Ron Hansen wrote:

This genetic splicing is speeding up evolution by a phenomenal amount.

Not quite accurate. It is certainly speeding up *change*, but
evolution isn't merely change - it is change in response to
environmental pressure.

Now, if luminescence already exists in fish, and danios don't already
have it, it is obviously not an evolutionary advantage.

And you have just demonstrated clearly how splicing does *not*
represent speeding up of evolution.

the relative lack of luminescence at the surface suggests that it is a
liability. Therefore why do you assume that an accidentally released
fish would survive and prosper? I would assume that it would be eaten
the first night.

It would depend a great deal upon where it was released? And since you
cannot predict every environment such a release might occur in, your
argument fails.

The risk from GM animals is lower than that from selectively bred
animals and phenomenally less than the simple introduction of existing
creatures into new biotopes.

The risk from GM animals has yet to be assessed. And even if one
accepts that it is a lower risk, it doesn't matter. I am at a lower
risk from holding a firecracker tightly in my fist than a stick of
dynamite, but neither is a very good idea.

Who are you to decide when genetic engineering should or should
not be used? Who died and left you in charge?

The same question could be asked of you. Or me.

Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with GM work in carefully
controlled circumstances for specific controlled applications. I'm
dubious of the wisdom of releasing genetically modified creatures as
pets to the general population.


--
www.ericschreiber.com