GloFish Zebra Danio Question
Sandi Martin
just anounced from www.glofish.com? If it's as good as they say, I am
planning on getting some as soon as they are available and want to
know what others think. There have been tons of articles this weekend
but http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=3873977§ion=news
is an interesting one. I am intrigued and will probably start a new
tank for them alone.
Dinky
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8262sv00ng2a1q0q3...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Nov 2003 12:23:43 -0800, sandim...@yahoo.com (Sandi Martin)
rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
> :
breeding them too. Zebra
> Danios are so easy to breed but all the ones I bred died of old age so I
have none left.
I don't know if this is still true, but I heard somewhere that the majority
will be sterile...who knows. All in all, I am opposed to them, genetically
engineering living creatures for no reason other than to make a few bucks.
Opening floodgates here, I say. Next we'll see pygmy ostiches and other
messed-up shiat like that.
Graham Ramsay
> I don't know if this is still true, but I heard somewhere that the majority
> will be sterile...who knows. All in all, I am opposed to them, genetically
> engineering living creatures for no reason other than to make a few bucks.
> Opening floodgates here, I say. Next we'll see pygmy ostiches and other
> messed-up shiat like that.
That's right. Next it'll be stretched dwarf dogs,
giant pink pigs and goldfish that can only look up.
--
Graham Ramsay
Dinky
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:86m2svgj0k6htd6m9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:03:32 GMT, "Dinky" <vince...@SPAMSUXhotmail.com>
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc :
>
>
> They were engineered years ago as part of scientific research into ways to
detect water pollution.
> They are finally going to reach the test market next year.
They were a mistake, (yes, I've done my reading) that they decided to
perfect and sell to make money. Asshats.
Dinky
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6qr2svsiavmfsmtuh...@4ax.com...
> Zebra fish, which are 1-1/2 inches long and normally light gray with black
stripes, are widely used
> in biomedical laboratories for research in genetics, molecular biology and
vertebrate development.
> Geneticists began splicing the fluorescent genes of jellyfish into
zebra-fish eggs to act as genetic
> markers or to "light up" in the presence of toxins.
>
> Initially, researchers used the green fluorescent protein isolated from a
jellyfish to produce green
> fish, and then altered the proteins to create yellow fish. More recently,
they cloned the red
> fluorescent protein from the IndoPacific sea anemone to create red fish.
>
>
Correct. However, being red/green whatever *all the time* rather than just
in the precense of the toxins they were working with was an error that
turned out to be profitable.
Incidentally, several other countries, including the UK, have already
outlawed genetically engineered pets of many kinds.
billy
Dinky
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o813svg7m5ggehcrm...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 03:51:29 GMT, "Dinky" <vince...@SPAMSUXhotmail.com>
>
> I don't see a problem with these fish.
Me either, at least directly. In the US, water temperatures are well below
the danio's threshold for procreation. They're unlikely to be a problem in
themselves.
However....
1: Who's to say that one of the side effects of the tampering wouldn't be an
eventual tolerance for lower water temps? The technology of genetic
manipulation is way head of itself, in terms of really understanding WTF
they're doing. This is just a small example.
2: My main issue is the "floodgate" syndrome. If these fish sell well, and
no doubt they will, (people will buy anything if they're told they need it)
other genetically modified pets will follow in a rush. Want a blue cat?
Hunting dog with super-sharp sense of smell? The possibilities are endless
and terrifying.
In short, we are farking with shiat we don't fully understand. Nature
(or god, depending on your beliefs) made animals this way for a reason.
We're messing with it.
blank
"Dinky" <vince...@SPAMSUXhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:orhwb.91627$Dw6.458643@attbi_s02...
> However....
>
> 1: Who's to say that one of the side effects of the tampering wouldn't be
an
> eventual tolerance for lower water temps? The technology of genetic
> manipulation is way head of itself, in terms of really understanding WTF
> they're doing. This is just a small example.
> 2: My main issue is the "floodgate" syndrome. If these fish sell well, and
> no doubt they will, (people will buy anything if they're told they need
it)
> other genetically modified pets will follow in a rush. Want a blue cat?
> Hunting dog with super-sharp sense of smell? The possibilities are endless
> and terrifying.
> In short, we are farking with shiat we don't fully understand. Nature
> (or god, depending on your beliefs) made animals this way for a reason.
> We're messing with it.
>
Humanity has been "farking with shiat we don't fully understand" since the
beginning of humanity. ALL breeds of domestic animals are genetically
modified, through selective crossbreeding. Neither nature nor god made
animals this way. Natural selection did it. And natural selection occurs
when a genetically modified 'freak' is able to gain a niche in the
environment, and then dominate. Humans are one example of such a 'freak'.
And we haven't turned out that bad. So bring 'em on, I say.
Waddawewant? More GloFish. Whendowewantem? NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eric Schreiber
>Humanity has been "farking with shiat we don't fully understand" since the
>beginning of humanity. ALL breeds of domestic animals are genetically
>modified, through selective crossbreeding.
That's a common argument to support genetically modified animals, but
it's flawed because it ignores one very important difference.
Selective and cross-breeding of a species makes use only of traits
that *already exist* in the species. If you're trying to make solid
blue betta, for example, you cross-breed specimens that exhibit a lot
of blue, and repeat with resulting generations until you get the solid
blue fish. The gene for blue was already there, you've simply made it
the dominant one, and eliminated the other colors.
Transgenic species such as this glowing fish, on the other hand, are
arrived at by crossing genetic material from two *entirely different*
species. Breed your normal zebra danios for as many generations as you
like, and you won't get one that glows. And you could certainly never
get a danio and a jellyfish to mate, either.
So you see, your comparison is invalid.
>natural selection occurs when a genetically modified 'freak' is
>able to gain a niche in the environment, and then dominate.
Not quite. Natural selection occurs when a specific trait gives an
organism a higher chance of surviving and thus breeding, and therefore
a greater probability of passing that trait along. While mutation does
(rarely) occur, the mutation must survive the process of natural
selection - that is, it must provide some benefit, or at the very
least not be a detriment - to the organism that carries it for the
mutation to have any chance of becoming a part of the species' genetic
mix.
So again, a transgenic glow-in-the-dark fish created in a lab has
nothing to do with natural selection.
>Humans are one example of such a 'freak'. And we haven't turned
>out that bad.
That is a matter of some debate.
Dinky
"Eric Schreiber" <myfir...@ericschreiber.com> wrote in message
news:afq3sv4q3dq8l5n1i...@4ax.com...
> "blank" <bl...@void.net> wrote:
>
>
Well said eric, very close to my response, had I not gone to bed.(lol)
> So again, a transgenic glow-in-the-dark fish created in a lab has
> nothing to do with natural selection.
>
In addition, the vibrant color would be one of the aforementioned
detriments, making them a more likely target for predators.
> >Humans are one example of such a 'freak'. And we haven't turned
> >out that bad.
>
> That is a matter of some debate.
>
Agreed.<g>
Graham Ramsay
I've snipped a fair bit for brevity.
> That's a common argument to support genetically modified animals, but
> it's flawed because it ignores one very important difference.
>
> Selective and cross-breeding of a species makes use only of traits
> that *already exist* in the species. If you're trying to make solid
> blue betta, for example, you cross-breed specimens that exhibit a lot
> of blue, and repeat with resulting generations until you get the solid
> blue fish. The gene for blue was already there, you've simply made it
> the dominant one, and eliminated the other colors.
>
> Transgenic species such as this glowing fish, on the other hand, are
> arrived at by crossing genetic material from two *entirely different*
> species. Breed your normal zebra danios for as many generations as you
> like, and you won't get one that glows. And you could certainly never
> get a danio and a jellyfish to mate, either.
>
> So you see, your comparison is invalid.
I don't see why the mechanism for creating a new animal is relevant.
Unless the objection is to the mechanism in principle, each organism
created by man should be judged on its own merits. Some of the
most destructive and cruel animals we've ever created were
arrived at by so-called 'natural' methods like cross-breeding.
If you are objecting to GM in principle then the religous or philosophy
groups are more likely to provide you with an answer. The science is sound.
> So again, a transgenic glow-in-the-dark fish created in a lab has
> nothing to do with natural selection.
Agreed. And neither does a blue Betta.
> >Humans are one example of such a 'freak'. And we haven't turned
> >out that bad.
>
> That is a matter of some debate
Ain't that the truth.
--
Graham Ramsay
You might be a Bright:
www.the-brights.net
Eric Schreiber
>If you are objecting to GM in principle then the religous or philosophy
>groups are more likely to provide you with an answer.
I'll provide my own answer, thanks. In the post you quoted, the only
thing I was objecting to was 'blanks' faulty arguments.
>> a transgenic glow-in-the-dark fish created in a lab has
>> nothing to do with natural selection.
>Agreed. And neither does a blue Betta.
Yes, Graham, I know. That's why I kept the discussion of the blue
betta in the part of my message about selective and cross-breeding.
The discussion of natural selection was in answer to an entirely
different point.
In your fervor to support GM, please don't make the same logical
errors that 'blank' did.
nanoreef
>
> In the US, water temperatures are well below
> the danio's threshold for procreation.
One would think that but have a look at the map on this USGS webpage:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpFactSheet.asp?speciesID=505
Conneticut?? Apearently danios are even more hardy then we thought.
I am concerned that if these fish are toxic they could be a really
nasty invasive species. Otherwise I don't have a problem with these
fish. I think that they are better then painted fish.
Eric Schreiber
>> In the US, water temperatures are well below
>> the danio's threshold for procreation.
>One would think that but have a look at the map on this USGS webpage:
Wow. The Connecticut one is a real surprise. Even in my most cynical
moments I wouldn't have guessed the water temp there would be high
enough.
Eric Schreiber
>>http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpFactSheet.asp?speciesID=505
>Interesting link! I bet they could not survive winter in Conneticut.
As I read the information on that link, the Danios were first found in
Connecticut in 1985, and are *still there* in 2003. I would have made
the same bet about their survival, but they appear to have proven more
hardy than either of us would have thought.
Eric Schreiber
>are the jelly fish they came from toxic?
All jellyfish produce poisons in their stinging cells. It's how they
capture food. So yes, by that definition, they are toxic.
Even if they weren't toxic, the question implies another faulty
argument. Neither carbon nor oxygen are toxic, but combine them the
right way and they can kill you with carbon monoxide poisoning. An
innocuous nature of the two source organisms doesn't guarantee or
imply an innocuous nature in the resulting organism.
Graham Ramsay
> I'll provide my own answer, thanks. In the post you quoted, the only
> thing I was objecting to was 'blanks' faulty arguments.
I have no wish to put answers in anyone's mouth. If that's how it
came across I apologise.
> In your fervor to support GM, please don't make the same logical
> errors that 'blank' did.
I don't believe the analogy to be flawed logically. At least not any more
than most analogies. GM is just a process, a technique if you will.
Nearly all the arguments presented that I've seen on this and other forums
attack the technology itself, rather than the products produced using it.
We have been manipulating the genes of animals and plants for thousands
of years using various techniques. It strikes me as odd that people should
object to just one of them.
We've already got a poster on this thread making the ridiculous connection
with jellyfish and their stinging cells. It's basic misunderstanding's like that, that I
feel are obscuring the arguments.
I have no fervour for GM technology, as it happens I have yet to be
convinced of its usefulness. But I do object to the tidal wave of ignorance and
misplaced fear that the anti-GM lobby has unleashed.
King regards
Eric Schreiber
>We have been manipulating the genes of animals and plants for thousands
>of years using various techniques. It strikes me as odd that people should
>object to just one of them.
Perhaps you're simply unable to appreciate the difference between
manipulating existing traits within a species vs. inserting traits
from a completely unrelated species.
>We've already got a poster on this thread making the ridiculous
>connection with jellyfish and their stinging cells. It's basic
>misunderstanding's like that, that I feel are obscuring the
>arguments.
That poster would be me, thanks. From your reaction it's obvious that
you misinterpreted the point, perhaps because you're so busy looking
for positions to attack that you fail to take the time to comprehend
them. To borrow from you, basic misinterpretations like that are
obscuring the arguments.
I wasn't making any connection between the stinging cells and GM, but
rather just answering "nospams" question as to whether the jellyfish
were toxic, and anticipating the next argument his question seemed to
be leading to. I certainly know enough about the subject to understand
that the gene for glowing isn't the same one that governs stinging
cells.
>I have no fervour for GM technology, as it happens I have yet to be
>convinced of its usefulness. But I do object to the tidal wave of
>ignorance and misplaced fear that the anti-GM lobby has unleashed.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you'll find the
anti-GM lobby thinks the fear is well placed, precisely because of
human ignorance in meddling with things that have such profound
potential.
coelacanth
news:bptrmf$kad$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Nearly all the arguments presented that I've seen on this and other forums
> attack the technology itself, rather than the products produced using it.
> We have been manipulating the genes of animals and plants for thousands
> of years using various techniques. It strikes me as odd that people should
> object to just one of them.
I've "spliced genes" in my work. I've created a line of transgenic
mice. But that work was done in extremely controlled conditions and
for the non-trivial task of understanding tumor immunology and with
multiple levels of oversight.
My concern here IS the technology as it's being applied. Detailed
analysis of the various genome projects has indicated that 40%
of genes contain alternate splice site, meaning that they can make
two distinct forms of a particular protein, each of which will be
folded differently and (potentially) have different functions. An
non-GM version of this phenomenon is differing forms of
amyloid protein--the normal form is ubiquitous in the brain and
the PrP (prion) form causes Alzheimer's like diseases and is
transmissible.
The addition of gene structures, including promoter and enhancer
sites from significantly different organisms would seem to increase
the likelihood of producing alternate gene products at random.
Most of these will be non-functional (we hope!) but it's still a role
of the dice. In any case, creating these organisms for "fun and profit"
doesn't seem to outweigh the crap shoot that is xenospecific GM.
The possibility of retroviral activation alone should make people
blanch: 5% of our own genome is a single form of inactive
retrovirus--were the proper activating enzymes created by some
alternative splicing event and this enzyme picked up by a
pathogen (ala E.coli0157:H7), the results would be extinction.
An incredibly low probability event? Of course. But is it
really worth the risk? I can't see it.
-coelacanth
Graham Ramsay
> Perhaps you're simply unable to appreciate the difference between
> manipulating existing traits within a species vs. inserting traits
> from a completely unrelated species.
I appreciate the difference well enough thanks. I've not seen any
compelling arguments as to why one should be banned though.
> I wasn't making any connection between the stinging cells and GM, but
> rather just answering "nospams" question as to whether the jellyfish
> were toxic, and anticipating the next argument his question seemed to
> be leading to.
The original misunderstanding was Nospam's you are correct. But why
all the alarmist stuff about Carbon monoxide? Surely enough to say, as
you later did
> that the gene for glowing isn't the same one that governs stinging cells.
That would have cleared up the confusion nicely.
> You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you'll find the
> anti-GM lobby thinks the fear is well placed, precisely because of
> human ignorance in meddling with things that have such profound
> potential.
I don't think use of phrases like 'meddling with things' are constructive
but I can see we're not going to agree.
Kind regards
--
Graham Ramsay
Graham Ramsay
> I've "spliced genes" in my work. I've created a line of transgenic
> mice. But that work was done in extremely controlled conditions and
> for the non-trivial task of understanding tumor immunology and with
> multiple levels of oversight.
Much interesting stuff snipped.
What controls would you like to see in place that are not
in place yet coelacanth? Would you advocate a complete
ban on GM research or just a halt to current production of
GM organisms until the science is better understood?
Cheers
--
Graham Ramsay
Eric Schreiber
>I appreciate the difference well enough thanks. I've not seen any
>compelling arguments as to why one should be banned though.
And aside from capitalism, have you seen any compelling arguments why
GM fish should be introduced to the hobby market? Perceived lack of
compelling argument against something does not constitute a compelling
argument in favor. And I say 'perceived' because while you may not
find the arguments against GM organisms compelling, many people
obviously feel differently.
>why all the alarmist stuff about Carbon monoxide?
As I said, I was anticipating where his argument seemed to be going -
specifically, that combining genetic material from a harmless
invertebrate with a harmless fish will have a harmless result. That
may not have been where he was headed, but it certainly appeared that
way to me. Hence my example of how two harmless things, combined, can
become quite harmful.
coelacanth
Having said that (and evil as it is), I think
something like the Monsanto "terminator"
construct should be inserted into GM
organisms which are being grown outside
of a contralled envirnoment as an interim step.
For now I must say that I really think interspecies
transgenics (at least ones from disperate
classes or phyla) should be outlawed for
the time being.
-coelacanth
"Graham Ramsay" <wallc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpu6lf$t4s$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
blank
> "Graham Ramsay" <wallc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We have been manipulating the genes of animals and plants for thousands
> >of years using various techniques. It strikes me as odd that people
should
> >object to just one of them.
>
> Perhaps you're simply unable to appreciate the difference between
> manipulating existing traits within a species vs. inserting traits
> from a completely unrelated species.
>
evidence to explain why. This is just emotional fear of the unknown.
I am employed in the agricultural industry, and spend most of every day
working with and producing commercially cloned products. It works, and it
is our future, like it or not. Of course there is uncertainty, but that is
the intellectual challenge we face with all new science. It is extremely
unlikely that any danger to the world is presented by producing genetically
altered Zebra Danios.
As the previous poster said, cloning is just a technique. Bizarre products
such as the GloFish are merely whimsical uses of scientific discoveries, not
the first second of doomsday. Relax.
~Vicki ~
blue dwarf gouramis and marbled angel fish. Now I would never own a
painted fish but my kids love to look at them when we go to wal-mart.
It seems to me that breeders of fresh water fish want to make them as
brilliantly coloured as their salt water cousins.
Now as long as the fish is healthy, can eat properly and was not
subjected to any trauma getting their colour I will probably buy one or
two.
Vicki with her two cent worth
Eric Schreiber
>But your main argument seems to be that you think its wrong, without any
>evidence to explain why. This is just emotional fear of the unknown.
So far I thought I'd been pretty careful to keep my main argument as
simply noting logical flaws in GM justifications.
You use loaded words to come up with "emotional fear of the unknown",
for something that I would label "reasonable caution". Genetic
manipulation is a new science that deals with a highly complex
subject, the full depth of which we don't yet understand.
>As the previous poster said, cloning is just a technique.
We're not talking about cloning.
>Bizarre products such as the GloFish are merely whimsical uses of
>scientific discoveries
It's a pity that whimsey won out over wisdom. But then, whimsy was
backed up by greed.
Nymphetamine
> Next we'll see pygmy ostiches and other
> messed-up shiat like that.
I'm first on the list for a dwarf elephant, weighs 20 lbs and will be
out approx 2010.
And any idiot who has a problem with that, or these glofish, must also
want to idiotically ban dogs and cats.
Eric Schreiber
>I'm first on the list for a dwarf elephant, weighs 20 lbs and will be
>out approx 2010.
>And any idiot who has a problem with that, or these glofish, must also
>want to idiotically ban dogs and cats.
I'm impressed with how you completely avoided anything resembling
rational thought there. Well done. Bravo.
Dinky
"Nymphetamine" <nymphe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e71a87c.03112...@posting.google.com...
Your logic is so totally pointless and empty, it's not even worth arguing
the point.
Just trolling, prolly. Moron.
Jeff Pratt
If you realize they're trolling....
WHY DO YOU BITE!?!?!?!?!?
If you don't feed the trolls, they go away.
Jeff
Nymphetamine
Ohhhh, you luddite pet-haters distinguish between selective breeding
for a genetically acceptable product and more modern methods? lol,
like I said, _idiotic_.
Eric Schreiber
>Ohhhh, you luddite pet-haters distinguish between selective breeding
>for a genetically acceptable product and more modern methods? lol,
>like I said, _idiotic_.
Well, you used a couple of words actually relating to the debate this
time, so you're certainly improving. However, you've still managed to
avoid a rational argument. Give it another go, won't you?
Dennis Fox
Eric, didn't anyone ever tell you to avoid a battle of wits with the
unarmed? ;-)
-Dennis
Eric Schreiber
>Eric, didn't anyone ever tell you to avoid a battle of wits with the
>unarmed? ;-)
But I so enjoy the splat sound they make when hit!
Nymphetamine
> Dennis Fox <df...@ia.net> wrote:
>
> >Eric, didn't anyone ever tell you to avoid a battle of wits with the
> >unarmed? ;-)
>
> But I so enjoy the splat sound they make when hit!
Eric Shreiber - Thats your third Ad Hominem attack in a row, if you
and your net-buddies wanted to announce your real-world impotence to
the net-world, you couldn't have made it any clearer, _dysfunctional
idiots_ lol.
Eric Schreiber
>Eric Shreiber - Thats your third Ad Hominem attack in a row
Let me know when you work up an argument, won't you?
Nymphetamine
> nymphe...@aol.com (Nymphetamine) wrote:
>
> >Eric Shreiber - Thats your third Ad Hominem attack in a row
>
> Let me know when you work up an argument, won't you?
You're impotent and can't figure out analogies, argument over.
Robert
I've read the same report - it notes that there have been "occurences"
in California (1968), Connecticut (1985), and Florida (1970s). This
means that that zebra fish were reported to have been in the area, not
that they were established there.
There was location where they were reported to have been established
in New Mexico (1990) and the report specifically notes "locally
established" for that instance. However, it did not check out upon
investigation ("extirpated in New Mexico").
Given that zebra fish have been sold by the millions, it makes sense
that they would pop up here and there, but the report seems very clear
that they cannot survive long enough to establish in North America.
Runner
> What do people think about the new red flourescent Zebra Danio they
> just anounced from www.glofish.com? If it's as good as they say, I am
> planning on getting some as soon as they are available and want to
> know what others think. There have been tons of articles this weekend
> but http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=3873977§ion=news
> is an interesting one. I am intrigued and will probably start a new
> tank for them alone.
I don't like the idea myself. Heck, I can't even stand those parrot
fish monstrosities some stores carry. As some have pointed out, these
things have the capacity for great destruction unless they are
sterile. And even if they didn't, there are enough fish in the world
to learn about and enjoy without having a cluster of companies
patenting and minting new fish every week and selling them like
matchbox cars. I never liked the heavily breeded fish that much and I
definitely won't take part in these -- perhaps to the point where I
will avoid whichever local stores decide to carry them.
California has banned them. Check out the article at this link:
http://www.local6.com/news/2682299/detail.html
Then again, Califiornia thinks many things should be banned with no
good reason. But at least somebody is doing something to stop it
until some sort of regulations can be put in place.
Grayson Bathgate
> it's flawed because it ignores one very important difference.
>
> Selective and cross-breeding of a species makes use only of traits
> that *already exist* in the species. If you're trying to make solid
> blue betta, for example, you cross-breed specimens that exhibit a lot
> of blue, and repeat with resulting generations until you get the solid
> blue fish. The gene for blue was already there, you've simply made it
> the dominant one, and eliminated the other colors.
>
> Transgenic species such as this glowing fish, on the other hand, are
> arrived at by crossing genetic material from two *entirely different*
> species. Breed your normal zebra danios for as many generations as you
> like, and you won't get one that glows. And you could certainly never
> get a danio and a jellyfish to mate, either.
>
> So you see, your comparison is invalid.
No it's not. Just because some gene is from another species doesn't
mean it is some sort of a danger. We are all made of the same code.
It's like adding in some code from one computer program to another
program. Sure it makes a new species (or program), but that's what
evolution has been doing too. All this is really doing is speeding up
the process of evolution about a million times. Do you really think
corn evolved into those big juicy ears all by itself? No, indians did
that over a long period of time. They were genetic engineers, it just
took them a lot longer.
You can get a mutation, like the curly haired cat for example, and
create from that one mutated cat, a whole bunch of them. That's also
genetic engineering. I mean in the past there were no curly haired
cats, that's the same gene other species have, the curly hair gene.
Are you afraid of curly haired cats? No, of course not. Genes are
just bits of code. You can rearrange them to create different
expressions, such as curly hair, black hair, blond hair, etc. The
reason they take the code from the jellyfish to create the glow in the
dark fish is because they can't manipulate the code well enough yet to
code it directly into the fish themselves. One day they might be able
to.
Every single plant and animal on earth is made up of the same code
pieces in their DNA code, GATC. It depends on how they are put
together on which species you are etc. Here's a picture.
Eric Schreiber
>Just because some gene is from another species doesn't mean it
>is some sort of a danger.
Neither does it mean that it's guaranteed safe. Hence the debate.
>We are all made of the same code.
And all words are made from the same sets of letters, but depending on
how you arrange them you can create literature, an explosives manual,
or worst of all, a proposal for a reality TV show.
The genetic code can be arranged to make Kirsten Dunst, but it can
also be arranged to make clostridium botulinum bacteria.
Arguments about the building blocks being the same are irrelevant. It
isn't the pieces that give something its essence, it's how you arrange
them.
>All this is really doing is speeding up
>the process of evolution about a million times.
No, it's increasing the mutation rate by orders of magnitude, and
allowing them to bypass the gauntlet of natural selection completely.
>Do you really think corn evolved into those big juicy ears all
>by itself? No, indians did that over a long period of time.
>They were genetic engineers, it just took them a lot longer.
As has been stated countless times, selective breeding for existing
traits is NOT the same thing as transgenic manipulation.
>Every single plant and animal on earth is made up of the same code
>pieces in their DNA code, GATC. It depends on how they are put
>together on which species you are etc. Here's a picture.
>http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/upload/images/36/dna.gif
Yes, thank you, I'm familiar with the concept of DNA. More so than you
are, it would appear.
blank
> gbathg...@yahoo.com (Grayson Bathgate) wrote:
>
> >All this is really doing is speeding up
> >the process of evolution about a million times.
>
> No, it's increasing the mutation rate by orders of magnitude, and
> allowing them to bypass the gauntlet of natural selection completely.
Wrong. The "gauntlet of natual selection" can't be bypassed. Natural
selection takes place over tens of thousands of years, not overnight.
That's what its all about. When a genetic mutation occurs it then undergoes
the process of natural selection, and if it is able to exist by finding or
usurping a niche, then it survives. So it matters not whether the mutation
is due to happenstance or design, it still must undergo the process of
natural selection.
Eric Schreiber
>> it's increasing the mutation rate by orders of magnitude, and
>> allowing them to bypass the gauntlet of natural selection completely.
>Wrong. The "gauntlet of natual selection" can't be bypassed. Natural
>selection takes place over tens of thousands of years, not overnight.
Have these GM fish been subject to tens of thousands of years of
natural selection? If not, then they have bypassed it, by definition.
Ben
object to it because it's GM or because of what is being changed?
Would people be getting this upset if it were a GM fish who's only mod
was that it was ich resistant? (never gets ich).
-Ben
RedForeman ┊
and explain.... it's not for us to judge your opinions, only to discuss
them.... right?
I would only object to it, _IF_ the fish were being harmed in the process,
so far, I don't see any evidence to it, but then again, I'm not
scientifically minded, so the mumbo jumbo I read about it, goes in one, out
the other.... i'm interested to learn 'how' they are GM'ed to become
neon.... that's all....
--
RedForeman ┊
"Ben" <odra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqq8oe$13le$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Ben
> You bring up an interesting spin, if you object, why?? state your beliefs,
> and explain.... it's not for us to judge your opinions, only to discuss
> them.... right?
That's exactly what I meant. I know some people who are against it
because it's taking genes from another organism (i.e. one can't get it
from selective breeding), some others are against it because it's a
'waste' of GM (i.e. useless/unnecessary GM), others are afraid of what
will happen if they get out, etc.
I'm curious how people would feel if the modification were something
that would bring benefit to the fish (and aquariuming in general) such
as if they took octopus resistance for ich and gave it to something that
is very susceptible to ich.
> I would only object to it, _IF_ the fish were being harmed in the process,
> so far, I don't see any evidence to it, but then again, I'm not
> scientifically minded, so the mumbo jumbo I read about it, goes in one, out
> the other.... i'm interested to learn 'how' they are GM'ed to become
> neon.... that's all....
I'm with you.
I'll attempt to put this is non-technical speak. (For those super
scientifically mindind, yes, it's very simplified).
There are these things called promoters. They cause genes to express
proteins. Some of these promoters will cause expression in only certain
organs/places. I'm assuming they took a promoter for 'skin' and put in
in front of the jellyfish gene that makes them flourese red. Most of
this is done not in the fish but in lab. The only thing done to fish is
this DNA is inserted into eggs. So those that get this DNA will be red,
others will be normal. (again, very basic)
-Ben
Zach Davidson
> RedForeman ┊ wrote:
>
> That's exactly what I meant. I know some people who are against it
> because it's taking genes from another organism (i.e. one can't get it
> from selective breeding), some others are against it because it's a
> 'waste' of GM (i.e. useless/unnecessary GM), others are afraid of what
> will happen if they get out, etc.
>
Did you read The Eschalot's take on the California ban? "Finding Neon"! Funny stuff:
http://www.theeschalot.com/glofish-flushed-in-california-protest.html
-ZD
coelacanth
here in the Golden State. I haven't seen GloFish here,
but there were certainly Night Pearls at Capitol Aquarium
(home of the giant Clown Loaches) in Sacramento a
couple of months ago. That's when I stopped shopping
there.
-coelacanth
BTW, I think the price was something like $50/fish.
"Zach Davidson" <Davi...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1c4acf2.03120...@posting.google.com...
Richard Reynolds
> here in the Golden State. "
I havent been able to locate the exact law, it apears from my searching that the law is an
old one, and an exemption is/was needed and it was turned down. there is a chance it only
goes to the sale of such fish, which *could* allow you to legally cross the ca state line
with them but I AM NOT IN THE LEGAL FIELD and if you do so you do it at your own risk.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1070576071341_65985271/?hub=SciTech
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/04/fluorescent.fish.ap/
http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000333.asp?0cl=cR
some info on the ban, though commercially motivated they do seem to represent most of the
issues semi fairly
--
Richard Reynolds
Richard....@usa.net
Donald Kerns
> I haven't seen GloFish here,
> but there were certainly Night Pearls at Capitol Aquarium
> (home of the giant Clown Loaches) in Sacramento a
> couple of months ago. That's when I stopped shopping
> there.
>
"Home of the giant Clown Loaches " W00T W00T W00T!
He ain't kidding. Google r.a.f.m for links to my photos / video of those
critters! (Also on loaches.com).
They DID have dyed glassfish when I visited. HSSSsssss!
-D
--
"When you've lost your ability to laugh, you've lost your ability to
think straight." -To Inherit the Wind
Gbruce121
i always get a kick out of california "morals" it's ok to be a fag,.. it's ok
to join a gang.. it's ok to be a wannabe anything for a movie.. but dear god in
heaven.. don't mess with the fish..:)
--Josh Bruce
visit my home page at http://hometown.aol.com/gbruce121
coelacanth
34 million of us. Thanks.
-coelacanth
"Gbruce121" <gbru...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031211193643...@mb-m27.aol.com...
Jim Mowreader
"Richard Reynolds" <reyno...@cox.net> wrote:
> I havent been able to locate the exact law, it apears from my searching that
> the law is an old one, and an exemption is/was needed and it was turned down.
> there is a chance it only goes to the sale of such fish, which *could* allow
> you to legally cross the ca state line with them but I AM NOT IN THE LEGAL
> FIELD and if you do so you do it at your own risk.
http://www.glofish.com/california.asp
It's the full monty: no sale, possession, transportation or importation
of GloFish in California.
Richard Reynolds
> > the law is an old one, and an exemption is/was needed and it was turned down.
> > there is a chance it only goes to the sale of such fish, which *could* allow
> > you to legally cross the ca state line with them but I AM NOT IN THE LEGAL
> > FIELD and if you do so you do it at your own risk.
>
> http://www.glofish.com/california.asp
>
> It's the full monty: no sale, possession, transportation or importation
> of GloFish in California.
dang,
I have seen the law, but either this post is a new post to an old thread or my news server
is blowing chunks again.
sure hope they nuke that law, but it looks like its here to stay :(
--
Richard Reynolds
Richard....@usa.net
GloFish
It's a newer post to an old thread, that your news server blew as a
chunk... that post is 8 days old.... The previous post in that thread
was 12/07/2003.
Tony.
Marksfish
>
Yorktown Technologies, the distributor of the genetically modified GloFish,
is asking California authorities to reconsider their ban on the sale of GM
fish in the state.
The transgenic fish, which glow under blacklight thanks to a gene inserted
from a coral, have gone on sale across the USA with little legislative
restriction, but the state of California banned the fish citing ethical
concerns.
Alan Blake, Chief Executive of Yorktown Technologies told the Mercury News:
"We're going to give them an update and let them know what's going on, then
it's up to them to decide. We're really just trying to keep a dialogue going
with them."
coelacanth
I wouldn't worry about the law too much. I expect it will be obeyed
about as much as the Ferret and Gerbil bans. Now the fish, I do worry
about...
Rikko
wrote:
Canada has a full ban on them (pending "review" of the specimens),
with somewhat comedic government overreaction...
I can't find an article (this might be too local), but Environment
Canada essentially checked out all the pet stores around here and
found a couple stores who had brought in Glofish. The tanks are left
running with the fish in them - government orders. However, they have
"BIOHAZARD" tape around them and people are to keep back from the
tanks.
Honestly...
One day I'll head out to one of the stores and take a picture for
y'all... :P
Donald K
> I can't find an article (this might be too local), but Environment
> Canada essentially checked out all the pet stores around here and
> found a couple stores who had brought in Glofish. The tanks are left
> running with the fish in them - government orders. However, they have
> "BIOHAZARD" tape around them and people are to keep back from the
> tanks.
>
> Honestly...
> One day I'll head out to one of the stores and take a picture for
> y'all... :P
Please do!
THIS I gotta see...
-D
--
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
enough people to make it worth the effort." -Herm Albright
Richard Reynolds
> One day I'll head out to one of the stores and take a picture for
> y'all... :P
oooh PLEASE
cause that would be such a site
government overreaction is such a fun thing, there isnt a single one that would live in
ANY natural water in at least SoCal (i suspect the entire state but I have not been to
NorCal :D )
ive heard of at least 1 case where someone was stoped at a agriculture inspection site
between Ca and Az and was fined and the fish were taken away, otherwise id be there doing
the same thing!!!
--
Richard Reynolds
Richard....@usa.net
GloFish
>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:57:33 GMT, coelacanth <coela...@no.where>
>wrote:
>
>>Richard Reynolds wrote:
<snip>
>Canada has a full ban on them (pending "review" of the specimens),
>with somewhat comedic government overreaction...
>
>I can't find an article (this might be too local), but Environment
>Canada essentially checked out all the pet stores around here and
>found a couple stores who had brought in Glofish. The tanks are left
>running with the fish in them - government orders. However, they have
>"BIOHAZARD" tape around them and people are to keep back from the
>tanks.
>
>Honestly...
>One day I'll head out to one of the stores and take a picture for
>y'all... :P
I'm in agreement!!! I have a tank setup just for the glowing
buggers.... they are just too cool...IMHO
On a somewhat related note:
http://www.azoo.com.tw/ (Site down as of 9am EST) was sent to me the
other day... a company in Taiwan that sells pet products, including
fluorescent rice fish. From the website, it appears that they have
fish the fluoresce in different colors. They are currently looking
for a US distributor.... with the issues in California, I imagine they
will have some difficulty....
Tony
Marksfish
Distributors of a genetically engineered fluorescent fish have postponed
their second try at convincing California regulators to allow the sale of
the pets.
Texas-based Yorktown Technologies has cancelled a request for a hearing with
the California Department of Fish and Game commissioners. The company is
seeking to open the potentially lucrative California market to sales of the
GloFish.
In order to approve sales of the fish, commissioners would have had to
exempt the creature from rules restricting the commercial exploitation of
bioengineered fish. State regulations limit ownership of genetically altered
fish to scientific researchers who obtain permits and can demonstrate that
the animals pose no danger to the environment.
The GloFish was produced by inserting a gene from a sea anemone into a
tropical zebra fish. The small fish flashes a brilliant fluorescent red as
it swims.
Although scientists have used the genetically modified fish to determine if
pollutants are present in waterways, the prime market for GloFish is for
tropical aquariums.
All states except California allow the sale of the genetically-modified
fish. In December, Department of Fish and Game officials vetoed the sale of
GloFish, saying they weren't prepared to approve a genetically modified fish
with no medical or research value.
Another hearing date has not been scheduled.