Mad scientist, Genetic Engineering, Playing God, Blah, Blah, Blah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

I'm concerned that perhaps you started this to target a specific member and get them riled up, based on comments made in other threads. :(

---

LOL, conspiracy theory huh?

I'm concerned that perhaps you are putting a little too much thought into this. It is an interesting subject that should be an interesting conversation. Kinda the point of a forum right? :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

LOL, conspiracy theory huh?

I'm concerned that perhaps you are putting a little too much thought into this. It is an interesting subject that should be an interesting conversation. Kinda the point of a forum right? :gj:

---

Agreed.. I can see how this was brought over from the other thread. But its a standalone discussion all in its own

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

I agree, but it seems that Mike is trying to make it seem that many breeders are above using other techniques other than altering the "naturally occurring traits".

---

Close.

I am saying that all I am doing is selectively breeding naturally occurring traits. This by definition is NOT genetic engineering. I absolutely believe that many breeders "are above" resorting to the use of science to alter the naturally occurring traits. I for one think it would be flat out wrong to do, and would look down on anyone who did it.

Injecting a snakes embo with something to make the snakes glow in the dark... THAT would be an example of being a mad scientist or genetic engineering or playing god. THAT IMHO would be crossing the line... doing something we have no right to do. That deserves the use of terms such as mad scientist, genetic engineering, playing god, ect.

Putting a Pastel ball python with a spider ball python to make a python that exibits both the traits of the spider AND the pastel is mearly selective breeding, using ingredients that nature itself has provided. I feel very strongly that people making bumble bees should never be refferred to as a mad scientist or playing god ect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

LOL, conspiracy theory huh?

I'm concerned that perhaps you are putting a little too much thought into this. It is an interesting subject that should be an interesting conversation. Kinda the point of a forum right? :gj:

---

No sir - I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

You and snake lab were pretty aggressive with each other in his thread - it was a natural leap.

I wouldn't be opposed to artificial insemination with snakes(same as is used with dogs and horses). This is again, just using what is already IN the snakes, and selectively breeding to achieve the breeder's "ideal python". It's not combining ball pythons with any other genes, only using the genes already present. It's doing a breeding loan, just not moving the actual male.

All domestic animals are produced by artificially manipulating which animal breeds with which and which babies are kept and which culled from breeding. All domestic breeds, dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys... even llamas and camels, all made by selective breedings.

I'm not certain what anyone would consider genetic alterations in ball pythons. If you inserted outside genes(like the mentioned glow-in-the-dark idea) then THAT would be altering the genes. Breeding snake to snake is not genetic engineering. It's selective breeding.

If there could be genetic tests that showed errors like kinking genes, spinning genes, fatal genes or could show het traits, then those would be good. Those do not alter the animal, merely show what is already IN the animal.

Using science to combine the genes in embryo? That's artificially selective breeding and still not changing the genes of the snake, just one step past artificial insemination.

Using science to add in genes outside of the python sub-species? That's genetic engeneering and is just about the same as hybrid breeding, but can be taken way past hybridization. It would also be extremely expensive.

Technically if you consider breeding morph combos to be "genetic engineering" then ANY breeding of any animal in captivity is "genetic engeneering" even if it is normal to normal. After all, YOU are choosing which normals to breed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

You and snake lab were pretty aggressive with each other in his thread - it was a natural leap.

---

:) fair enough. For the record, this was not to upset anyone.. or attack anyone. It was to address something I have seen a lot of lately, and feel strongly about...

Now back to the conversation... play nice kiddies.

Im with mike. I hate that term sooo much its not funny, i went camping this weekend and i had a dog breeder who crosses 6 difffrent types of dogs with poodles to make ugly hybrids. He said he was a breeder but i was playing god. After i knocked him over the fire pit for that verbal assult, I explained nice n loud that we r finding naturally occouring genes in our animals not crossing animals of different size, wieghs, body types and hair/fur to make something new. Then we talked about how he could be a mad scientist for have 3 ginger children. He shut up after that and apologized the next day. Chalk one for the snake breeders.

(should also add out fished him, out drank him and beat him in lawn darts and horse shoes ;) so he wasnt impressed with me to start with.)

We are selective breeders.

Genetic Engineering.. Here is the definitions taken directly from www.dictionary.com

genetic engineering 
noun Genetics .
1. the development and application of scientific methods, procedures, and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population.
2. a technique that produces unlimited amounts of otherwise unavailable or scarce biological product by introducing DNA isolated from animals or plants into bacteria and then harvesting the product from a bacterial colony, as human insulin produced in bacteria by the human insulin gene.

I think the problem is people misread number 1. the key term is "direct manipulation of genetic material". This isn't talking about breeding a pastel ball python to a spider ball python to make a bumble bee ball python. This is talking about using a scientific method to manipulate or change the spider gene itself to make some new man made gene....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

We aren't cloning anything. We aren't using microscopes and needles to change anyting. We aren't doing anything scientific to alter the naturally occuring trates that we are working with.

---

Speak for yourselves! Muahahaha! :rolleye2:

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/m...Farnsworth.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

Genetic Engineering..

I think the problem is people misread number 1. the key term is "direct manipulation of genetic material". This isn't talking about breeding a pastel ball python to a spider ball python to make a bumble bee ball python. This is talking about using a scientific method to manipulate or change the spider gene itself to make some new man made gene....

---

I dunnnnno... Seems like were splittin hairs.. I read and reread that and i still see how it fits with what we do...

Direct manipulation... If u control exactly what genes are present or not present in a population that seems like direct manipulation to me...