Ron Hansen wrote:

My point is: They are both radical changes from nature.

Again, that's incorrect. Selective breeding, while it has had some
unfortunate applications (such as the unhealthy dog breeds you
mention) is not a radical change from nature. It is using what nature
has already provided within a species. It is not in any way the same
as inserting material from a different species, possibly even one in a
different phylum or taxonomic kingdom.

So, in your mind selective breeding is ok, but genetic
modification is not?

You accept one because it is all around you, but you reject the
other because it is new. That is hipocritical.

Straw man. You are attributing motive which is not accurate.
Acceptance of existing selectively bred species has no bearing on
discouraging genetically altered species. Even if one accepts your
argument that selective breeding has the same cachet as genetic
alteration, I would counter that just because my house has already
been robbed doesn't mean I shouldn't put a lock on the door.

You are condemning something with no known harm (glowing fish)

Lack of known harm does not equal or imply lack of harm.


--
www.ericschreiber.com