Re: Cell division creationism

>Oh, yes. But what I thought was being suggested was something like "In
>100 years we will need new cancer chemotherapy drugs because cancer
>will have evolved to be resistant to the ones that we have now"

Oh of course. With that interpretation you are correct that this would
be totally wrong.



>...well, there are viruses that apparently cause cancer, but only as a
>side-effect and not as their means of reproduction, right?

Yes. The only kind I can think of though is when a retrovirus inserts
its DNA into a cancer-supressing region of the genome.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cell division creationism
    ... >>>100 years we will need new cancer chemotherapy drugs because cancer ... > There are viruses ... > causing genes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Extreemely Important Medical News
    ... decipher the genetic makeup of cancer. ... Called the 'Cancer Genome Atlas Pilot Project', ... genetic mutations besides other genetic changes associated with cancer. ... If this cancer genome project proves as successful as the Human Genome ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Re: Hell, now I dont trust Lance nor WADA
    ... Sign of cancer. ... This is becoming a circular discussion. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Article: How good is our genome?
    ... >> Our genome has evolved to perpetuate itself through the maintenance of the ... selection would not result in adaptive evolution. ... >> the TP53 gene may offer a paradigmatic example. ... >> latency period in cancer can be prolonged in mice by increasing the number ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Right then, heated debate time (Tory leadership campaign)
    ... >cancer gets him. ... My money's on heart disease. ... Champ ... Prev by Date: ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)