Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (3397)	1/26/2010 5:01:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

I didn't say "GMO is bad science". According to YOU, what I actually said is: <Nothing. It's bad science (including some GMO products).> Meaning FDA process... including "some" GMO... as any one without their "wacko googles" on can clearly see. So GMO isn't bad science. Okay. But some GMO is. How do you determine whats bad science and what isn't? --------------------------------------------------- Because you never read my posts and ponder... you pick out you "got points"... in this case "GMO" and run off to your wacko web sites for information. On the contrary, I'm trying to get you to commnicate what it is you object to and what you don't. Not my fault you have trouble doing that. -------------------------------------------------- Yes... the sites you get your information from (generic Brummar sites) are normally "wacko". Again, I think someone who has said he thinks eastern mystics can bi-locate, start fires with Qi etc shouldn't be quick to use the word wacko. ---------------------------------------------------- NOW! For the board... if anyone is actually reading... the ISSUE here is the quality of science used in "evolutionary study"... ie. the science backing existance of evolution, VERSUS the quality of science in getting food products approved and on your shelf... INCLUDING "some" GMO products. Well, now that you mention it, I'd say the science involved in the latter is more rigorous. -------------------------------------------------- FURTHER, if new viewers think I unduely harsh, Brummar knows NOTHING about the topic in general, as evidenced by his not knowing companies patent sequenced DNA segments, including genes as a normal part of business. That companies patent DNA segments isn't the issue. Its whether they are patenting something "naturally occuring".