Originally Posted by
EdD
Selective breeding and environmental manipulation (feeding, protection from predators, etc...) are two things, but changing the basic genome (genetic structure) by cutting some bits and replacing them with bits from other species is totally different. For one thing, it creates a new type of organism. If I splice the genes that control growthsize from a striper into a brook trout, we could end up with 50 pound "brookies". But they are NOT, scientifically speaking, brook trout. If I spend a couple of hundred years selectively breeding brookies for monsters, then I simply am selecting and bringing into play those genes for great size. If brook trout genes say, "Forty pounds is as big as you can ever get" then I cannot have 50 pound brookies.
I can crossbreed two different species and create a hybrid. Some of those hybrids may be fertile. If they "take", then a new species is created, sort of. As it stood a few years ago, science wasn't willing to give species status to self-fertile hybrids until they had their own, distinct gene. Thus the Red Wolf was stripped of its species status since it was deemed a cross of gray wolf and coyote.
What I cannot do, by controlling breeding, is to cross and oak tree with a brook trout. But in my Garage Gene-splicing Lab (be the first kid on your block to get one!), I might well be able to do that. Maybe I want my "brookies" to secrete tannic acid from their skin and thus taste bad to bigger fish. That might be possible. Of course, I might create a monster. I might accidently insinuate my "smart-@r$e gene" into the special-blend brookies and have fish that issue insulting quips after refusing your fly.
Gene splicing is totally different from selective breeding or creating favorable conditions for growth.
Ed
Reply With Quote