You don't want to get it.
It refutes the very foundation of evolution: the idea that a mutation has any reasonable chance of causing a positive outcome. It's in the numbers, for which you apparently have no feel at all.
Decade upon decade of failure upon failure in cancer treatment have pointed to what Duesberg is saying. Change is causing death, not enhanced life. The changes are not according to any pattern; they are totally random, and derived from environmental attack on the host whose cells react in unpredictable ways, but the end result is never enhancement. The overpowering numbers say this, and it is totally contrary to the foundational concepts of evolution.
That's just absurd.
1. Chromosomal shifts are mutations. The difference is that they're mutations on the chromosome level, not the gene level. If you had even a cursory familiarity with genetics, you'd know that they have long been considered to be a major evolutionary mechanism.
2. I still don't understand your point. All this guy is saying is that he believes that point mutations are not responsible for cancers. What does that have to do with "positive outcomes?" Honestly, I don't see how in the world you people can jump on a silly article like this as evidence for your kooky theory when you don't even understand it.
Decade upon decade of failure upon failure in cancer treatment have pointed to what Duesberg is saying. Change is causing death, not enhanced life.
Is this a joke? You are aware that cancers, by definition, are abnormal cells with abnormal mutated DNA that divide continuously? We've known for 100+ years that mutagens cause cancer, I'm completely flummoxed as to why you think this is a profound or even remotely novel explanation.
Thanks for the ping!
That isn't the focus of the thread at all. What the OP is claiming is that a chromosomal change is not an evolutionary mechanism but in some way a designed system. His suggestion that ID can do a better job of determining the cause of cancer implies that ID, which is primarily supposed to be a method of identifying intelligently purposeful design rather than contingent trial and error design, should find indications of either IC or CSI within the cancerous cell. I suspect that he also believes that once we find that evidence of a designer all we have to do is find the designer and convince s/he/it to stop making people sick. Unfortunately for GodGunsGuts his claim necessitates not only chromosomal changes be intelligently designed, but not be a part of evolutionary processes, which is demonstrably false.
As far as your claim that mutations cannot be positive I suggest you actually read some of Ichneumon's posts rather than ignoring them. I believe he has posted a number of links to mutations (undirected (by any intelligent agent) random changes in the genome) which have conferred an advantage to the organism. It seems for your argument to appear to have any validity it requires you to ignore the vast number of neutral mutations and the changing context of the mutation in regards to both the environment and the population.