X-Message-Number: 797 Subject: CRYONICS: Whole Body vs. Neuro Suspension Date: Sun, 3 May 92 18:24:50 PDT From: Eli Brandt <> > From: ghsvax! (Hal Finney) > At best, DNA would allow the construction of a body which was as > similar to yours as twin baby's bodies are. (And probably that ideal Hal makes a good point: our genotype is not a blueprint of our phenotype, but a procedural description whose product is environmentally influenced. However, I think most people would be satisfied with a working body reasonably similar to theirs; I would actually prefer something different but functionally superior. > The DNA program only tells how to make a heart by starting from an > ovum in a womb. It doesn't tell how to grow one out of a neck. This is not entirely true. Regeneration by adult organisms is well documented. The canonical example is the starfish, but the phenomenon occurs to lesser degrees in more convincingly relevant animals -- such as frogs, I believe. However, regeneration becomes less effective as we look at more "advanced" organisms: many plants are routinely reproduced from far less than the equivalent of a head, but amphibians can regenerate only smaller parts, and humans can't regenerate much more than a toenail. This may be due to fundamental differences in developmental processes between amphibians and mammals, though this seems implausible offhand. Regeneration technology would obviously have applications beyond cryonic reanimation, as well. The important point is that DNA can direct development from other starting points than a zygote. Whether this can actually be applied is another matter. Otherwise, I agree. > Hal Finney > ghsvax! ...!uunet!ghsvax!hal Eli Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=797