In article <>, "Abdulqader S. Alawi" (asa at ecst.csuchico.edu) writes:
> I may agree with you that the experiment has been done and your source
>could also be legitimate and I also read and heard about many similar
>experiments which have had the same end result. These failures only
>support my original belief that this may never be possible.
If these experiments have been carried out (?) then by the above
accounts they are *not* failures. What I mean is that they
achieved a result. OK, so that result may have been a negative one,
but it's a result all the same. So your 'original belief' is
supported by the data. Without the data, *all* you have is belief,
and I would contend that that's not a good way to do science.
> The human
>body is just way to complex to cross-bread with any other organism. I do
>not see any success in this persuit, they might as well work on other
But then you never know until you try!
Actually, I'm not in favour of such experiments at this stage. Call
it irrational, call it 'belief', but I kind-of like to hold the
concept of 'humanity' in a little bit of awe. But then that's just
me. I'm not averse to a little 'Lamarckian(!)' tampering to sort
out genetic disorders such as CF, PKU, Tay-Sachs etc etc.
Shane McKee (SHO, RVH, Belfast) | / Art becomes science when
Shane at reservoir.win-uk.net --O-- you start trying to figure
/ | out what the heck you're doing