Anyone catch it?

[Hotshot]

I don't really ever dive into the evolution vs. creation arguments, or discuss religion much. However, I did want to make a comment on this part of your post. I personally don't believe that you can change the color of the white on a Pied, and here is the reason. If our (meaning the herptoculturists) theories on Pieds is correct, then the white of a Pied is caused by a form of Leucism, in which the chromatophores are missing in the skin cells in the white areas. This would mean that pigments are present in those areas, but the skin is not capable of holdinh the pigment. With that said, you cannot change the color of "missing color".

Just my .01 cent.

Well said, I agree 100%

[Mendel's Balls]

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?

GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) can be used in many creative ways to help scientists learn a variety of things.

First, scientists using a tissue-specific gene promoter can visualize the cells of a specific organ or tissue without dissecting. This will likely save the number of animals used in research in the long run as well as allow scientists to perform more powerful in vivo experiments.


Second, if scientists want to track a specific protein in living cells or organisms they can try to make a GFP-fusion protein. See
http://departments.kings.edu/biology/lux/fuspro.html

There are likely other uses but those are the two I though of

[Mendel's Balls]

Genetic tampering for the sake of having a cool pet is a pointless waste of time money and resources in my mind.

The collecting and breeding of morphs as down now seems to be "genetic tempering" as well.

[Brimstone111888]

Is there a difference between Nature making the morphs and people? Seems like a double standard.

[Mendel's Balls]

Is there a difference between Nature making the morphs and people? Seems like a double standard.

To me it is....

Designer morphs as we have them today are arent even "nature making morphs".....

[Mendel's Balls]

I'm not a fan of genetic engineering. Mess with what was orginally intended (design through evolution) and you can get some bad results.

I say no to cloning and genetic engineering. Only exception is in the development of vaccines.

So your against tissue engineering organs via stem cells and crops that use less pesticides?

[Brimstone111888]

The original albinos, pastels, spiders and a few others were natural, but I don't think Super pastel x woma x spider x pinstripe is at all natural. To an extent it is genetic modification, but without the tiny sringe.

[MelissaFlipski]

This thread got too long for me to wade through right now, lazy, I know. But in regards to this,

Don't you mean (design through creation as it states in Genisis 1.) ???

I didn't mean to start a debate, but I clearly meant evolution. I mean that through evolution, animals are designed to survive and procreate best in their environments. Why mess with it?

Btw, I don't mind hybrids, but I don't like gene replacement/splicing crap, except for vaccines.

[Brimstone111888]

So you are against Gene Replacement Therapy to cure dying children? What about cloning new organs for people, so they don't die on the waiting list?

http://www.amda-pompe.org/acid.htm

Seems a little ridiculous to me, but to each there own I guess....

[Mendel's Balls]

Hey Kara, I think you've made a very good point, I couldn't agree more with your assessment. Honestly, I don't see lab-grown animals ever replacing natural animals as pets. I could be wrong, and that would be incredibly sad.

Captive Born and Breed (CBB) Ball Pythons are hardly natural pets. I dont see how animals that have been born and raised generation after generation in the plastic tub drawers of racks is natural.....seems pretty lab-based to me.

Most people I think here would agree that wild-caught (WC) ball python specimens hardly make good pets.....