Genetically Engineer Tangs to be small?

[PharmrJohn]

My scientific background is primarily in human population genetics (or at least what I focused on during grad school). The reality is that while we have a lot of genetic information on most hominids resurrecting them is a giant ethical dilemma considering that they became extinct since they were not able to compete resources with us not to mention that an intelligent being brought back for academic purposes is just terrifying on so many levels… just too many variables and too much that can go wrong. I have so much respect for life in general that perhaps I’m over cautious with how we use genetic engineering. Genetic engineering to better the current species on the planet from a health perspective and not enhancement? Yes, I’m all for it. The rest starts to become very gray. But again, a limited personal perspective like anyone else’s. I can only see what’s in front of me and wh at I might imagine. Reality is a whole other ball game.

That is cool. I'm jealous of your knowledge base. I briefly considered Anthropology as a career, but then decided against. I'd have to move and I didn't want that. I've read countless books on Hominins. Some on Hominids, but only a few. That field astounds me. I can't get enough of it. My daughter wants to get into Paleoanthropology as a career. Despite decades of independent study, she now eclipses me in many subsets of the discipline. It's what she reads for fun. And I agree with you. 100%. Bringing back an intelligent being should not be done. Period. And they were JUST as intelligent as we were. The FoxP2 gene is present, so they had language (did I get that right?). And their exit was not that long ago. A lot of the genome we have is from an arm bone we borrowed from Russia if I'm not mistaken. It was a treasure trove. All we needed was a very small piece to get what we needed. Scary man......Just.....Scary.

 

[PharmrJohn]

There’s some Neanderthal DNA in the modern human population yes but a little trickle of DNA and blending are two different sides to this coin. Neanderthals were more successful than other hominids in that their genetic fingerprint lives in the current hominid populations, most other ancient hominids did not leave such a significant signature. Doesn’t mean there was no interbreeding just no fertile offspring from these matches or too few to leave a significant genetic trail.

Oh, I'm pretty convinced there was interbreeding between Sapiens and Neanderthal. And I'd postulate with a high degree of certainty that the offspring were fertile. Now, that being said, I have absolutely NO idea what blending is, and will stipulate to your greater knowledge base. But do you think that 0.5 to 3% (depending on region) is insignificant? I'm not being difficult, I'm curious! Seems to me that the percentage we have is pretty darn high considering the time they've been gone. And now that we've pretty successfully hijacked the thread, feel free to PM me!!!!

 

[crazyfishmom]

Oh, I'm pretty convinced there was interbreeding between Sapiens and Neanderthal. And I'd postulate with a high degree of certainty that the offspring were fertile. Now, that being said, I have absolutely NO idea what blending is, and will stipulate to your greater knowledge base. But do you think that 0.5 to 3% (depending on region) is insignificant? I'm not being difficult, I'm curious! Seems to me that the percentage we have is pretty darn high considering the time they've been gone. And now that we've pretty successfully hijacked the thread, feel free to PM me!!!!

Lol… yes, let’s chat over PM on this. That said… I agree that 0.5-3% is not insignificant but when you think about it from the perspective of when the interactions are likely to have happened and how many times we’ve had expansion and contractions of different genomes I would expect a higher genomic representation. It is also hard to know whether the percentage we are attributing to Neanderthals is actually the result of considerable genetic intermingling or just the result of one or two single very successful offspring. After all, Genghis Khan’s Y chromosomal lineage is carried by 0.5% of men out there.

 

[Zionas]

The idea of genetically engineering and modifying just doesn’t really sit right with me. I already have issues with hybridizing species that don’t have overlapping ranges in nature. So it’s a solid NO from me.

 

[OrionN]

Not genetic engineering. Selective breeding, if that. This takes multiple generations. "Sucess" at this time, if we call it success, is just stunned growth due to poor diet and condition during development.

 

[Tamberav]

Voted no, there are plenty of small species of fish that are interesting and beautiful. We already have dwarf angels naturally if you want something of similar behavior.

Plus can you guys not be more creative? How many Tang tanks do we need? Are you just tunnel visioning on one thing and can't come up with anything else?

If you need a algae eater for a smaller tank, the Baun's sleeper from biota slurps down GHA like spaghetti and likes bubble algae too.

 

[ClownSchool]

Rachael : Do you like our owl?
Deckard : It's artificial?
Rachael : Of course it is.
Deckard : Must be expensive.
Rachael : Very.

Blade Runner for the win!

“Where there’s life, there’s a way.”
~Jurassic Park

Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that’s how it always starts. Then later there’s running and screaming.”
~The Lost World

 

[Cthulukelele]

Tangs are fairly intelligent fish. To me we need a better argument to expose relatively intelligent fish to potential undue suffering than "I want to keep one in a 40 breeder"

 

[Costareefer]

How about some pinky sized great whites?

 

[AetherealKnight]

How about some pinky sized great whites?

 

[AtlantiCat]

I'm all for selective breeding to produce a dwarf fish, but genetic engineering a fish just because we want a smaller one? Bzzzt.

I mean, we've already got those ridiculous freshwater glowing things, do we really need more? Science for the sake of science is one thing (CAN we do it? Let's try!), but science for the sake of retail sales (If we can do it, how much money can we get for it?) is a serious turn-off.

 

[AetherealKnight]

I'm all for selective breeding to produce a dwarf fish, but genetic engineering a fish just because we want a smaller one? Bzzzt.

I mean, we've already got those ridiculous freshwater glowing things, do we really need more? Science for the sake of science is one thing (CAN we do it? Let's try!), but science for the sake of retail sales (If we can do it, how much money can we get for it?) is a serious turn-off.

I always thought that genetic engineering was a way to skip selective breeding over many generations into a much shorter time frame.

But agreed, there is an ethical dilemma in this. There is already some debate about the dangers of fast growing salmon escaping in the environment.

 

[deome]

If I was a Rick-and-Morty type genetic scientist, I'd focus first on genetically engineering macroalgae that out-competes all nuisance algae. Or miniature cephalopods that don't go into senescence.

Or clownfish that eat aiptasia for breakfast. C'mon, use your powers for good--or at the very least don't make the tangs glow in the dark.

 

[AtlantiCat]

I always thought that genetic engineering was a way to skip selective breeding over many generations into a much shorter time frame.

But agreed, there is an ethical dilemma in this. There is already some debate about the dangers of fast growing salmon escaping in the environment.

But again, do we need it? The salmon was at least an attempt to produce something useful (granted, for retail gain), but how useful is a GE dwarf tang?

By the time the science has caught up to our ability to screw things up, we may have already sussed out a captive-bred dwarf tang anyway....

 

[Costareefer]

Is it reed safe? That’s a little bigger than a pinky

 

[steveschuerger]

 

[AtlantiCat]

Another thought is how would you guarantee a GE tang won't outbreed a natural tang?

People who live near the ocean are prone to releasing their fish if they give up the hobby and can't find homes. But a naturally bred dwarf tang wouldn't outbreed its normal-sized counterparts because dwarfism is a recessive trait. You'd see some in the tang population occasionally, but they'd be rare.

 

[KrisReef]

no - like this

That's not a tang, or even a fish.

 

[JoJosReef]

Or... Or, we can create and sustain an environment that is advantageous for smaller tangs. In no time at all, surely less than a million years, likely less than a hundred thousand years: stable population of 2-3 inch adult tangs!

 

[KrisReef]

Yeah, we are SO much further ahead with Genetics than we were 40 years ago when I was first introduced to it. They're actually talking about bringing back the Wholly Mammoth. There's still a hole in the ecosystem where they once resided. So with that rational.......

I think they just want to see if they can do it. We also have enough of the Neanderthal genome mapped out to take a shot at that. However, reintroducing them to Europe may be problematic!!!!

Isn't the whole continent already awash in neanderthal's?
Oh, sorry I forgot, No Politics allowed here.