<You haven't been able to explain how you determine some science is "bad science" >
poppycock... you can't get past the very basics... how can you go further? you're just trying to switch topics before you even deal with the basics.
<You can't describe what you think is wrong with genetically modified food. >
You don't know what the term means yet. AND you refuse to do the legwork.
<Here are some other questions you've shown you can't answer:>
This should read: "Here are some other questions you've shown you wont' answer because they are irrelevant":
1.) <Is it wrong for a drug company to patent a drug (say an antibiotic) even though that antibiotic may exist in nature (ie some ant or plant produces it)? (Like penicillin)>
Ummm, it would be wrong to patent the actual mold fungus of course... that hasn't happened:
""On May 25, 1948, Andrew J Moyer was granted a patent for a method ""
<Or consider chemicals, say that are used in plastics production, >
plastics DONT occur in nature... and of course it would be wrong to patent something that you;ve been able to can "pick", "fish for", "pick up off the ground" or anything else for eons!!
The other examples are just plain silly and aren't relevant... AND if you knew bupkiss about this, the above aren't relevant either... as I've said.
No more freebies, if you can't discuss, just drop it... I'm not going to spoon feed you anymore.
<To issues like this, you don't know what you think.>
Again... if you can't get there, you'll never know.
DAK |
