1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    24 Jan '14 18:491 edit
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-year-old-dog-cancer-reveals-secrets.html

    "...This cancer, which causes grotesque genital tumours in dogs around the world, first arose in a single dog that lived about 11,000 years ago. The cancer survived after the death of this dog by the transfer of its cancer cells to other dogs during mating.

    The genome of this 11,000-year-old cancer carries about two million mutations – many more mutations than are found in most human cancers, the majority of which have between 1,000 and 5,000 mutations. The team used one type of mutation, known to accumulate steadily over time as a "molecular clock", to estimate that the cancer first arose 11,000 years ago.
    ..."

    Just a thought: if this cancer were to keep evolving for, say, the next 10 million years like it has been evolving for the last few thousand years, it may mutate so much and become so different that, if we didn't have the benefit of hindsight, we would think it wasn't cancer at all but is a single-celled disease-causing parasite completely unrelated to cancer or dog cells and which evolved from another singled-celled organism, not a dog cell!

    This makes me wonder if there are some other species of single-celled disease-causing parasites living today that we wrongly naturally assume evolved from other singled-celled organisms unrelated to their host's cells when, in fact, they evolved from infectious cancer cells of their hosts?
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    24 Jan '14 18:57
    Originally posted by humy
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-year-old-dog-cancer-reveals-secrets.html

    "...This cancer, which causes grotesque genital tumours in dogs around the world, first arose in a single dog that lived about 11,000 years ago. The cancer survived after the death of this dog by the transfer of its cancer cells to other dogs during mating.

    The genome of this 1 ...[text shortened]... d to their host's cells when, in fact, they evolved from infectious cancer cells of their hosts?
    Yeah, saw that. Horrible disease. Anything like that recorded in human history?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    24 Jan '14 21:24
    Originally posted by humy
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-year-old-dog-cancer-reveals-secrets.html

    "...This cancer, which causes grotesque genital tumours in dogs around the world, first arose in a single dog that lived about 11,000 years ago. The cancer survived after the death of this dog by the transfer of its cancer cells to other dogs during mating.

    The genome of this 1 ...[text shortened]... d to their host's cells when, in fact, they evolved from infectious cancer cells of their hosts?
    I told you that it is devolution, not evolution, but you wouldn't listen.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    24 Jan '14 22:553 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Yeah, saw that. Horrible disease. Anything like that recorded in human history?
    I did a web search on this and found that, as far as is known, there are no infectious cancers that readily spreads from one person to another but, there is proof that, tragically, cancer can sometimes spread from pregnant mother to unborn baby but fortunately this is very rare:

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/mothers-cancer-spread-to-baby-in-the-womb-20091013-gvqe.html
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    25 Jan '14 15:09
    Originally posted by humy
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-year-old-dog-cancer-reveals-secrets.html

    "...This cancer, which causes grotesque genital tumours in dogs around the world, first arose in a single dog that lived about 11,000 years ago. The cancer survived after the death of this dog by the transfer of its cancer cells to other dogs during mating.

    The genome of this 1 ...[text shortened]... d to their host's cells when, in fact, they evolved from infectious cancer cells of their hosts?
    I don't know how they could possible come of with an age of 11,ooo years. However, this is just more proof that mutations are harmful and does not cause evolution, but devolution and death.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    25 Jan '14 19:49
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't know how they could possible come of with an age of 11,ooo years. However, this is just more proof that mutations are harmful and does not cause evolution, but devolution and death.
    Of course you can't see how they come up with a date of 11K years back, your cognitive dissonance can't accept any date past 6K years because of your rigorous religious brainwashing.
  7. In your face
    Joined
    21 Aug '04
    Moves
    55993
    26 Jan '14 21:37
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't know how they could possible come of with an age of 11,ooo years. However, this is just more proof that mutations are harmful and does not cause evolution, but devolution and death.
    The figure of 11,000 was derived by using basic arithmetic. If you can't fathom that, how can possibly figure that the rest of the science involved disproves evolution and proves the existence of a God. Far out man! 🙄
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    27 Jan '14 05:491 edit
    Originally posted by Sicilian Sausage
    The figure of 11,000 was derived by using basic arithmetic. If you can't fathom that, how can possibly figure that the rest of the science involved disproves evolution and proves the existence of a God. Far out man! 🙄
    That is one of the most ignorant explanations I have heard on here to date.
  9. In your face
    Joined
    21 Aug '04
    Moves
    55993
    27 Jan '14 08:531 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That is one of the most ignorant explanations I have heard on here to date.
    If you know the rate of change of something and the value of how much it has changed, you can then determine how long it has been changing. As I said, basic arithmetic. It is you who is ignorant and even worse so, by choice.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    27 Jan '14 11:051 edit
    Originally posted by Sicilian Sausage
    If you know the rate of change of something and the value of how much it has changed, you can then determine how long it has been changing. As I said, basic arithmetic. It is you who is ignorant and even worse so, by choice.
    Well, that rate of change is not known, numbnuts. Those people don't have any HiINDSight, that belongs to me.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    27 Jan '14 13:136 edits
    Originally posted by Sicilian Sausage
    If you know the rate of change of something and the value of how much it has changed, you can then determine how long it has been changing. As I said, basic arithmetic. .
    Yes, and obviously, the rate of change can be measured/observed and thus known and is known in this case because of such measurements/observations.
    Of course, any delusional person who has strong enough religious reasons to want to deny science facts will probably idiotically deny you can measure and then know a rate of change of anything even though much of science is doing precisely that all the time and even through much or our technology wouldn't work without it (such as a car speedometer )
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    27 Jan '14 17:25
    Originally posted by humy
    Yes, and obviously, the rate of change can be measured/observed and thus known and is known in this case because of such measurements/observations.
    Of course, any delusional person who has strong enough religious reasons to want to deny science facts will probably idiotically deny you can measure and then know a rate of change of anything even though much of s ...[text shortened]... me and even through much or our technology wouldn't work without it (such as a car speedometer )
    There is no ageometer that is capable of measuring ages of anthing to 11000 years old, because age is not a constant rate throughout history.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    27 Jan '14 18:08
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There is no ageometer that is capable of measuring ages of anthing to 11000 years old, because age is not a constant rate throughout history.
    And you know that from your own Phd level experiments I suppose. Or is it you just believe creationist site fairy tales?
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    27 Jan '14 23:23
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And you know that from your own Phd level experiments I suppose. Or is it you just believe creationist site fairy tales?
    It should be common sense, which you apparently don't have.
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    28 Jan '14 00:54
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It should be common sense, which you apparently don't have.
    That's a good one, "common sense'' coming from the likes of you. You wouldn't know common sense if it came up and bit you in the ass. You live in dreamland.
Back to Top