You seem to have a lot of faith that such understanding is possible, much less how useful it will be. Aren't you feeling the least bit sycophantic here?

DWA: I still expect a mystery at the end of the Bose-Einstein condensate tunnel, however.

From what I can tell, you are still finding this end pretty mysterious.

DWA: With light, strong carbon fiber materials, constructed atom-by-atom, and more efficient energy sources, micro actuator motors-movers, the sky is the limit.

Which does what for our understanding if the role intentional design has played up to now?

DWA: While we wait suspensefully for the next issue of Science showing the presumptive infallibility of scientific micro-community speculations (t. rex ancestor chicken, chuckle): Besides rigid shells for soft tissue, what would yourself see as a life-enhancer, Frank? Are there, and if so, what are the probable projectable limits to "evolution".

How about "generations of organisms will adapt to changes in environmental conditions, or not...

corollary: pigs won't fly, unless they are in airplanes.

DWA: Actually, I see a refreshing churn of various new, even disorderly directions of scientific opinion there, not only allowing and casting doubts in the Darwinian orbits.

Again your faith determines your conclusion regarding the direction in which new evidence will point with regard to evolution.

DWA: Such as, one side projecting that the acidifying ocean will dissolve all of the coral, and someone else empirically seeing it otherwise, neither one microscopically visualizing the many possibilities hidden in the DNA based intelligent acting life, possibly to drop the beer can momentarily, and to capitalize on the changes.

Well, we usually refer to life as we know it. Things may change in unexpected ways, but you can't always count on it going your way.

DWA: The abstract on T. Rex doesn't seem to go as far as the sycophantic AP reporter did.