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
>experiments.
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
