|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:40 pm
kitten22481 Emily`s_Gone_Mad Playing God is fun though!
xp
We do it all the time in our everyday lives...
Take for example a kid playing with an ant pile.
The Ants that live and die are at the mercy of that kid.
*goes to play with ants*
Same for any animal, we decide what animals are "safe and which aren't and then go about exterminating them.
Snakes are a good example.
In fact the other day I got into a discussion with a coworker about hunting snakes and killing them, just cuz.
I was like: eek
and she said, well they are evil and deserve to die.
Pfft.
That's to an extent is playing "God". I love snakes...they usually very docile animals except when threatened. I used to work in a petshop with snakes all day and I would rather handle them than the savannah monitors we had...now those things are evil (still deserve to live tho). Gardener snakes are cute and the most friendly snake too. I likies them!! blaugh
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:12 pm
Emily`s_Gone_Mad Well that puts it in perspective.
But what is Protien tagging good for? Tag a protein and add it to a cell culture. We can tract the protein and tell where in the cell it goes. Also, after x ammount of time that we add the protein we can take the cells and extract that protein or what we call "pull it down". This will actually get us back the protein along with anything that it is attached to. We can tell the story of signaling pathways this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:18 am
Aquiki rather than using their knowledge of DNA to help the world Some very big assumptions in that phrase, the biggest one being that such is possible. Quote: I wonder if it hurts the animals when their DNA is altered in that manner... Not even slightly. It's done pre-embryonically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:29 am
Dragonprincess4eva If something eats the glowing animal...I wonder if their stomachs will glow ...or if they start making glowng sushi and people eat it - - our waste will glow - or maybe even our bodies - and then we will all be little green peoples!!! dramallama rofl rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:48 am
Ang Yi Emily`s_Gone_Mad Well that puts it in perspective.
But what is Protien tagging good for? Tag a protein and add it to a cell culture. We can tract the protein and tell where in the cell it goes. Also, after x ammount of time that we add the protein we can take the cells and extract that protein or what we call "pull it down". This will actually get us back the protein along with anything that it is attached to. We can tell the story of signaling pathways this way. Protein tag From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Protein tags are biochemical indicators. Affinity tags appended to recombinant expressed proteins can serve several purposes. They have traditionally been used as a way of purifying proteins using standard conditions rather than developing individual biochemical purifications based on each protein’s physical characteristics. More recently, their role as an aid to solubilization of a fusion partner has been exploited and maltose binding protein (MBP), glutathione-S-transferase (GST) and thioredoxin have proved useful in this regard. Some tags have also been used as an indicator of fusion protein folding – most notably the Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP). In this case, if the N-terminal fusion partner of GFP fails to acquire a stable folded structure, GFP and its fusion partner will aggregate and/or be degraded and the GFP fluorophore will not form. Tags are also useful in providing a common epitope, allowing a single antibody to recognize each fusion protein. Some tags are multifunctional, combining two or more of these roles: For example, the his-tag both permits purification on Ni2+-NTA and is used as a common epitope, whilst GST solubilizes some fusion partners, often increases expression levels, permits purification on glutathione-sepharose and provides a common epitope. Recently, the Biotin Carboxyl Carrier Protein (BCCP) tag has found particular utility in array fabrication protocols. This tag is a 79-residue polypeptide derived from the biotin carboxyl carrier domain of the E. coli ACCB protein and is efficiently biotinylated in vivo at a single surface-exposed lysine residue by both prokaryotic and eukaryotic biotin ligases. confused so is the protein absorbed like food? That's why the tracking of the glowing protein is a "normal" process?? Not necessarily causing mutation or change to the cell structure rolleyes question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:06 pm
D=
Tinkering with DNA to make things glow when they could be figuring out how they can stop cancer cells from getting out of control...
I don't know what other people think, but I don't like the sound of it >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:38 pm
Ok. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't there already a wide variety of sea creatures with bio-luminescence? I recall seeing jellyfish with this that were more varied in colour and much more spectacular looking.
Anyway while we're on the subject of creating glowing animals, I find it pointless, but still interesting. however, I think we should focus on protecting the animals we have before we go creating new ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:42 pm
That is pretty weird. I can't stand how humans continuously treat animals as if they were objects instead of living things. DX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:50 pm
Mutating an animal's genes for a frivolous purpose is a terrible crime to commit. That is ruining an animals defense just to make a light show of it, and that is totally wrong. Doing this could have greater effects down the line such as the extinction of their predators and their own over population, which would effect many other species and plants. It could also lead to the extinction of themselves.
What would people say if a scientist decided to take something like a cute little bunny rabbit and make it glow. The scientist releases this bunny and it gets eaten. The animal that ate it gets killed by whatever the mutated DNA used to make the bunny glow. The roting carcass of the dead rabbit decays and mutated plans grow from it. Soon enough, the effects of that one rabbit has change an entire forest. They may think that fish or butterflies are just small little things and won't matter much, but it dose. Just as much as it would with a rabbit.
Even if this didn't have effects that would kill predators, with breeding the genes would travel. More of the species would become like this. I find glowing objects rather hard to hide and easy to find and the same with the predators. It's just too much of a risky and pointless projects to even be considered as a serious thing. Not like there would be anything to gain from such experiments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:06 pm
HAHA! i Think this is our longest lasting post ever!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 3:45 pm
Aren't the fish bioluminescents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:21 am
Animals glowing isn't unnatural. Is completely natural just seen in deep ocean and deep caverns.
As for making non glowing animals glow, it may sound frivolous but think about it. Learning to manipulate DNA has many purposes now and could have many more in the future. It was already said that glowing mice are being used to attempt to end cancer. It could be used to stop genetic disorders in humans including developmental disabilities and illnesses. To do that you must start somewhere and that would be simpler organisms such as fish.
Not to say that the end justifies the means but as long as its regulated and controlled it should end up as a breakthrough for mankind and have a few nice glowing pets as a bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:59 pm
Platinum Chaos That makes absolutly no sense why scientists would want to change an animals DNA to make it glow. Glowing animals are not normal. I just think it's stupid that they do that. And your poll just made me add something. I think it IS animal abuse because I am almost positive that the animal's glow is harming their bodies in someway. And it could possibly kill them. actually it is normal for some animals to give off bioluminescence. it was the discovery of this gene that lead scientists to recode it and activate it in lab mice. A biogeneticist came to give a lecture at my university a few weeks back and needless to say it was very controversial. On the one hand, there are people who will get gene therapy just to make sure their child has green eyes. I think this is stupid. On the other, is it so wrong to genetically alter rice so that it is more nutritious? I still think yes... but not when you think of the countless children who die of malnutrition every day in countries that have diets of predominantly rice. It's a touchy subject for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
