[VxH]

>>It's interesting that you completely ignored the
>>previous example I gave of several environmental
>>factors that lead to birth defects which you
>>seem to believe are invariably genetic.

The defect in question, as related to this thread, was chimerism.

You attempted to expand the scope of discussion to "ALL" birth defects in order to prop up your flailing position.

I simply ignored your, less than masterful, attempt at baiting.

Nowhere did I state that ALL birth defects are genetic.

Simple.

[ahayes]

Well, I won't even go into the absurdity of your saying, "Although the larger subset of birth defects contains many that result from environmental effects, I am going to declare that this subset is solely genetic based due to one instance of siblings affected (which might be coincidental or environmental, and would require further research in order to state definitively without looking like a fool)."

My point in giving the other examples was to show that, while proteins are derived from DNA, their expression is heavily influenced by the environment--contrary to your premise that when anything goes wrong with hormones or enzymes, it is because of bad genes. However, since you seem incapable of following a logical train of thought, I think our conversation is over.