Anyone catch it?

[West Coast Jungle]

Strictly discussing the genetic engineering angle (although I'd be happy to discuss the religious POV), I personally think that specific genetic engineering for designer traits would rob us, as keepers, of the "magic" of hitting odds within a particular clutch. Would there be as much satisfaction in producing a clutch of 6 pieds out of 6 eggs from het x het as there would from genetically masterminding this to happen through controlled engineering? Absolutely not.

The fact that we never quite know what we could get when pairing animals up - and spending a season dreaming of what we could produce - is what keeps a lot of folks working with these animals to start with.

If creating color mutations was so cut-and-dried that anyone could have predictable results every time, it would strip us of the defeats & successes that intrinsically make genetic morphs so much fun (and a more than a bit stomach-knotting!!!) to work with in the first place!

Just my $.02.

K~

I couldn't agree more with you and apparently I can't give you another positive rep

[joepythons]

I couldn't agree more with you and apparently I can't give you another positive rep

Well i have it covered

[NightLad]

While I will not touch on the the "religious/scientific debate" itself (I've no desire to go there), I will address a common misunderstanding found therein:

A theory is a scientific model that is supported by empirical data; DNA, genetic transference models, bones of our primitive ancestors as linked through simple biology, carbon dating of fossils ,etc.

The Theory of Evolution is a 'scientific theory' because it meets this onus.

Creationism, on the other hand, regardless from what religion is originates, is not a Theory. It is a faith-based hypothesis.

In the vast majority of debates about Creationism/ID vs. Scientific Theory [of Evolution], people use the word theory synonymously with hypothesis, and this just isn't the case. I have no issue with religious people (one of my best friends is completing his PhD in Theology on his way to becoming a Priest), and I have no issue with non-religious folks* (my sister is devout Atheist), but I do have an issue with claiming a Scientific Theory is on par with a faith-based Hypothesis. I don't think that misrepresenting any side of an argument is beneficial to the debate.

(And I am not suggesting that there are no religious scientists out there.)

Personally I believe that a little evolution vs. religion debate is within the context of this discussion re: genetic engineered morphs. Maybe the mods will disagree and remove these posts, I don't know. Either way, for many people the thought of engineering natural traits does conflict with deeply held beliefs; moral, ethical, and even spiritual. If we are going to discuss the topic, we must acknowledge the diverse opinions people may bring to the table. (Although I will agree that the topic can be a slippery one.)

[NightLad]

I'm a guy but having a Hot pink pied would be awesome. Especially if they make glow in the dark ball pythons.

I'm not sure I can live long without a glowing cat, truthfully!

How about a glow-in-the-dark pig?



No, it is not a trick and they are not using special lights; those pigs were genetically engineered to glow in the dark. They are a breed of research pigs that were made to glow in the dark so researchers can better identify cell structures, transplanted cells (ie: stem cells), more accuracy in dissection, etc. The possibilities are vast. Humans and pigs share so much common genetics that they are a prime research animal.

The interesting thing is that the process that was used on the pigs could easily be used on other animals, leading to the very real possibility of creating designer 'glowing pets.' (Dare I say, even 'glowing people'! *wiggles fingers spookily* Although that would utterly destroy the fun of lights-out hide-and-go-seek.)

Here are a couple articles:

BBC News: Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs (Video option with article.)
ABC News: Glow-in-the-Dark Pigs Make Debut

[bender29]

How about a glow-in-the-dark pig?



No, it is not a trick and they are not using special lights; those pigs were genetically engineered to glow in the dark. They are a breed of research pigs that were made to glow in the dark so researchers can better identify cell structures, transplanted cells (ie: stem cells), more accuracy in dissection, etc. The possibilities are vast. Humans and pigs share so much common genetics that they are a prime research animal.

The interesting thing is that the process that was used on the pigs could easily be used on other animals, leading to the very real possibility of creating designer 'glowing pets.' (Dare I say, even 'glowing people'! *wiggles fingers spookily* Although that would utterly destroy the fun of lights-out hide-and-go-seek.)

Here are a couple articles:

BBC News: Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs (Video option with article.)
ABC News: Glow-in-the-Dark Pigs Make Debut

That's extremely interesting, but tampering a little too much with nature IMO. Just out of curiousity, how does glowing in the dark help scientists better identify cell structures?

[NightLad]

That's extremely interesting, but tampering a little too much with nature IMO. Just out of curiousity, how does glowing in the dark help scientists better identify cell structures?

Sorry, I meant 'structures of cells' that are implanted in people. As the video mentions, implanted glow-in-the-dark-cells can be tracked without the need for biopsies, etc. This can be useful for stem cell research, tracking the spread of tumors and forms of cancer, as well as many other things, I'd imagine.

As for being too 'tampering' - I respectfully disagree. IMO: These pigs are research animals, born and bread for the purpose of helping better understand medicines that will save human lives. If making them glow neon green furthers that goal, while not causing them to suffer, I don't have an issue with it.

But more importantly... this puts me one step closer to a flying monkey! Today they are injecting the DNA of jellyfish to make pigs glow, tomorrow they are injecting the DNA of eagles for my monkey.


Soon my pet, soon!

[Beardedragon]

Strictly discussing the genetic engineering angle (although I'd be happy to discuss the religious POV), I personally think that specific genetic engineering for designer traits would rob us, as keepers, of the "magic" of hitting odds within a particular clutch. Would there be as much satisfaction in producing a clutch of 6 pieds out of 6 eggs from het x het as there would from genetically masterminding this to happen through controlled engineering? Absolutely not.

The fact that we never quite know what we could get when pairing animals up - and spending a season dreaming of what we could produce - is what keeps a lot of folks working with these animals to start with.

If creating color mutations was so cut-and-dried that anyone could have predictable results every time, it would strip us of the defeats & successes that intrinsically make genetic morphs so much fun (and a more than a bit stomach-knotting!!!) to work with in the first place!

Just my $.02.

K~

Very well said! But of course, this is comeing from a person that gets a surprise out of half their eggs And then will not tell us what it is *cough Inferno Cough*

[JeffFlanagan]

While I will not touch on the the "religious/scientific debate" itself (I've no desire to go there), I will address a common misunderstanding found therein:

A theory is a scientific model that is supported by empirical data; DNA, genetic transference models, bones of our primitive ancestors as linked through simple biology, carbon dating of fossils ,etc.

The Theory of Evolution is a 'scientific theory' because it meets this onus.

Creationism, on the other hand, regardless from what religion is originates, is not a Theory. It is a faith-based hypothesis.

In the vast majority of debates about Creationism/ID vs. Scientific Theory [of Evolution], people use the word theory synonymously with hypothesis, and this just isn't the case. I have no issue with religious people (one of my best friends is completing his PhD in Theology on his way to becoming a Priest), and I have no issue with non-religious folks* (my sister is devout Atheist), but I do have an issue with claiming a Scientific Theory is on par with a faith-based Hypothesis. I don't think that misrepresenting any side of an argument is beneficial to the debate.

(And I am not suggesting that there are no religious scientists out there.)

Personally I believe that a little evolution vs. religion debate is within the context of this discussion re: genetic engineered morphs. Maybe the mods will disagree and remove these posts, I don't know. Either way, for many people the thought of engineering natural traits does conflict with deeply held beliefs; moral, ethical, and even spiritual. If we are going to discuss the topic, we must acknowledge the diverse opinions people may bring to the table. (Although I will agree that the topic can be a slippery one.)

You're completely right, but less-modern religious people are being thrown into a culture-shock as they encounter educated people on the net. Creationists can be debated every day on digg, why stress them here?

[JeffFlanagan]

post created trying to edit previous post...sorry!

[Morphie]

But more importantly... this puts me one step closer to a flying monkey! Today they are injecting the DNA of jellyfish to make pigs glow, tomorrow they are injecting the DNA of eagles for my monkey.


Soon my pet, soon!

If you get a flying monkey you'll have to also attempt to get in on this glowing-mammal business. ..because then you'll glow green. ...and have an army of flying monkeys. Of course, you'll have to give up bathing.

Do you know a good broom maker?



Addressing the subject, I agree with pretty much everything NightLad has said.

As far as whether or not they're actually going to do this - i dunno. I'm not sure how widely available GE resources are that they could be employed to dominate a small corner of the pet industry. The prices our snakes command certainly would be tempting, but those same prices could be gotten out of GE puppies that carry the complete genetic makeup of a champion animal - and more people like puppies than they do snakes. Maybe the masses are less likely to protest the manipulation of snakes as opposed to puppies?

Anyway, if this starts being done with any kind of regularity, we can pretty much say goodbye to our market. It would especially challenge those who do or would like to breed snakes for a living.

Bad for profit, good for poor snake lovers.