Replies

The likelihood of something serious going awry at the cellular level is heritable, obviously, and this applies to any number of health issues.

But, we have so-called "precancerous," damaged cells in our bodies all the time. They're effectively recognized and removed, by a healthy immune system.

Going into some bizarre comparison to chimpanzees and blaming brain size for cancer is ludicrous to the point of near incomprehensibility. It's your side of the debate, so defend it.

Let's see about these genetic percentages being bandied about. Want to toss out a few other creatures? How about an earthworm? And why do you think it important?

Pardon, but your a priori is showing, lol.

DNA is what is inherited. Genes are DNA. What is going awry at the cellular level with familial associated cancer is genetic mutation that was inherited.

I did not agree with the premise of this article in any way.

I did correctly point out the DNA comparison between human and chimp is over 99% of the “same” genes; that the “same” genes are about 98% the same, and over the entire genome we are about 94% the same. That has nothing to do with the genetic causes of cancer and is not an a priori assumption on my part, but is a clear consequence of looking at the data.

Do you agree that cancer has nothing to do with genes?

Is that the position you wish to defend?