link up there listing a bunch of plants and what they used to look like mentions "GMO Cucumbers".

−1

pittaxx t1_ivkqcp0 wrote

Selective breeding is genetic modification.

GMO is genetic modification done in some way that does not commonly occur in nature (everything to do with selective breeding does).

1

The_Revisioner t1_ivkwxdn wrote

Alright man, I was just agreeing with the dude questioning the source of the article...

And no, selective breeding is NOT genetic modification. It is artificial selection. You're not modifying the genes directly; you're selecting for phenotypic traits.

Genetic Modification is actual gene manipulation (usually insertions) using a bunch of fun and cool proteins/enzymes.

And you might be surprised, but genetic modification does occur in nature a lot. There's an entire class of viruses that insert genetic material into the DNA of their hosts. It's just usually not beneficial, and results in immune system activation to kill the cell.

That's not what I'm talking about.

1

pittaxx t1_ivl07by wrote

You are talking Genetic Engineering. Genetic Modification can refer to that, but it also refer to any process that modifies genes, which includes stuff like artificial selection.

1

The_Revisioner t1_ivl6hxl wrote

Perhaps in a very broad sense, but not in the context of GMO produce, which specifically refers to crops with artificially modified genomes.

1

pittaxx t1_ivnt998 wrote

Yes, GMO refers specifically to genetically engineered products. Article doesn't use "GMO" though, just "genetically modified", which is fine as it can mean anything. It's a bit silly, but the "O" part is really important here.

1

A_Light_Spark t1_iviad2f wrote

The first pic is not a good one because that also what unripe watermelons looks now.
Also the eggplant one is bad. Indian eggplants still look very similar: https://specialtyproduce.com/produce/Indian_Eggplant_9087.php
And even for the american species, they look like an egg when young, thus the name.
And then there are also italian and thai eggplants to say the least, not to mention all the heirloom ones:
https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/heirloom-eggplant-varieties-zewz1308zpit/

2

Rich_Acanthisitta_70 t1_iviaxyi wrote

The one in the pic is what a ripe one looked like in the 17th century. And even unripe ones now have a lot more melon than than those before.

1

Rich_Acanthisitta_70 t1_ivicyet wrote

This isn't speculation. This is settled information about the changes that've been made to the most popular and widely consumed vegetables and fruits.

You're comparing young fruits and vegetables with what ripe ones looked like centuries before.

You're also referencing more obscure plants and variations as if they're representative of the more common ones that have the widest distribution. They aren't.

Your conclusions and claims are inaccurate and in bad faith. That's not just disingenuous and misleading - it's outright false information and has no place on this sub.

0

A_Light_Spark t1_ivif060 wrote

All you did was refer to some tabloid website and then you call what they say as "facts". Really now? I just showed you modern day varieties of two plants that people actively harvest and consume on a daily basis, but apparently I'm spreading false information? Instead of typing up a word salad, why don't you give me some actual examples?

0

Rich_Acanthisitta_70 t1_ivifebv wrote

You referenced a specialty produce supplier and motherearthnews. You're projecting, and wrong.

1

TopRamenisha t1_ivit925 wrote

They aren’t wrong just because you don’t like their sources. China and India cultivated eggplant varieties for thousands of years. Eggplant was introduced to the Americas in the early 1500s, with varieties that are similar or the same as varieties we have available to this day. You’re calling this “settled information” when it’s not settled.

1

Tractorhash t1_ivk1f0q wrote

The scientific method has made everything better.

2

-badgerbadgerbadger- t1_ivhxpn6 wrote

I took art history and learned that while plants did look different a long time ago, the changes were not so different in the last 300 years, that watermelon had just gone bad, but many people back then never actually had the fresh fruit so the bad look was normal

1

TopRamenisha t1_ivisll7 wrote

That second link is not entirely accurate. Humans have been selectively breeding crops for hundreds, even thousands of years. For example, corn is derived from grasses, but the Aztecs were genetically modifying corn through selective breeding 10,000 years ago. Archeological finds of ancient corn cobs still resemble corn cobs we would see today. There are heirloom varieties of pretty much every food on that list that have been around for hundreds of years.

−1

Rich_Acanthisitta_70 t1_ivivtan wrote

I don't see any references to when the changes occurred, or began occurring. Only descriptions of what the plants looked like after domestication. I chose that link specifically for that reason since I was only relaying that they look different now compared to before.

2

AutoModerator t1_ivfq8v7 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

tornpentacle t1_ivfthme wrote

This sort of fits in with how they're still used in the regions where they evolved...for roasted seeds.

1

WinterElfeas t1_ivisr87 wrote

Does this have anything to do I read that fruits before we’re way less sugary than what we cultivate them to be today?

1