Evolution study uncovering the roots of cancer:

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-theory-uncovers-cancer-deep-evolutionary.html

It seems the roots of cancer goes back a billion years!

Another lie of the atheist evil-lutionists. There are no evolutionary roots going back more than a billion years ago. The lies continue to support the deception that there is no creator God.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Another lie of the atheist evil-lutionists. There are no evolutionary roots going back more than a billion years ago. The lies continue to support the deception that there is no creator God.

The Instructor

Why did I think you would make your pre-programmed response. It really isn't necessary to say the same thing over and over. We really get it, you don't like evolution, god is great god is good let us thank him for our food amen.

We really get it. So when you respond, just go #35 and we will know what that particular speech is all about. Hey, it'l save you a lot of typing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-theory-uncovers-cancer-deep-evolutionary.html

It seems the roots of cancer goes back a billion years!

Interesting theory that is backed up by some evidence. It predicts “if cancer cells are saturated with oxygen but deprived of sugar, they will become more stressed than healthy cells, slowing them down or even killing them”. And they are now looking for evidence for this prediction of their theory. If they find evidence for that, then, obviously, this could lead to better treatments against cancer.

Originally posted by humy
Interesting theory that is backed up by some evidence.

I am not impressed by the article linked to. Of course this may be a journalist's point of view of something quite different. Much of what they say just doesn't add up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not impressed by the article linked to. Of course this may be a journalist's point of view of something quite different. Much of what they say just doesn't add up.

I am surprised you say "Much of what they say just doesn't add up".
You have probably spotted some significant flaws I have not.
How does it not add up?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not impressed by the article linked to. Of course this may be a journalist's point of view of something quite different. Much of what they say just doesn't add up.

These two are physicists and not biologists, and Paul Davies is a media whore. On the other hand it can be useful to have people from the outside looking in at a subject. None of their ingredients are particularly controversial, they just put it together a different way. It differs from the usual model, but cancer's a difficult enough problem that anything not ridiculous is worth looking at. The objection is that some species have much lower cancer rates than others. Their ideas should be able to explain that, but my guess is that, if their theory is right, species should have similar rates of cancer since those highly conserved sequences of genes they talk about should be present in most species.

Originally posted by DeepThought
These two are physicists and not biologists, and Paul Davies is a media whore. On the other hand it can be useful to have people from the outside looking in at a subject. None of their ingredients are particularly controversial, they just put it together a different way. It differs from the usual model, but cancer's a difficult enough problem that any ...[text shortened]... ce those highly conserved sequences of genes they talk about should be present in most species.

These two are physicists and not biologists,

Oh. Didn't notice that. That makes their assertions here about the biology of this much less scientifically authoritative. They should have got some real biologists involved with their work to check to make absolutely certain that no part of what they say and think about the biology of this is just nonsense.

Originally posted by humy

These two are physicists and not biologists,

Oh. Didn't notice that. That makes their assertions here about the biology of this much less scientifically authoritative. They should have got some real biologists involved with their work to check to make absolutely certain that no part of what they say and think about the biology of this is just nonsense.

The place they are working at was set up for the purpose, the article gives it as

Arizona State University of the Center for the Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology

so I think they've got some biologists making sure it's not complete [anag]carp[/anag].

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why did I think you would make your pre-programmed response. It really isn't necessary to say the same thing over and over. We really get it, you don't like evolution, god is great god is good let us thank him for our food amen.

We really get it. So when you respond, just go #35 and we will know what that particular speech is all about. Hey, it'l save you a lot of typing.

The point I am making is that if the cure for cancer is found it will not be because of #35. 😏

Reveal Hidden Content


The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The point I am making is that if the cure for cancer is found it will not be because of #35. 😏

The Instructor

And of course that is your considered opinion, being an expert on genetics and biology.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The point I am making is that if the cure for cancer is found it will not be because of #35. 😏

[hidden] #35 - Another lie of the atheist evil-lutionists. There are no evolutionary roots going back more than a billion years ago. The lies continue to support the deception that there is no creator God.[/hidden]


The Instructor

And you think those reporters are?

Reveal Hidden Content

The Instructor

Paul Charles William Davies, AM (born 22 April 1946) is an English physicist, writer and broadcaster, currently a professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. He is also currently affiliated with the Institute for Quantum Studies at Chapman University in California.

In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI. Paul Davies writes and comments on scientific and philosophical issues.

An opinion piece published in the New York Times, generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

The Instructor

Interview with a Scientist - Dr. Charles H. Lineweaver

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by DeepThought
The place they are working at was set up for the purpose, the article gives it as

Arizona State University of the Center for the Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology

so I think they've got some biologists making sure it's not complete [anag]carp[/anag].

well that's a relief.