Bio-customization: Transgenic Stringray Leather Shoes

[Vaniver]

The future is now. Choose a combination of animal patterns and colors, a stingray will be implanted with the genes that produce that coat, and then once mature their skin will be made into shoes.

[DaBigCheez]

I can only imagine PETA is going to be all over this.

[Gelsamel]

Almost gaurenteed to be one of those fake, arty sort of "what if?" or "what will the future be like?" websites that pretends to be a legitimate business but actually isn't. Wasn't there one about designer babies a year ago or something?

Even if the business is "legitimate", in that they genuinely want to sell a product, they're definitely "illegitimate", in the sense that they're conning people because there is no way they can do what they claim... either scientifically or regulatorially. But my bet is on art, notice how you can't actually buy any sneakers?

[natraj]

this does not actually seem like a thing that is possible, i am p skeptical. i mean if they had this advanced of an ability to dictate colour patterns in animals (and in the space of one single animal, moreover, not even extensive breeding lines) i think someone would be using it other places than just making you really expensive shoes.

... i mean also it is kind of horrifying to me but no more than skinning any other animal to wear it is horrifying so there is that.

but i am highly skeptical that this is not an elaborate hoax.

[KnightExemplar]

Its likely a combination of over-zealous marketing and a tiny bit of lying. They probably have some leather patterns that have never been seen in (relatively) mass production before. Spots, stripes, or whatever. But then those patterns can likely be dyed after they've been grown.

IE: Its probably not a complete dye job, but I somehow doubt that everything is actually grown from scratch.

[thc]

If this is a hoax, and it pretty obviously is IMO, it's a hoax with a lot of smart behind it. What I find interesting is the great reveal how people, even smart well educated people, are willing to not put any thought into their feelings and be bald faced hypocrites basing their responses solely on instinct.

I really like this blog post on the website:

Spoiler:

Over the last few weeks, Rayfish Footwear has received hundreds of comments about our product – some excited, some upset. We would like to take this opportunity to address some common misconceptions about our company and the way we produce our stingrays.

It seems many people are unfamiliar with the use of stingray leather in fashion, which is a relatively common application. Rayfish Footwear shoes come from stingrays raised for fashion - as does any leather from cows, pigs, alligators, ostriches and so on.

Regarding the bio-customization of our rays, this process is essentially no different than what humans have been doing for centuries. Domestic animals, from dogs to chickens, are bred solely for human enjoyment and use. It is no more unnatural to have a transgenic stingray than it is, for instance, to have bulldogs with such large heads that they cannot give birth, or turkeys with such large breasts that they cannot mate. From farmed salmon to corn and soy, genetically modified organisms are already very common in scientific research and agriculture. Some, like the transgenic pet Glofish, have been widely available to the public for quite some time.

Of course, we can understand that our practices would be objectionable from a purely vegan perspective. In any other context, we are puzzled by criticisms from people who otherwise eat meat, dairy or eggs, or who wear wool or leather.

Rayfish Footwear opposes the harvesting of rays from the wild and is dedicated to ocean preservation. The stingrays’ meat does not go to waste, but is donated to our employees and local charities. Some have commented on the high price of our sneakers – part of the reason for this price is so that we can ensure that our rays live in comfortable conditions. Our stingrays lead objectively better lives than any food animal raised in a “factory farm”. In fact, anyone who is concerned about animal welfare should consider Rayfish Footwear sneakers as a humane alternative to industrially-produced cow leather.

The varied responses to Rayfish Footwear have given us valuable information on the public perception of our bio-customization technique. We continue to welcome your comments, and hope that the tone of the conversation will remain civilized.

[KnightExemplar]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... y-DNA.html

I dunno, with real pictures like in the above article... its hard for me to believe that this is an elaborate hoax.

[natraj]

If this is a hoax, and it pretty obviously is IMO, it's a hoax with a lot of smart behind it. What I find interesting is the great reveal how people, even smart well educated people, are willing to not put any thought into their feelings and be bald faced hypocrites basing their responses solely on instinct.

yeah, well, i mean, for me when i made a comment above about it being horrifying i am speaking as a vegan. i can never really understand how people who kill/wear/eat animals in other contexts manage to object to someone killing/eating/wearing some other animal just because they think it is cuter/cooler/whatever than a cow or pig.

i mean i can see people objecting to GMOs who always object to GMOs, but i don't understand people objecting to (sustainably farmed/harvested) stingray leather if they are wearing cow leather.

[Gelsamel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2152303/RayFish-Footwear-making-1-800-sneakers-colourful-prints-grown-order-mixing-matching-stingray-DNA.html

I dunno, with real pictures like in the above article... its hard for me to believe that this is an elaborate hoax.

'Real pictures' that look really fake and are sourced from the company themselves? It is a hoax, no scientist or scientific organisation currently has the ability to do what they're claiming, there is no research that indicates anyone even knows enough about the clusters of genes that need to be managed and how or whether those genes will even expess themselves in stingray. Even if such alterations were possible by top end scientific orgs that is still many many years from ending up a commercial product. And then there are the issues of regulation and product testing and a thousand other hurdles that I can't imagine they've solved, especially not at the price point they're talking about.

It's also not particularly elaborate given that there doesn't seem to be any genuine evidence that they have a working development cycle only some pictures that look very photoshopped and their little pattern generating minigame they have on their website.


To me, this seems like either a "Wow, futuristic stuff" "what will the future be like?" art experiment, or an hoax meant to criticise leather/fur used for clothing.

[nitePhyyre]

Stingrays have fur?!

[Princess Marzipan]

If this is a hoax, and it pretty obviously is IMO, it's a hoax with a lot of smart behind it. What I find interesting is the great reveal how people, even smart well educated people, are willing to not put any thought into their feelings and be bald faced hypocrites basing their responses solely on instinct.

I really like this blog post on the website:

Spoiler:

Over the last few weeks, Rayfish Footwear has received hundreds of comments about our product – some excited, some upset. We would like to take this opportunity to address some common misconceptions about our company and the way we produce our stingrays.

It seems many people are unfamiliar with the use of stingray leather in fashion, which is a relatively common application. Rayfish Footwear shoes come from stingrays raised for fashion - as does any leather from cows, pigs, alligators, ostriches and so on.

Regarding the bio-customization of our rays, this process is essentially no different than what humans have been doing for centuries. Domestic animals, from dogs to chickens, are bred solely for human enjoyment and use. It is no more unnatural to have a transgenic stingray than it is, for instance, to have bulldogs with such large heads that they cannot give birth, or turkeys with such large breasts that they cannot mate. From farmed salmon to corn and soy, genetically modified organisms are already very common in scientific research and agriculture. Some, like the transgenic pet Glofish, have been widely available to the public for quite some time.

Of course, we can understand that our practices would be objectionable from a purely vegan perspective. In any other context, we are puzzled by criticisms from people who otherwise eat meat, dairy or eggs, or who wear wool or leather.

Rayfish Footwear opposes the harvesting of rays from the wild and is dedicated to ocean preservation. The stingrays’ meat does not go to waste, but is donated to our employees and local charities. Some have commented on the high price of our sneakers – part of the reason for this price is so that we can ensure that our rays live in comfortable conditions. Our stingrays lead objectively better lives than any food animal raised in a “factory farm”. In fact, anyone who is concerned about animal welfare should consider Rayfish Footwear sneakers as a humane alternative to industrially-produced cow leather.

The varied responses to Rayfish Footwear have given us valuable information on the public perception of our bio-customization technique. We continue to welcome your comments, and hope that the tone of the conversation will remain civilized.

Just reading this makes this pretty clearly a consciousness raising effort, and probably a pretty good one. Anyone paying attention is going to have hard time not reflecting on why they might act differently about what we do to other species not just on a daily basis, but almost as an integral part of the economy.

[Роберт]

Just reading this makes this pretty clearly a consciousness raising effort, and probably a pretty good one. Anyone paying attention is going to have hard time not reflecting on why they might act differently about what we do to other species not just on a daily basis, but almost as an integral part of the economy.

^This. It's saying "if you find this idea repugnant, and you aren't vegan already, you should become vegan" essentially. For all I know it was put up by PETA activists. A pretty cool idea, actually.

[Ormurinn]

Just reading this makes this pretty clearly a consciousness raising effort, and probably a pretty good one. Anyone paying attention is going to have hard time not reflecting on why they might act differently about what we do to other species not just on a daily basis, but almost as an integral part of the economy.

^This. It's saying "if you find this idea repugnant, and you aren't vegan already, you should become vegan" essentially. For all I know it was put up by PETA activists. A pretty cool idea, actually.

IDK. I think they're underestimating the number of people (like me) who instead are thinking "Amazing! Do this more!"

[Dauric]

IDK. I think they're underestimating the number of people (like me) who instead are thinking "Amazing! Do this more!"

If I can't have flying cars, at least I can have genemod stingray shoes!

... well crap...

[Vaniver]

More details on why people suspect this is fake.

If I had to bet, I think I'd bet on it being real, but that may be techno-optimism rather than an informed opinion. It seems plausible to me that this firm knows more about stingray genetics than the rest of the scientific community, but I also agree that the pessimism with regards to their control over colors and patterns seems wise. They probably can't do everything that their design game says they can, but I suspect they can do a lot of it.

[JudeMorrigan]

More details on why people suspect this is fake.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking myself. It sounded too much like they were saying "insert a cat's dna into the stingray to give it the cat's coloration". That's comic book genetics. I'd have no moral qualms about this myself (although I certainly wouldn't pay that much for a pair of shoes), but it doesn't sound real to me.

[Belial]

If I had to bet, I think I'd bet on it being real, but that may be techno-optimism rather than an informed opinion.

I find it unlikely that, if this were doable, we wouldn't have heard super excited biogeeks chittering to journals about it long before it was commercially viable.

[jareds]

If I had to bet, I think I'd bet on it being real,

I wouldn't normally do this, but I believe you're a strong fan of prediction markets and thus won't take offense. I offer to bet you my $500 that it is not real against your $20 that it is real (or a smaller amount at the same odds).

[Gelsamel]

If I had to bet, I think I'd bet on it being real,

I wouldn't normally do this, but I believe you're a strong fan of prediction markets and thus won't take offense. I offer to bet you my $500 that it is not real against your $20 that it is real (or a smaller amount at the same odds).

What metric of 'real' are you offering? Like if it's a legitimate business but they can't do all they say they do is it "real"? You need a well-defined rule before you start bets like this xD

[poxic]

"Can you in fact give money to this company and receive an actual pair of actual shoes made from actual stingray leather actually grown with the actual selected pattern, within the delivery time they are claiming?"

I'd take the same side of the bet as jareds (and with the same odds).

[Gelsamel]

"Can you in fact give money to this company and receive an actual pair of actual shoes made from actual stingray leather actually grown with the actual selected pattern, within the delivery time they are claiming?"

I'd take the same side of the bet as jareds (and with the same odds).

And what are uncertainties allowed on pattern matching and delivery times? Like if they're a day late with delivery or the pattern mismatches by 5%?

[poxic]

I'm confident enough that the stated goal is in fact impossible that I'd accept a (non-normal-stingray) pattern that roughly approximates the selected one, delivered up to a year late.

[jareds]

Yeah, this ultimately isn't going to be any sort of close call. What poxic said, but frankly if they sell, or physically exhibit to credible observers, a shoe made from the skin of any sort of ray that credible sources confirm was genetically engineered, within a year (or two, for that matter), I will be happy to pay regardless of what the shoe looks like. Almost all of my perceived value in the bet comes from a belief that this is an outright hoax, not a failed attempt to genetically engineer stingrays.

[Steax]

The credibility is largely hampered by the design-student-esque intro video for me.

... And they try to disable right-click. What kind of stupidity is this?

[Vaniver]

I find it unlikely that, if this were doable, we wouldn't have heard super excited biogeeks chittering to journals about it long before it was commercially viable.

Mmm, but where would the biogeeks hear about it? My model of the situation is that someone from a Thai shoemaking family gets a doctorate in biology / a related field, realizes the potential of bio-customization, puts together an engineering team, and makes it happen. There's no real reason to advertise it until it's commercially viable.

I wouldn't normally do this, but I believe you're a strong fan of prediction markets and thus won't take offense. I offer to bet you my $500 that it is not real against your $20 that it is real (or a smaller amount at the same odds).

I'd be willing to take that bet (and with Poxic, too; I'll actually go up to a total exposure of $100 at those odds, if other people want to put up money as well).¹ The delivery window is anticipated to be 10 months, but I'm not interested in spending ~$2k to win $1k.

What I'd suggest instead of poxic's criterion is that I lose the bet if any of the following happens:
1. Regular production (anticipated to begin in late 2012) does not begin by Mar 31st, 2013.
2. An official statement from the company (either on the rayfish.com site or something similar) states that it's a hoax.
3. I'm convinced from news reports, dissatisfied customers, a third-party investigation, or any other source that the process is a hoax by eighteen months after regular production begins.²

I win the bet if none of those three conditions occurs (which will be sometime in early to late 2014), or you concede that the process is genuine earlier.

The process is genuine if they're using transgenic methods to customize the stingray coats, and at least 50% of the individual options available at launch (for coat, color, etc. separately) are satisfactory, and a hoax if that's not the case (it's clear that the leather is dyed, they're tattooing the stingrays, they can only deliver on a handful of the options they offered, etc.).³

1. For those of you not familiar with odds, the win $500 / lose $20 bet is break-even if you think there's a probability of 1/26, or a bit less than 4%, that the event will occur. If you think it's more than 4% likely that the company can actually do this, then the deal looks like free money on my side- but if you think it's less than 4% likely, then the deal looks like it's losing money on my side (but free money on the other side).
2. We could have a jury decide the issue instead of just me, but you've got my assurance that I'm more interested in true beliefs than I am in winning the money.
3. If the process actually works for half of the colors and half of the patterns, then that seems like a win with overreaching advertising rather than the process being a hoax. Similarly, it seems more likely to me that individual patterns will work (say, the snow leopard coat) than combinations (snow leopard and tiger together making the pattern their online tool says it will be), and if an individual option doesn't work that knocks out a disproportionate number of combos.

[jareds]

I wouldn't normally do this, but I believe you're a strong fan of prediction markets and thus won't take offense. I offer to bet you my $500 that it is not real against your $20 that it is real (or a smaller amount at the same odds).

I'd be willing to take that bet (and with Poxic, too; I'll actually go up to a total exposure of $100 at those odds, if other people want to put up money as well).¹ The delivery window is anticipated to be 10 months, but I'm not interested in spending ~$2k to win $1k.

What I'd suggest instead of poxic's criterion is that I lose the bet if any of the following happens:
1. Regular production (anticipated to begin in late 2012) does not begin by Mar 31st, 2013.
2. An official statement from the company (either on the rayfish.com site or something similar) states that it's a hoax.
3. I'm convinced from news reports, dissatisfied customers, a third-party investigation, or any other source that the process is a hoax by eighteen months after regular production begins.²

I win the bet if none of those three conditions occurs (which will be sometime in early to late 2014), or you concede that the process is genuine earlier.

The process is genuine if they're using transgenic methods to customize the stingray coats, and at least 50% of the individual options available at launch (for coat, color, etc. separately) are satisfactory, and a hoax if that's not the case (it's clear that the leather is dyed, they're tattooing the stingrays, they can only deliver on a handful of the options they offered, etc.).³

1. For those of you not familiar with odds, the win $500 / lose $20 bet is break-even if you think there's a probability of 1/26, or a bit less than 4%, that the event will occur. If you think it's more than 4% likely that the company can actually do this, then the deal looks like free money on my side- but if you think it's less than 4% likely, then the deal looks like it's losing money on my side (but free money on the other side).
2. We could have a jury decide the issue instead of just me, but you've got my assurance that I'm more interested in true beliefs than I am in winning the money.
3. If the process actually works for half of the colors and half of the patterns, then that seems like a win with overreaching advertising rather than the process being a hoax. Similarly, it seems more likely to me that individual patterns will work (say, the snow leopard coat) than combinations (snow leopard and tiger together making the pattern their online tool says it will be), and if an individual option doesn't work that knocks out a disproportionate number of combos.

Deal.

[Gelsamel]

I find it unlikely that, if this were doable, we wouldn't have heard super excited biogeeks chittering to journals about it long before it was commercially viable.

Mmm, but where would the biogeeks hear about it? My model of the situation is that someone from a Thai shoemaking family gets a doctorate in biology / a related field, realizes the potential of bio-customization, puts together an engineering team, and makes it happen. There's no real reason to advertise it until it's commercially viable.

Thing is there are so many major advancements they would have had to have made in transgenic bioengineering that... I just can't imagine they wouldn't have published anything and they either had a ridiculous amount of time and funding to build up their own research (since it's not like we're just a step away from what they're claiming they can do, they'd have to make several major advancements independantly) or just stumbled on to some amazing method of getting stuff to work... If everything they say is genuine then it's HUGE NEWS like MASSIVE news for Bioengineering that will change the field completely and open up so many new possibilities when it comes to virtually any application of bioengineering (so why fashion and not SAVING MILLIONS OF LIVES WITH BIOENGINEERED DRUGS?).

As for the bet thing, will a 3rd party hold the funds to ensure both parties keep their word or are you going on the honor system?

[Vaniver]

If everything they say is genuine then it's HUGE NEWS like MASSIVE news for Bioengineering that will change the field completely and open up so many new possibilities when it comes to virtually any application of bioengineering (so why fashion and not SAVING MILLIONS OF LIVES WITH BIOENGINEERED DRUGS?).

It's not clear to me that this is the case. My impression is that there are two main things transgenic modifications are good for when it comes to medicine: creating hormones / polymers, and creating organs. Genentech had a laboratory proof-of-concept of creating insulin with genetically engineered (using recombinant DNA) bacteria in 1977, which was approved for sale in 1982- so people have already been doing related things for medical purposes for three decades. (More recently, people have made spider silk this way, which has a few medical and industrial applications.)

This seems like a stepping stone on the way to organs (the Ghost in the Shell episode where spare human organs are grown in pigs comes to mind), in that experience they learn with stingrays will be applicable but also that this problem is way easier to solve than organs. They don't need the pig to grow a heart that'll work for it and also a human- they just need the stingray to have a coat with a particular pattern and coloration. (I am moderately surprised they're not moving towards the pet market- I know I'd like to have a housecat with snow leopard coloration, for example, and would feel way more comfortable with designing that than an animal destined for the chopping block from birth. Indeed, the FAQ's abrupt deflection of "I want to buy a stingray, not shoes!" is weak evidence that this isn't genuine.)

(Another less common thing is fixing genetic disorders by rewriting DNA with a retrovirus- my understanding is that that is done in humans, but only as a last resort because it has like a 50% mortality rate.)

As for the bet thing, will a 3rd party hold the funds to ensure both parties keep their word or are you going on the honor system?

One of the reasons that long-term prediction markets have a difficult time catching on is because of escrow costs- if jareds has to set aside $500 now rather than possibly in 2014, that will probably reduce their willingness to make the bet. Honor system works for me.

[Belial]

The thing is that this would require *such* an in-depth knowledge of what every gene in the stingray genome does. It's not just splicing in snow-leopard genes to get a snow-leopard pattern, or splicing in jellyfish genes to make a cat glow: that's comparatively easy, you just find the genes that generate the color you want, and figure out where to drop them into your cat's genome.

Generating a new pattern from scratch, on demand, requires you to know not just every gene that controls coloration (and for patterns like that, it would have to be quite a few genes) but also what exactly each one controls, and exactly how. Like, down to the "this base pair fits here" level. Moreover, you'd need to know how to change it to get different patterns and colors, including ones that have never been expressed.

That last part is especially important: if there exist no examples of the color or pattern (or both) you want in the wild, then you'd essentially need to be making a new gene. So you'd need to somehow be able to divine, with no examples to look at, exactly what sequence of base pairs would get you what you want.

That's like two or three steps short of just being able to make an animal from scratch, and we're so nowhere near that. And we're imagining that someone cracked the eight or ten different giant milestones in the study of genetics and then said to themselves "better keep this quiet, gotta make expensive-ass shoes. Fuck nobel prizes, world renown, and the ability to snap my fingers and make research grants appear out of nowhere like I was Science-Fonzie. Better to labor in secrecy for a few more years because godDAMN these shoes are going to be fucking sweet".

I mean, I guess there are weird people out there, but I'd assume at some point his lab assistant would arrange a terrible stingray accident and go claim his nobels.

[Gelsamel]

Honor system works for me.

Very gracious of you, given you've little to lose over a single (or a few) bet(s). The party more likely to reneg on their end of the deal are your opponents.

[Angua]

There's also the fact that making a transgenic animal isn't as easy as 'insert gene at embryo'. You have to spray the zygote with your gene, hope that some of the cells take them up and put them in the right place, hope that some of those cells later become reproductive cells, and then wait 2 generations of inbreeding to get from chimera to completely transgenic. Given that the common stingray (I haven't looked at what exact species the article is using) becomes sexually mature in the 4th/5th year of life), you're going to have to be waiting a long time for those shoes.

[induction]

I'm not a biologist, so I hope this isn't a stupid question. I didn't see anything that said that they used actual snow leopard dna to create a snow leopard pattern (or rattlesnake, giraffe, whatever), just that they were able to make patterns that look like those animals. Since fish come in all kinds of patterns, I would assume that they could (theoretically) generate all of their patterns using fish dna only. Is it still beyond the current state of the art to do it this way?

Presumably, they could achieve the simplest cases by selective breeding. They even show a picture of a 'zebroid' produced by these means on their blog page, but they also state that this is not how they make their stingrays:

Rayfish Footwear uses a patented process of bio-customization, which allows you to design your own living, transgenic stingray. Using the DNA on file in our genetic library, you can combine the skin patterns and coloration from dozens of different species. Access the richness of natural selection. Evolve an infinite variety of shoes.

At the Rayfish Footwear labs, nature has already done the design work for us. All we have to do is identify the genes responsible for color and pattern, and implant the synthetic 'supergene' cluster into fetal rays before they are born. As the ray grows and matures, it expresses the predetermined patterns on its skin.

Regarding whether it is a hoax:

Rayfish Footwear has been in operation for over a decade, raising stingrays in our Thai aquaculture facility. We are a family-run company with a long organic tradition in creating handcrafted shoes from stingray leather. In 2011, we successfully engineered our first fully bio-customized stingray. Each shoe is crafted according to our 'one fish, one shoe' principle.

So they've been in business for over a decade and they have a patent. I presume that verifying these two claims could at least add support to their other claims. Also, is it possible to look at their patent, if it exists?

Finally, this reminds me of activator/inhibitor cellular automata coat pattern models I used to write up in Matlab. <edit>Here is the original paper bay Alan Turing. </edit> Here is a link with some info and a java applet you can play with. (I am not affiliated with the website at all. I just found it with google.)

[Angua]

Live science explains that this is probably a hoax as well.

And on their website, they say it will take about 6-10 months to raise a rayfish big enough to make the shoe. You have to go down at least one generation of breeding to be able to do that.

[JudeMorrigan]

Regarding whether it is a hoax:

Rayfish Footwear has been in operation for over a decade, raising stingrays in our Thai aquaculture facility. We are a family-run company with a long organic tradition in creating handcrafted shoes from stingray leather. In 2011, we successfully engineered our first fully bio-customized stingray. Each shoe is crafted according to our 'one fish, one shoe' principle.

So they've been in business for over a decade and they have a patent. I presume that verifying these two claims could at least add support to their other claims. Also, is it possible to look at their patent, if it exists?

Well now, that seems interesting to me, particularly the part about how they've been in business for a decade and have a long tradition of making shoes from stingray leather. How come there doesn't seem to be a link on the site for people who might want to buy non-transgenic stingray leather shoes? Am I missing something?

[ahammel]

I'm not a biologist, so I hope this isn't a stupid question. I didn't see anything that said that they used actual snow leopard dna to create a snow leopard pattern (or rattlesnake, giraffe, whatever), just that they were able to make patterns that look like those animals. Since fish come in all kinds of patterns, I would assume that they could (theoretically) generate all of their patterns using fish dna only. Is it still beyond the current state of the art to do it this way?

Rays are cartilaginous fish. They're no more closely related to bony fish than they are to snow leopards.

That problem aside, you'd have to know what the genes responsible for scale patterning are in the donor organism, for a start; and I guarantee you that you're funding a large-ish research programme to figure that out in almost every case. And even if you do know what the target genes are, you've got the rather enormous problem of stably transforming for a multi-locus trait, which, so far as I know, has never been done, even without crossing species boundaries. And then you've got to get all of your transformed genes regulated properly, which is hugely difficult as well. We can't design a promoter for an arbitrary expression pattern, we have to rely on the regulatory mechanisms already in place in the organism. And we don't understand those mechanisms very well even in organisms where we know the genetics extremely well, nevermind an unstudied non-model like the rays.

So either they pretty much won evolutionary developmental biology forever and didn't tell anybody about it, or it's a hoax.

[induction]

Thanks, Alex.

[ahammel]

No problem!

Sincerely,
Your friendly neighbourhood procrastinating grad student

[Steax]

It's also notable that their "design your own" page allows you to make permutations of various particular patterns and foreground/background colors. So even if they could manage to plaster giraffe skin patterns on a ray, I highly doubt you could change the pigment that easily, either.

[Sockmonkey]

You don't need to create a new gene, you just need to change when and for how long a particular gene is expressed. For instance, a whale flipper, bat wing, and human arm all use similar genes. The primary thing that gives them different shapes is when they get switched on and off by certain chemical triggers. This discovery solved some of the seeming paradoxes in evolution. Creating totally new genes is slow, repurposing old ones is fast.
Skin patterns aren't terribly difficult relatively speaking. While these guys probably are faking it, the concept is perfectly doable.

[ahammel]

You don't need to create a new gene, you just need to change when and for how long a particular gene is expressed...

Right, but we don't know how to do that. It's not currently possible to change expression patterns ad libidum.