"Jim wrote in message
....
Bob, Franz etc etc wrote in message

Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and
the
insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get
there
naturally?

Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one
which
results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not
even
*exist*
before.

Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply
changed
not came into spontaneous existance.

Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR
resistance,
and a gene added to give RR resistance?

Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure
"Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I
understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that.

but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural
mutation
creates something new and essentially untested


To all those that are still following this thread in both camps can I ask
that you download and read the .pdf file of "Contents, foreward and
Executive summary" of the Gm Science Review. (UK) First Report. July 2003.
to be found at.

www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm

My conclusions are that it confirms my call for more scientific research
before general release as valid.
But what do you all think?

It's all in the interpretation. :-)
--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here.