RaptorMan,
You seem to imply a question in your first paragraph: "Why didn't more than one of you respond to my link to the Scientific American article?"
In your second paragraph, you supplied my answer to that question when you wrote: "While I found all that stuff fascinating, it's not important to understanding the CYGX technology..."
I, and many others, don't have a biology/biochemistry/molecular-science background. So, I basically don't have the capacity to help "spark some intelligent conversation about the science".
That's probably true for lots of us, so please don't be disappointed - I'd love to discuss it, if I could! You, and others named below, do us all a great service by presenting and explaining various aspects of the science - please continue to do that - I enjoy reading it, even if I cannot intelligently discuss it.
I basically trust the press releases of CYGX. I greatly trust the outside experts who have chosen to lend their names to CYGX, via research agreements, or being on CYGX's advisory board, etc. That says a LOT about the validity of their science. I also trust in the opinions of those like yourself, neo43, grrdvm1 and thalio, who all seem to be knowledgeable enough to provide independant validation (even if from the "outside") of CYGX' technology.
AI
