OH NO!!!

Whats next? here's hoping for Fish that can do their own water changes

sure pfk are giving these breeders the publicity to encourage them to keep doing what they do....

I actually really like them something very different in a very good way

Did anyone read down and see this

www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=5338

Sean

I guess that that has sorted my xmas wish-list.

Thank goodness for the people continuing to keep alive the notion of beating nature with these fantastical specimens.

Noah should have gone to spec-savers if he decided to board the monstrosities we see in the wild, and rejected beauties like this from his ark.

Yes John i know that as you may know most off the time i wouldn't say this as i am a very big fan off don't mess with what shouldn't be messed with

But why i say in a "very good way" this time is cause i like the look off them doesn't mean i think it is right by all means no but again i think they look neat and stand out to most tank bred Angels (Not talking about wilds here) that's around

Give me wilds any day over these but i still like the look off these

Sean

By the way, in case anyone thinks that my first post here was a serious positive appraisal of the angels.....it wasn't.

I actually recon Noah did go to spec-savers and did select only the best to board the arc (although he did let man on it, and an aardvark, and a three toed sloth, and....a sea cucumber.......maybe they were the stowaways)

ian

JohnH wrote:

Sean,
We all have our likes and dislikes - we are fully entitled to them - you like them, I have differing views.

John

Sure are John and im sure you are not alone as i said i most off the time would be like your self when it comes to things like this

Sean

I have to say they look fantastic.....gorgeous looking fish....so what if they have been genetically modified to exhibit a certain trait, in this case the over expression of a gene controlling color. This occurs in nature every minute of every day and if this happened to be of evolutionary benefit, it possibly would occur. Natural selection is what it says. As a geneticist, the world is gone mad on anti gm everything even though we can now mutate, manipulate genetic material to produce and promote extremely beneficial properties without having to wait thousands of years etc....what do breeders do - breed x with y to produce fish exhibiting z trait more strongly. We all praise this when done by the traditional methodologies but technology is now such that we can accomplish the desired whatever in weeks......this is just an exhibition of the possibility.....while highly unlikely to survive in the wild due to predators, i personally think this is awesome.....

why am i looking at this at nearly half 8 on a friday night ? ... whats gone wrong with me these days ... what ....

obviously there may be a demand for this sort of thing, if we use the regularly used survey method of 2 out of 10 cats , going by this thread already. if there is demand they will supply so really is it not the fault of the demand that natural looking fish are being tampered with and destroyed??
will this be the new bread-n-butter type of fish... i certainly hope not but would make great feeder fish for night feeders

No problems John. Genetic modification occurs in every generation and all species. As humans we obviously see this at a much more slower rate than say your common fruit fly or rodent where breeding and maturation is much quicker - hence their common scientific use. Lets say in nature, trait x will help your survival - say fish that live in a highly predatorial environment where those down the food chain change colors to blend into their natural environment to avoid becoming prey. Eventually, only those that can do this rapidly and most effectively will survive. Those that cannot will become prey. The surviving fish breed with one another to promote this environmental capability for the want of a better word and become better and better at it from one generation to the next. Another example is thermophilic Bacteria that can survive extreme temperatures on deep sea hydrothermal vents - once thought to be impossible but due to the extreme environmental influence have mutated to forms that not only survive but thrive...

Genetic modification is a technology where one can now do in a lab what nature itself does to produce known traits through the manipulation of the genetic code. If for example, being a fluorescent pink angel fish was of benefit in attracting a mate in nature and hence ensuring the survival of the fittest, we would see bigger, bolder and brighter pink angels being produced in nature. All I am saying is that we no longer have to wait for generation after generation to see the development of This trait as science is such that we know now that gene X can control color or something else and we can manipulate the genetic code to produce this without the wait. ....

Technology can now speed up the natural process. Another example is Say crops in fields that due to continued threat of disease have mutated to become insect resistant to survive. Science has unlocked what mutation in the genetic code of these plants confers such resistance and this can be replicated in a lab and then brought to the field.....

I didn't give a biased view of anything. This is evolution...hope I made some sense....

The pink angel is beautiful and sensational and might possibly occur naturally if the environmental influence was such that this 'color' or trait was an evolutionary benefit..even if it was produced artificially. Breeders are always trying to cross strain a with strain B to bring more of one color or shape or size out in the offspring. Technology can now do this without the tinkering so to speak....

you can't even provide evidence that these extreme's happen in the wild so the speculation of such an accurance is a very amateurish thing to say... science has destroyed the natural world in my opinion, maybe they have discovered ways to preserve certain aspects but that was along time ago and have since tried to justify the job of a scientist and geneticist at the expense of nature.... this is a typical example of mans destruction.

C'mon......I can't even provide an example, what are you talking about.....just look at nature and you'll see variants throughout....I'm simply saying...actually couldn't be bothered as if you can't understand what I was saying from my last post, there's no point....just keep believing whatever you want...your perogative as it is mine......

yes and i do say that most new species being discovered are most likely a result of hybridization in the wild but a species being discovered in a lab is not good enough to say, well this sorta stuff happens in the wild every day, especialy when there's nothing to suport any findings of this morph in the wild!!

i wonder how many culled fish it took to get this far and if that fish was bred further how many fry from each batch would need to be culled to keep the strongest

Pity I don't have the time to give a reply on this tonight.

3.5 Billion years of evolutionary experience, and nature may have already come up with such genes and lost them (for a reason).

One key question in evolution is is it easier to gain or to lose a trait. I go for the loss of a trait being profoundly stronger than gaining a trait.
Gaining a phenotype may actually be no more than a convolution of loss of a trait as opposed to actually gaining something in some cases (if not a substantial number of cases).

Throughout evolution, there would be a few natural cases of molecular transfer of genetic material from one species to another (eg such as a gene being passed to humans from, say, a moth as a hypothetical possibility) higher animal.
In bacteria, though, such molecular transfers do occur quite frequently.

In nature, the environment acts upon the phenotype (what is expressed) and that includes other species act to change the genetics on each other.
That is an important point in relation to GM.....and one which makes me slightly against the drive towards GM organisms being presented to the environment.

Again, I don't know whether to speak as a fish keeper who has been doing genetic breeding for decades or as a scientist who has done genetic manipulation in a lab towards gene therapy.

I am not convinced that either the "for" or "against" arguments on GM are very convincing or have fully investigated the potentials.

In view of the fact that the genetics (through its phenotype...ie what it shows) of one species can affect the genetics or phenotype of another species, GM organism production needs to do extensive research to make sure that the GM organism does not act on the evolutionary pressures of other species.

For example, and I know this has nothing to do with angel fish, say a GM crop is produced that preferentially attracts bees then could that affect the selection of bee genetics and, in turn, affect the natural response of the bees to pollinate other species of plant?
Could the genetically modified plant be such a good lure of bees that the bees prefer to 'mate' with the plant rather than chase after females of its own kind (some orchids may have had that as a problem....and either became extinct or had to evolve to do something about the strong attraction).

With more and more university research facilities being more and more driven by money as opposed to fundamental research, I am slightly concerned that market forces will dictate the future more so than a morally thinking scientific community.

ian

That's not what I was saying Davey. Do breeders cull fish and if so, why do they do it?? I was commenting that it is common to hear that genetic engineering is unnatural - actually the furthest from the truth in that Mother Nature genetically engineers life on a daily basis. That was my one and only point.....scientists just now have a better (not perfect) understanding of the link between genes and phenotypes.....

Didn't mean to annoy, just asked to explain what I meant and did so......

Totally agree Ian. As an aside, In many instances the environment has a huge role to play but in others it does not. Take for example Huntington's chorea - if you have the HD gene your getting the disease and that's that. Brown eyes are dominant over blue and always will be.

I'm glad you made reference to engineering fish for decades through selective breeding - that's what breeding fish is all about.....the pink fish is just an example of a lab generated strain and that is all I was saying....there are hot pink variants in the wild, while not of angels, of other species....

Interesting topic and def one that causes a lot of debate.

I'm just used to hearing the negative, mass destruction, world destroying, 'it has to be bad cos it is' opinion.....

Maybe we can return to this at another point but not trying to annoy, anger or p off anyone....I just was asked to explain what I meant and I did so, as did you Ian.....

Gonefishy wrote:

That's not what I was saying Davey. Do breeders cull fish and if so, why do they do it?? I was commenting that it is common to hear that genetic engineering is unnatural - actually the furthest from the truth in that Mother Nature genetically engineers life on a daily basis. That was my one and only point.....scientists just now have a better (not perfect) understanding of the link between genes and phenotypes.....

Didn't mean to annoy, just asked to explain what I meant and did so......

sure thats what makes us different .... i'll agree to disagree though because i believe more in natural evolution than trying to bring back what once was or may ave been
i'll say no more than i can see the culling being increased with these fish as it always seems to be so to me that's a pointless/selfish act!

Done Davey

Rarely do we have a good discussion going on a Friday night.

This is what a forum is for, and this thread is a good topic for discussion as it brings in public opinion, science fact or fiction, and simple gut-feelings.......all of which are very important.

The fish that started this is also a marketing thing:
over the years we have had a conflict between commerce/marketing and what is 'good' in way of some of the better medicines for things have been squashed into the ground by better (=have more marketing funds available) marketing of inferior medicine.
I even worked in a "place" where we told that if we show the real cause of a certain disorder that contradicts the usage of a well-distributed medicine then we would have all funding removed (I was a poor PhD student with a car and house to run.....one is forced to move to other things !!).

Maybe the analogy of "strong marketing" could undermine the breeding of the 'wild-type' fish?? (we have seen this to a deleterious extent).

I'll be watching this thread with interest.

ian

For sure Ian. Everyone does have an opinion on this be it scientific, religious, environmental, commercial, moral, ethical, political, sociological or a.n.other...

I have to say it is a subject that will become increasingly more important as from a global perspective we simply don't have enough food to feed the booming and increasing global population. GM foods and crops will certainly play their part in meeting this demand. We're also seeing it in the clean tech space. Using non arable lands in Idaho, Utah and the like, they have now genetically modified certain crop types which can survive in these hostile desert conditions that are engineered to over produce certain oils, then take gm microorganisms which can more effectively breakdown the cellulosic fibers in these plants allowing for the extraction and production of second generation biofuels.......all from land that has no other use.....

I left my post-doc to enter the commercial world as got tired of basic blue sky research in that I didn't believe I was helping anyone other than the body of greater knowledge. Human molecular genetics was my gig and if you ever want to help actual patients, you have to bridge the academic-commercial divide with involvement of industry.....

Anyway, back to our fishy friends. I can see more and more GM strains becoming available as the price of technology drops. Just look at the cost of the original sequencing of the human genome and now look the cost....anyone can get it done from companies such as 23 and Me....given the lucrative companion Animal markets and the endless capabilities on offer from the adoption of this technology, I see it as inevitable....this is where EU directives and legislation will play a very NB role.


Would love to hear others opinions on the subject given we all hope to breed the best in class and this tech offers just this (maybe not right now but certainly in the medium term).

all i can say is mother nature provided us with some absolute stunners, why mess with it? we're destroying everything that is pure on this amazing planet we were provided with!!! it's horrible the things they do, even if it's only through selective breeding or man made, why can't we just let nature run it's course??

wayne

quote - If for example, being a fluorescent pink angel fish was of benefit in attracting a mate in nature and hence ensuring the survival of the fittest, we would see bigger, bolder and brighter pink angels being produced in nature. All I am saying is that we no longer have to wait for generation after generation to see the development of This trait as science is such that we know now that gene X can control color or something else and we can manipulate the genetic code to produce this without the wait. ....

why should we manipulate anything ,when have you ever seen a flourescent angelfish in the wild? actually is there even a wild strain of blushing angel? don't think so, they have survived thus far without mutation or evolution, why should we decide to change that? because we can?? doesn't sound right to me, we have no right to mess with it. they're thriving without our manipulation. if anything we as the dominant species are destroying what is good in this world.

i'm not trying to degrade anyone or anything of the sort, i just feel that if it's not broke, don't fix it!!! at the end of the day it's only being messed with for our pleasure.

wayne