[RightWingNilla]

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

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?

[gore3000]

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. -me-

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?

Yes I did, and I was referring there to the program (and note that the scientists themselves call it a program) that controls development. If you go around randomly changing that program you will create big problems and the article showed some of them.

You seem to think that any genetic engineering by scientists refutes my contention that the organism was intelligently designed. That is a ridiculous position. Scientists are intelligent designers themselves and they do not go around willy-nilly making these genetic changes. They know what they are doing. What you also refuse to acknowledge is that because a change does not result in death does not mean that it is not unfavorable. The examples you have given and continue to give are unsourced, unexplained, and give no specifics. You want to discuss them, don't play games, give the facts, and say how those facts support your views.