I give up. You're tossing up straw men everywhere. I'll only comment on what you've said so far and then go my own way.
burden of proof = you.
AKA: have you got any evidence proving that insterting sequence A (which works fine in animal A) verbatim into animal B will somehow result in proteins that behave like prions?
I haven't said that it will definitely produce prions, but Eagleton is asserting that there is "no danger of creating prions" without anything at all to back that up. This seems like no more than blind faith to me.
If the only difference between a prion and the protein it affects is the way the prion is folded then you might not even need to have a transcription error, I would think that a difference in the machinery that assembles proteins might result in a different folding. And the machinery that assembles the proteins is different between animal A and animal B, I think.
Wrong.
Here is an overview of the process, in video form, from BBC. Every living creature that uses DNA uses this machinery to create proteins, from bacteria to plants to human beings. Eukaryotes have different ribosomes from bacteria, etc, but they do not differ within the domains as far as I'm aware. It's methodical, predictable, and only fails in extreme circumstances, usually with catastrophic results to the host organism.
In any case prions are just an example I'm giving for something that could go wrong with this. There simply isn't any basis for portraying the possible consequences of this form of genetic engineering as insignificant.
So give more examples? What basis do you have that the possible consequences of this form of genetic engineering
are significant? If this isn't an area you're comfortable with delving into with any certainty, why are you arguing against it? I can assure you there have been plenty of people with a stronger handle on it than me that have examined the issues as well. Yet scientific consensus is that the risks are confined to some well established issues, and peer-review makes sure they're taken into consideration. Otherwise there would have been no FDA investigation. Believe it or not, food companies don't want their customers dying horrible deaths from their products. That's bad business.
So you're recanting your claim that prions are so complex that they can't accidentally be created, right?
No, I maintain it. Prions are simple compared to many other proteins, but still very complex. One example contains 209 amino acids, from 21 possible selections. Are you claiming that there's a reasonably large chance that we could come up with a combination like that on our own? It's just ridiculous to worry about when there's so much else going on around you that could kill you.
Then you're also recanting your claim that there can't be any problems because we could only be making proteins found in other animals consumed by humans.
That approach would only detect a mistake in the insertion of the sequences, not a problem occurring during gene expression as I mentioned above.
So even the people doing the genetic engineering say that unexpected protein sequences could be created by this process.
You left out this part
These concerns have been evaluated through the functional and molecular-genetic characterization of the EO-1α locus with respect to its multi-generational heritability and stability, and detailed nucleotide sequence in F2- and F4-generation AquAdvantage Salmon.
No evidence of interruption of endogenous genes has been identified, lowering the risk of unanticipated phenotypic effects in the GE fish. No such effects have been observed in seven generations cultured over the last 15 years, as discussed in §2.4.
This means that the gene was not found in any other place than where they wanted it. They undoubtedly selected the transcription site by locating a place where the protein could be expressed properly. Any deviation would have shown up in their sequencing and been discarded. The only possible health risk here would be to the fish, with a foreign protein doing gods know what to its organ system. That's why this isn't done in humans - you don't want heart muscle floating around in your foot. It doesn't mean your foot isn't edible and delicious to a salmon - we process all kinds of protein through our digestive tracts every day, and it's a rare beast that actually affects us more than being dissolved into its component parts. The specific protein we've added, as has been stated, is used in ice cream FFS.
You act as though all possible problems can be evaluated and accurately assessed for risk by someone casually reading about this stuff and that simply isn't true. These genome alterations and the ways in which they interact with other biological systems are not something to be taken lightly.
And here lies the problem. You want to imply that GM is harmful, and yet you refuse to do any amount of research on why it might be so. No one is taking this lightly but you.
None of your proofs that there's nothing to be worried about hold up to even the mildest scrutiny.
As far as I can tell, you haven't given my 'proofs' any kind of scrutiny at all, besides trying to find logical and grammatical mistakes and omissions and outright denying any reason I try to give you.
Bleh.