Tahts my whole point, 25% of species will be extinct at this rate in 30years..Why not Preserve, and prevent? rather than replace with abominations.. creating what we are clueless about.
Each and EVERY animal fills a role in the biotopes of the world, they all fill a role in the food chain, and the environemt, and maintenance of.
We do not have the capacity, nor longevity to be able to understand evolution. We shouldnt promote what we do not know, we should not promote hybrids, it goes against the theory of evolution and speciation (sp), no surefire benefits, only serious implications.

In truth, life on this planet is stronger than humans capabilities. we could not destroy all lif on this planet ever,the planet is alive.

we shouldnt push beyond our bounds, we should learn before doing and promoting.. taht would resolve most issues before they come to be an issue. (refering to pharmaceuticals).

I agree, a glowing fish in a tank is pretty harmless, if thats all it is. Seeing as humans are involved its all uncertainties, its assumptions.

Its a sad fact that your right, it seems some people just arent content with natures diverse creation, that they would buy such freaks. i cannot understand that, and can only see problems with gene manipulation for commercial purposes, as with nearly all purposes in fact.. Humans are lazy and clumbsy, so mistakes will happen.

There is no positives about bringing dinos back..i admit would be awesome to see BUT.. they died for a reason, they ahd their time, its totally out of sync with the rest of life. they come from periods of higher oxygen conentration in the air, which also allows them to grow bigger.. Same situation is reputed with T blondi.

Oh as for the tattood fish, can you really see companies buying laser tattoo machines to loose 5 out of every 6 fish tried.. AFAIK its standard needle, keeps things cheap. The concept came from china too so lasers arent really an option for your average budding pet mutilator

__________________

I bet were it possible to create a T Rex, then it would be done, due to the marketing and commercial opportunities that it would bring.

If the present laws forbid it, those laws would simply be changed to suit.

Money talks, as they say...

Therefore, I would imagine that since no one has yet created a T Rex, that science at the moment is unable to do it. Rest assured that when they can, they will! Human nature to want to experiment and test out new things, even if that includes creating a new strain of animal.

What if it were used for the good. Perhaps to make animals stronger, hardier, more accustomed to the climate that they are having to live in? If genetic manipulation actually gave them a greater chance to survive, that would not be a bad thing...

Prob with mainpulating the genetics of an animal to make it more efficient, you take the balance away.. then its better than the prey it feeds on.. it would suffer a population explosion and eat all the prey.

im sure when people can make a T rex, they will..doesnt make it right.
Poor thing would probably not survive in currrent planetary conditions.
what would they feed it?

Even with mammoths tho, they couldnt fully replicate the DNA sequence, thus they would have to hybridize with african elephants.. then through processive generations, the percentage increased..but it would still never be.
...and at that, taht would be equally unfair:P its all woolly!

__________________

If your worried about the prey it used to feed on then don't release it. What i find funny is people argue about killing species off, but when it comes to bringing them back to life its all "ethics". Personally id rather save them than bring old ones back to life but still.

And trust me now, or soon the humans will be able to destroy all life on earth, anti matter bomb to the center of the earth. Earth go boom.

__________________

lucifus@hotmail.com - feel free to add.

Well, beleive it or not, we are safer from a nuclear type war than at any time in the past three decades. For a start, technology is better. Twice previously, a nuclear war almost started due to faulty technology!

There is no doubt that with man being the dominant force on the planet, we feck a lot of it up for other species, along the way.

And yet, as much of a shame that this is, is this not merely an example of survival of the fittest in action? Humans can be the dominant force, and therefore, in the natural order of things, some other species will fall along the way.

Anyway, long before man started getting the blame for everything, there was still species extinction.

The dino's are just the best known example.

Every life form has a natural start and a natrual end.

All species have or will die out eventually, often to be 'replaced' by related species.

You could argue that we have evolved into what we are to take control over nature to rectify our mistakes. Unlike other animals we turn our surroundings to fit us rather than living with it. You could argue that spiders do the same but we manipulate it a lot more.

__________________

lucifus@hotmail.com - feel free to add.

If I could make a point about the genetics involved here; (sorry its a bit long)

Selectrive breeding and modern genetic "splicing" are fairly similar. The same process is going on - usually, the swapping of a trait controlled by a major gene complex.

A major gene is kind of like "one gene = one trait" if you get what I mean - very common in plant breeding, where a gene for succulence of fruit might be controlled for by one dominant gene complex. Its really hard to selectively breed for non dominant alleles because they are usually masked and dont express their effects (eg hair colour).

In the old days, such "selection" by humans was done by reciprocal backcrossing. You take a F1 hybrid and cross it back to the parent species, and continue this process over a period of years. This often expresses dominant genetic traits in a hybrid of the two species. In plants, inter-special and inter-genus crosses were achieved with mutagenesis (radiation, chemicals), protoplast fusion and embryo rescue. In animals, similar techniques were harder (i.e animals dont have protoplasts) but the mechanism is pretty much the same.

The reason you get "bad" traits is due to linkage drag. This is when you have a major gene controlling a "good" trait linked to other genes for "bad" traits like disease etc. Its very hard to see if good genes drag bad genes until they are expressed - perhaps in later life. You can imaging how this lag could be seen in pedigree dogs - it wasnt intentional, but just appeared over time as recessives and "bad" genes accumulated.

Modern genetic traits like those involved in this mantid glowing malarky use a similar theory, but because the new technology is more specific, gene regions can be mapped better - reducing the drag (or eliminating it) of bad genes into hybrids and making it easier to cross unrelated species. Hell, its now possible to splice bacterial genes into animals etc. Its not always a bad thing; many plant crops are enhanced in such a manner, and its essentially the same process as "selective breeding" - but instead of 12 years of backcrossing to produce a new wheat variety, it takes a matter of months because its more accurate. Its not all bad - look up "golden rice" on wiki for example.

Anyway, I thought I would say this just to clarify that the genetics involved in this experiment are not really any different from "natural" hybridization or selective breeding that has occurred throughout our entire history.

On the topic at hand however; I feel this is corporate. Glow in the dark fungi were the first, and that was a large jump for science. This is old technology - hence why its frittered its way into the hobby. Not for me those things! I like the "natural" variety!

__________________
Brachypelma albopilosum (Charlotte)
B. Schroederi (slings)
Grammostola sp. "North" Northern gold
G. aurerostriata (slings)
Cyclosternum fasciatum (slings)

Member of the BAS and AAS.

Incidentally, where did you get the figure that 25% of all life has become extinct recently?

I am not sure thats right, it seems a bit high - and Im an ecologist and like to exaggerate these things! :P

One scary figure is this (E.O Wilson): By 2100, its likely that 50% of all present life will be extinct if we carry on "buisiness as usual" in terms of climate change and deforestation.

The average "extinction time" of a species is about 10miilion years. Alas, most thigns do indeed die eventually. I like to try to slow that process however, rather than speed it up

One last thing: Hybrids are not eveil, leave them alone. Most species (up to 90% in some estimates, especially high in insects) speciated because of hybridization, so without it, most of the diversity of life wouldnt be here. Man made hybridization included - although I do draw the line at these glow-in-the-dark pets. This is purely to sell to kids IMO.

__________________
Brachypelma albopilosum (Charlotte)
B. Schroederi (slings)
Grammostola sp. "North" Northern gold
G. aurerostriata (slings)
Cyclosternum fasciatum (slings)

Member of the BAS and AAS.

It was on the BBC Radio morning news.

Between 25-33% they stated.

It seemed alarmingly high to be, as well, tbh..

...and therefore, pretty harmless in the grander scheme of things? Even if this is corporate, well, is that really any different from online invert shops. They are trading in live animals for profit, therefore, 'corporate' by default...

*shrugs*