Originally - Subject: Re: ASSUME
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> We should have been given proof in the form of reputable >> data, not the mere opinion of an individual (no matter how >> important his position). > > On the other hand, what replicatable experimental data > have you found for the opposing position ? Hi Ron, As my professor for fieldwork liked to say, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Anyway, theories can never really be proved, but are rejected when they are disproved. All of which probably means that this subject could be discussed and debated for a long, long time. To side step the issue <grin>, ... One of the interesting possibilities with the Genome Project (and other such studies into DNA structures) would be the ability to conduct a comprehensive, comparative analysis of various living organisms and display the results in a side-by-side graphic display (that a nonprofessional like myself could understand). Included could be some *before and after* displays showing the mutative effects of such things as radiation, chemicals, or whatever else may cause mutations. Whatever the other outcomes may be from the *cloning debate*, one issue I haven't seen discussed is the potential to one day demonstrate how the process of genetic mutation works. I can imagine the graphics once the DNA structure is completely understood in every aspect. Somebody will come out with a photo morphing program that will allow you to see what you would look like with slightly different DNA. Maybe that will be a future feature of Arachne (version 1.73 ???). Your genetically-close relative, Bob :-) - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
