Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> I think that as long as nobody has actually demonstrated to be able to
> create, just from the genome, a complete exemplar of that species that
> is generally considered undistinguishable from a "normally" conceived
> exemplar, the answer is a clear "we don't know" -- reasonably
> scientifically speaking, as far as any research results go.
>
> Some (many) may suspect that the genome is all one needs, but any
> engineer knows darn well that such suspicions are not worth much until
> you actually have done it. More often than not, when really doing it,
> you find unexpected stumbling blocks not thought of before.

Right.  I think that's a reasonable evaluation.  We think the genome may be
sufficient, but as of yet this has not been proven.  I think it will be in
my lifetime, but that is of course just speculation on my part.

I generally agree with what you said.  I was objecting to Russell
proclaiming that "for sure" the genome is insufficient.  He could say he
believes it to be insufficient or that it hasn't been proven to be
sufficient, but I am not aware of it having been proven insufficient either.
Unless Russell can show that is has been proven insufficient, the "for sure"
statement is just irresponsible science from somebody that should know
better.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist