"Brian C. Attwood" wrote in message
There is a big difference between selective breeding for a particular
naturally occurring characteristic (which is basically a form of guided
evolution in a way) and taking the genes from one species and inserting
them into another. For example, a tomato and a fish would never
naturally exchange genes, nor could they forcibly be bred together, yet
there has been talk about inserting the antifreeze genes from fish (or
was it amphibians?) into fruits to protect them from frost. I think the
possibility of unintended consequences rises when such genetic meddling
is done. GM animals can effectively become a non-native species and
there are plenty of examples of how things can go wrong with those.
That said, I think there are some compelling uses for GM especially in
agriculture, but that it should not be used flippantly like in the case
of glowing fish.


Exactly. Genetic modifications are fine IMO to do such things as prevent
humans from being suceptable to smallpox, or make corn resistant to disease,
but creating a new species of creature simply to fill a market niche and
make more money is just plain wrong. It's abuse of an unbelievably powerful
new technology that we don't yet understand the consequences of.
And to comment of the previous assertion that the species won't
interbreed, I call BS on that. If I have learned one thing in my studies
about the scientific world, it's that *nature finds a way*. It is foolish to
believe that we, humans, have the power to overcome the power of nature. We
simply don't know what we're up against. Some species of animals for
example, actually *change gender* in order to procreate in absence of one
gender or the other. To say "it can't happen" is egocentric and ignorant. It
happens. It has happened. It will happen again.