Re: GloFish Zebra Danio Question

"Eric Schreiber" wrote

I've snipped a fair bit for brevity.

> That's a common argument to support genetically modified animals, but
> it's flawed because it ignores one very important difference.
>
> Selective and cross-breeding of a species makes use only of traits
> that *already exist* in the species. If you're trying to make solid
> blue betta, for example, you cross-breed specimens that exhibit a lot
> of blue, and repeat with resulting generations until you get the solid
> blue fish. The gene for blue was already there, you've simply made it
> the dominant one, and eliminated the other colors.
>
> Transgenic species such as this glowing fish, on the other hand, are
> arrived at by crossing genetic material from two *entirely different*
> species. Breed your normal zebra danios for as many generations as you
> like, and you won't get one that glows. And you could certainly never
> get a danio and a jellyfish to mate, either.
>
> So you see, your comparison is invalid.

I don't see why the mechanism for creating a new animal is relevant.
Unless the objection is to the mechanism in principle, each organism
created by man should be judged on its own merits. Some of the
most destructive and cruel animals we've ever created were
arrived at by so-called 'natural' methods like cross-breeding.

If you are objecting to GM in principle then the religous or philosophy
groups are more likely to provide you with an answer. The science is sound.

> So again, a transgenic glow-in-the-dark fish created in a lab has
> nothing to do with natural selection.

Agreed. And neither does a blue Betta.

> >Humans are one example of such a 'freak'. And we haven't turned
> >out that bad.
>
> That is a matter of some debate

Ain't that the truth.

-- 
Graham Ramsay
    You might be a Bright:
    www.the-brights.net