Richard Norman <rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:zbTV6.32914$s12.811527 at typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>> "maxwell" <mmmaxwell at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9g8s8b$7eg5g$1 at ID-81739.news.dfncis.de...> >
> > > Just a few more details -- the human genome is not really
> > > decoded. But probably all the parts that really count have been.
> > > There are technical reasons why two particular regions of each
> > > chromosome can't be decoded but these regions almost certainly
> > > don't code for any genes. And what we have now is still called a
> > > "draft".
> > Good points. I tried to keep the reply within
> > constraints-of-comprehension
> > as suggested by the inquirer's prose.
>> You are right and your answer was well phrased to accord with
> the tone of the original query. That is why I, too, didn't try
> to explain about telomeres and stuff. It is just that I think that
> people have to understand that the genome story is just barely
> started -- it is not at all "completely decoded".
For which point I am grateful. Though I avoided an excess of detail,
I neglected to spell out what was fully implied .