Evolution Message Board - Msg: 26256550

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LLCF who wrote (3361)	1/19/2010 5:03:14 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) of 69300

I think Penn Jillette said that FDA charge is BS. Is he lying? A specific example of 'troubling' products that should be rigorously tested IMHO is BT crops. Seems obvious, but not to some apparently. Further: ANY DNA alteration that doesn't occur naturally includes ramifications we don't understand... unforseen changes can and ARE lurking in the background and may emerge now or in the future. You realize we digest the food we eat. Digestive acids break food down chemically pretty well ... to sugars and amino acids. The cell walls and dna of food we eat are destroyed in the digestive process. What in Bt crops do you think can survive the digestive process that will hurt us? Also if the genetic modification involves taking genes from one plant or animal and putting them in another plant or animal and both the sources of genetic material are already eaten by people .... where is the harm? Should we be concerned with milk on cereal or ham and cheese on rye bread since those combinations of foods don't occur in nature? Also should we test naturally occurring food too? After all, just cause people have been eating something for thousands of years doesn't mean it can't hurt us. Lots of plants have toxins for example. Further, one might even want to back up FURTHER and look at the ethics of patenting natural recurring genes as a backdrop to this issue. Do you think a patent should be awarded covering DNA god created (naturally occuring)? No. Though I think if there is patenting going on, its of DNA that is not naturally occuring. <The ones who worked on the corn environmentalists told Zambia to reject?> Don't know that story... fill me in. It was described on the Penn Jillette tape. <I'd say both were intelligent design in action.> the common usage of that term is a version of evolutionary theory... ie. yes they are example of evolution. Is that what you mean? Wow, you've just committed heresy. Don't you know that ID is creationism?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next