Posted on 06/27/2007 10:57:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I don’t think that it is profound or novel; just as obvious as the sun on a summer day, but you evos are selectively blind as to it’s obvious consequences.
You relly made my point well.
Thanks for the ping!
Is this what passes for thinking in your circles?
Cancers tends to happen late in life, after childbearing. We have evolved many protections against cancers early in life, but natural selection has only a modest protective ability for individuals who have already had children past the age of maturation.
Are you kidding? That's way too much work. Science is hard, Barbie!
I'm not going to pick on your comments vis a vis evolution. They are on the mark. None of this proves or disproves evolution. Some of the folks here are trying to pound a round peg into a square hole. It just doesn't fit.
OTOH, there is a distinction between genetic mutation which could (or perhaps always) involves a change at the chromosome level and the "species change" that Duesberg refers to and specifically distinguishes from a genetic mutation.
The key difference is that it is the CHROMOSOME COUNT that changes, i.e. the genetic change is not the replacement of a "good chromosome" with a "bad chromosome" it is the generation of a larger number of chromosomes in a cell than is found in healthy human cells. This is different from what the cancer research community means when they talk about genetic mutation.
Duesberg's theory may be right or it may be wrong but it is different in kind from the current "genetic mutation" theory of cancer.
I find it rather egomaniacal for Duesling to claim sole credit for an idea a century old and much debated for over a decade, but considering his counterfactual position on HIV I suppose he just likes being the center of attention.
I think the answer is, “It’s both. Now quit posturing for the camera, Duesling.”
Pardon me but what is a "Duesling"?
It’s a butchered version of Duesberg’s name (oops), although I like to think it means something derogatory in some language. ;-)
OK. So are you suggesting that I stop posting to this thread? I don’t get it. I thought this was a forum.
Read the article you’re responding to? The guy who is tooting his horn is Duesberg. The response was not directed at you at all.
Yes I did read the article and I read a book that went into some depth on the subject. I happen to think that Duesberg may be right. If you want to debate the facts I'm game. If it's ad hominem then I'm not interested.
Right about what? Aneuploidy? As I said before, it’s both.
What's both?
Both mutation of protooncogenes and aneuploidy are responsible for the initiation and progression of cancer.
Apparently, you have difficulty reading:
“the man who ‘rediscovered’ the old work on aneuploidy is controversial University of California-Berkeley researcher and National Academy of Sciences member Peter Duesberg”
OK. Could be. Nothing to argue about here. Time to move on.
Dawrinism would hamper the war on cancer is anybody still used Darwinism for scientific research.
Darwinism has not really been the basis since the 1930’s.
Darwinism doesn’t include DNA or genetics.
Wow, lots of info. I scanned most of it but will read it in its entirety when I get home.
I received a transfusion in 1983, you can bet I and my Doctors were worried into the 90’s (they said 20 years and they’d feel safe saying I was free) about the possibility of HIV showing up (that and Hep C).
There’s so much quackery going on for medicine. A perfect example is Hulda Clark (not and MD but a Ph.D) who wrote a book called, “The Cure for all Cancers”. I wrote a response to a poster (whose name I forgot) who lived by her ‘teachings’. There’s no help for people like that. They think AIDS and Cancer are big conspiracies between MD’s and pharmaceutical companies. They seem to miss the parts where chemists and Doctor’s die of cancer as well. I guess they’re been sworn to never reveal the conspiracy...
It doesn’t refute evolution (except in the sense that it shows that mutations almost always cause harm/devolution). But my main point in posting this article is to show that the Darwinists, who have been trying to find a cure for cancer based on mutation theory, have been leading us down the wrong path for over 30 years. It’s time for a new breed of scientists who are willing to look at the problem differently. Duesberg is one of those scientists. ID scientists would also bring a fresh perspective to the War on Cancer. For instance, rather than being hamstrung by Darwinian random mutation, IDers would not be adverse to looking for controversial cancer causes that lie outside of the neo-Darwinian paradigm (such as common mechanisms, the possibility that the body grows cancer in response to some deeper/holistic health problem, etc).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.