Ron Hansen wrote:
snip
Less difference than you think. Are you familiar with parallel
evolution? It refers to similar structures arising in different
species/orders/genuses. I'm too tired right now to find some references
for you, but there are mutations with similar results in disparate
creatures.

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

This particular modification (glow in the dark fish) isn't even that
different from the currently existing bioluminescent fish. The means of
the luminescence is different, but the result is the same.

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

This would seem to contradict your statement that genetic splicing is
speeding up evolution if you are introducing traits not naturally
seleted for. I agree that a glowing fish would probably be eaten the
first night. A tropical fish engineered to live in cold water might
fair better though.


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.


A. Tomatoes are not sentient.
B. Is this less of an abomination than seedless grapes?

I was not saying it was an abomination, but that it was an example of
genetic engineering being much different selective breeding. I am not
particularly concerned whether the GM product is sentient or not,
provided the sentient creature is not suffering.



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.

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. Examples of the last a

Zebra mussels in the Great Lakes
Armadillos in Florida
Rats in Mauritius which wiped out the Dodo.

Did I not say "..become a non-native species and there are plenty of
examples of how things can go wrong with those."? Thank you for the
examples. Oh, and I guess if you say the risks are less from GM animals
then they must be. I still think that introducing a property in an
animal or plant that had not been seen before in a biotope carries more
risk than trying to bring out a naturally occuring one.

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.


Why? Who are you to decide when genetic engineering should or should
not be used?

Who died and left you in charge?

You did not hear I was put in charge? Hmm...look for the word "think"
in my sentence above. It means I was expressing my opinion.