Designer Fish

[ctenophors rule]

Now, selective breeding does not put any pressure onto the fish. Not all of the fish will hatch with the desired pattern (grade b picassos, misbars, semi snowflakes....), and those that don't make the cut are not disposed of (at least by any reputable and professional dealer). If they all came out as grade a's, then they wouldn't be marketed at high prices, and sold as designer or unique. This is because a natural occuring mutation isn't mainstream, it doesn't occur in the population's majority. Through selective breeding, we are exploiting the misbar gene, but genetically, they are still clownfish.

and geneticaly smaller bears and glofish would be/ are still bears and zebra danios.

Science, in making smaller animals or glofish, is not working at a faster pace than nature. Because nature has no necessity for a pocket sized gorilla; that's what people want, and what people will work to create.

what if nature did have a neccesity for such creatures? now glofish have the ability to atract mates better visualy, attract food to them instead of needing to hunt, and are easier to see so better to manage the health of an ecosystem. those all seem like benefits to me. and if some people enjoy their fish more whats wrong with that?

say its a difficult to keep species like a mandarin and its made so that it glows. the light given off at night will attract zooplankton of all kinds to it. with the right kind of flourescence it may even attract food durring the day. (GFP?)

and tiny bears can be used to control the glowing zebra danio populations!:lmao:

 

[a-T-m]

and tiny bears can be used to control the glowing zebra danio populations!:lmao:

No you're entirely ridiculous. The bears would control APTASIA!!!

 

[ctenophors rule]

the last five minutes of this discusses one of the best arguements for genetic engineering. though the whole thing is pretty good for the beginers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y80rhvXErOQ

 

[ctenophors rule]

I do not like Man Made Fish, just not worth it.

whats not worth it about them. pleae be specific

 

[B Mack]

 

[Allmost]

I dont see an Issue in this !


500 years ago, life expectancy of humans were half what it is now, what if we stopped medication and ... production and development, saying we dnt want to alter the way mother nature intended ? is it wrong to search for cure of cancer and aids ?

NO!

so we should all stop being so close minded, and understand that we are a tiny bit of this universe and out experimentation to make our knowledge and science complete is good. who knows, maybe something good can come out of this !

 

[rwb500]

^^ youre missing a lot.....

its an ethical issue which some people simply dont understand.

 

[ctenophors rule]

^^ youre missing a lot.....

its an ethical issue which some people simply dont understand.

their are many ethical issues involved, which one are you suggesting?

and seeing as growing ears on rats has nothing at all to do with the pet trade why show that?

why not show a picture of a glowing axoluti or rat or zebra danio?


however since you brought up the rat.

the rat lived (or so it thought) a normal life. the rat did not behave noticably different and it did not appear to be in pain. it simply was.

humans use rats for testing all the time. when testing for cosmetics the animals have their eyes forced open and the make up is applied in the eye. after many scientific studies the rats have to be humanely killed. for some (and i wont say where i heard of this being used but suffice to say a top research facility) humanely killing a rat involves putting them in a box where their litteraly isn't enough room so their piled up all the way to the top. next a gas chamber or electric shock and then their hit on the head with a hammer.


just smething to think about, however we are very much off topic

 

[Allmost]

^^ youre missing a lot.....

its an ethical issue which some people simply dont understand.

so should we fire all scientist and decide as humans we dont want to learn or grow or invent anything else ?

we are fine with the way nature is ? so why look for cured of cancer ?

its science, and sacrifices have to be made.

hey even natural selection did the same thing

 

[GreshamH]

so should we fire all scientist and decide as humans we dont want to learn or grow or invent anything else ?

we are fine with the way nature is ? so why look for cured of cancer ?

its science, and sacrifices have to be made.

hey even natural selection did the same thing

OK devils advocate...

fake:Scientists conjure up a super virus in order to gain a cure for what they expect current viruses to morph into. It leaks, we all die, case closed.

real:Scientists conjure up a plant resistant to Round Up. They supply all the farms with this new super seed and for a few years the farmers enjoy no weeds while they spray Round Up. Guess what, now there's Round Up Resistant strains of weeds known as Super Weeds. Guess what they found to be the most useful? The ancient practice of crop rotation. Gee ancient technology trumps current science

And all this has to do with GMO hobby fish how?

 

[ctenophors rule]

And all this has to do with GMO hobby fish how?

thanks gresham. btw jw how do you feel about the GM pet?

also, just to give an example of where GM work better than anctient technology; when plants have insecticides in them the simple way to stop the insects from becoming immune is to allof for small patches of land to be planted with non GM crops.

 

[GreshamH]

I'm not for it really, I see no need and we just do not know the implications they actually pose.

 

[Allmost]

OK devils advocate...

fake:Scientists conjure up a super virus in order to gain a cure for what they expect current viruses to morph into. It leaks, we all die, case closed.

real:Scientists conjure up a plant resistant to Round Up. They supply all the farms with this new super seed and for a few years the farmers enjoy no weeds while they spray Round Up. Guess what, now there's Round Up Resistant strains of weeds known as Super Weeds. Guess what they found to be the most useful? The ancient practice of crop rotation. Gee ancient technology trumps current science

And all this has to do with GMO hobby fish how?

lol

the fake situation looks and sounds awfully close to a lab made disease called Aids

what does it have to do with the fish keeping hobby ? stop complaining and enjoy it scientists are working towards a brighter and better future, while you are complaining that they are changing the world around u too much, well guess what mother nature is doing that already, and if you think changing our surrounding is not good, perhaps u can stop using electricity for 24 hours and report back how it felt

I really dislike ppl talking down to scientists who had the guts and knowledge and extra tickle in their brain to try new things in hopes of a better future. the clowns are one, dinos another,we made new fish ! lets be proud of it and work on it and see how far more can we get. hey, if global warming takes over, then our GM clowns could be the only survival or new GM corals who can live in higher temps .... who knows,

 

[GreshamH]

Aw yes, you're a consipracy theorist I see (aids beign man made) very telling:lol:

Allmost sorry but I am not talking down to scientists. I work with scientists daily and have great respect for them. I also never said I am fighting change. I dislike one particular thing, that is no crime, not talking down to scientists and not exactly fighting change. There is no need to GM pets. What a frivolous waste of scientists power, research money and lab space. This hobby all ready has a impact on the earth, do we really need to make it that much more so?

 

[ctenophors rule]

There is no need to GM pets. What a frivolous waste of scientists power, research money and lab space. This hobby all ready has a impact on the earth, do we really need to make it that much more so?

if you look at selective breeding as the manipulation of phenotypes than it is technicaly genetic engineering, just much less acurate than modern GED

also what detrimental ecological impact would genetic engineering cause?

For most of the GMO's access to the spermatozoam is neccesary which would mean that the animal would have to be aquacultured. GMO can be made with a safety enzyme that only allows them to live if fed a special food. these combined will prevent the removal of organisms for our trade and prevent any animals from accidentaly being introduced to the environment. imagine if that had been done to caulerpa in the pacific and the lion fish in the atlantic.

these GMO can be tweaked to be impervious to diseases, less susceptible to stress and more tame. we can also take the larger fih that everyone seems to love, like tangs and make them suitable to the tank sizes they are kept in.

for example I hate seeing a yellow tang in a tank less than 200 gallons. now if yellow tangs could be made to stop growing at 2-3 inches than they would be fine for a 75 gallon.

also, i think it is important to recognise these aren't man made fish.

their still the same species. we have simply added or subtrated a few genes, or maybe just mutated a gene. your misbar percula is still a percula, just with a mutated gene or genes.

 

[ctenophors rule]

lol

what does it have to do with the fish keeping hobby ? stop complaining and enjoy it

i dont think your understanding what he is saying.

using genetic engineering to cure cancer or put an ear on a rat have nothing to do with genetic engineering of pets. their entirely different issues with different arguements different ethical considerations.

the issues that many bring up with GMP's are; religion based (so we cant use these), the creation of monsters and painful modifications (based on TV and fake science, not actual genetics. lol its not like scientist go eny meny miny moe and stick a gene somewhere), dangers with them outcompeting wild populations or being introduced and wrecking habit on other ecosystems.

all of these are easily disputed especialy once one learns more about genetics.

 

[ackee]

Genetically engineered fish are inherently hideous, fundamentally repulsive. Maintaining anything that is not identical to what exists in nature is in my opinion a perversion of the entire concept of aquarium keeping. One might as well have mechanical robot fishes, or computer generated simulations. In addition, such chimeras are dangerous. Eventually they will, at the very least, contaminate the natural gene pool, despite any fantastic special diet requirements or built in kill switches.

 

[Allmost]

i dont think your understanding what he is saying.

using genetic engineering to cure cancer or put an ear on a rat have nothing to do with genetic engineering of pets. their entirely different issues with different arguements different ethical considerations.

the issues that many bring up with GMP's are; religion based (so we cant use these), the creation of monsters and painful modifications (based on TV and fake science, not actual genetics. lol its not like scientist go eny meny miny moe and stick a gene somewhere), dangers with them outcompeting wild populations or being introduced and wrecking habit on other ecosystems.

all of these are easily disputed especialy once one learns more about genetics.

we are actually saying the same thing

lets take clonning for example

if I could clone myself and use the clones Heart to save my life, is that wrong ?

u tell the guy that has lost an arm "Science is advance enough to install a fake arm for u" yet once the science is advance enough to replace my heart ure saying its wrong ?


my English is not perfect so I sure have not worded my argument correctly, but 100 years ago, we were where we are now with medicine, do we REALLY need to take ADVIL to take the pain away ? ppl made illegal drugs out of legal drugs ! can we say advil is evil ?

 

[Allmost]

Genetically engineered fish are inherently hideous, fundamentally repulsive. Maintaining anything that is not identical to what exists in nature is in my opinion a perversion of the entire concept of aquarium keeping. One might as well have mechanical robot fishes, or computer generated simulations. In addition, such chimeras are dangerous. Eventually they will, at the very least, contaminate the natural gene pool, despite any fantastic special diet requirements or built in kill switches.

sorry, but 100 years ago, a man at age 80 still being alive was impossible, now my grandfather wants to pick up chicks at 95 years old LOL

is he a GM grandpa ?



in general, I agree that it is not correct to change our suroundings, BUT, that does not mean we should limit science. alot of good things can come out of this.

lets say global worming actually hits and temp raises and kills all fish and corals, and our scientist make a new fish that can survive in high temp ! so that the life in our oceans doesnt finish, he will be a hero, and only one that can do this is the one that studied fish and clown fish and changed its color pattern

 

[ctenophors rule]

ok, they are very different.

your comparing oranges with apples.

look your comparing genetic medicine and genetic cloning with geneticly modified pets.
remove genetics and your comparing medice and cloning with modified pets.

yes science has resulted in many wonderful medical advancements, what more does that have to do with me buying a glowing fish than i will live longer to view it?