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.
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.
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.