That is not what I said. You surmised that because it did not kill that the change was okay. I said the effects may not be obvious, but that does not mean they were not detrimental. I said you would not play around that way with the genes of a family member or indeed those of any human. Also, you gave very little details as to the experiment - where it was done in the genome, what were the expected results, what procedures were taken to insure it would work, etc., etc. I already listed some of what scientists know about how to insert changes in a genome. It is not the same as how random mutations would act.
Gore, you in fact did say that "small changes" would have "disasterous effects" at the bottom of #1754. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
Yet I think we finally may be getting somewhere since you seem to be relaxing your restrictions on genome flexiblilty. So lets make sure we are finally on the same page here before proceeding. Simply answer yes or no - do you believe that the genome can handle small changes without "disasterous effects" and perhaps even the allow the animal to (*gasp*) reach maturity?