[GodGunsGuts]

ping

[SteveMcKing]

According to his novel yet controversial "chromosomal" theory of cancer, which is receiving increased attention among cancer researchers, each cancer is unique, and there is no magic bullet.

Like hell he invented that concept, or that it's remotely controversial.

[Alter Kaker]

I know it's fun and tempting to turn every article into an anti-evolutionary screed, but what the heck does this have to do with disproving Darwin? Certainly there's nothing to that effect in the text of the article...

I think you guys can do better.

[GodGunsGuts]

In this latest post at PhysOrg, it seems that Darwinism hasn’t helped, but instead hindered the fight against cancer.

Dr. Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist at Berkeley,

“proposed in 2000 that the assumption underlying most cancer research today is wrong. That assumption, that cancer results from a handful of genetic mutations that drive a cell into uncontrolled growth, has failed to explain many aspects of cancer, he said, and has led researchers down the wrong path.”

And, in words that support Behe’s main thesis in “The Edge of Evolution”, Deusberg also adds:

“In this new study and in one published in 2005, we have proved that only chromosomal rearrangements, rather than mutations, can explain the high rates and wide ranges of drug resistance in cancer cells.”

Think of the number of people who die each year of cancer as compared to the number who die from bacterial infection, and one can easily see that all the chest-slapping by the Darwinists about how RM+NS has given us anti-bacterial drugs can know pound their breasts in remorse at the “wrong path” mutational theory has led cancer researchers. This isn’t just a battle between the God-denying and the God-affirming segments of our global society, it’s about good science versus bad science, about reason versus myth.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

[Cacique]

bump for later

[Coldwater Creek]

I don’t give a crap about anyone’s theories. Cancer and watching a loved one die because nothing works is a living hell.

[muir_redwoods]

This is an incredibly weak argument against evolutionary theory that seems to be based on the word "mutation". Does anyone honestly think that a researcher who disputes the importance of mutation of cancer cells is attacking evolution?

Wow, that's weak, embarrassingly weak

[Edward Watson]

Very interesting - too bad my wife died from cancer four years ago, too early to benefit from this discovery (if it eventually proves correct).

[shuckmaster]

Chromosomes are a basic part of biology and all serious study of biology is based on Darwin’s Theory. When you goofballs get around to curing cancer with prayers to mythological sky gods, let us know.

[txzman]

“...it ascribes cancer to chromosomal disruption, called aneuploidy, that can be seen easily through a microscope...”

The same kind of testing now being done for a wide variety of illnesses that never used to be regarded as helpful. I also wait for the day when scientists understand how bacteria and viruses affect us at the cellular level.

[Leisler]

All this back and fourth makes me want to eat two double cheddar cheeseburgers, large home made fries( extra salt ) down it with a whole milk frap and then go run up and down sand dunes. That would be my cure for cancer.

[ChessExpert]

Something similar is discussed in Tom Bethell’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.” I don’t have time to look it up now. If I recall though, cancer cells often have double the chromosomes - two sets of blueprints.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Where’s the part about evolution, Darwinism, or anything resembling it?

I see a researcher wanting more funding and trying to get it by attacking some established genetic research with a theory.

The BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes immediately come to mind.

[facedown]

Old quacks never die, they just find a new soapbox.

[ahayes]

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.

[gondramB]

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.

[CarrotAndStick]

I don’t know if this is starting to get irritating, but I thought you might find it interesting...

[GOPJ]

ping