Absolutely correct, and impossible to prove causation from epidemiology.
WHO - Processed meats cause cancer
- Thread starter Eyepopper
- Start date
I've never seen it suggested that the speed of evolution was ever high enough for lethal mutagenesis to be a large cause of extinctions in multi-celled organisms especially not vertebrates.
The comment I made was not speculative in the way of evolutionary theory, but addressing genetic entropy and selection constraints. Simply put, to solve the problem of genetic entropy, you need a selective pressure that is so high that a species would go extinct, but without it, the genome eventually degrades due to the accumulation of mutations.
Most laypeople think in terms of evolution working one mutation at a time; we're all familiar with the examples of beneficial mutations (the vast majority of these are also deleterious mutations in that they create adaptive benefits in an organism by breaking a molecular toggle, binding sites, and so on), but this is not actually how mutation and selection works, as I explain in my previous post.
So yeah, anyway... Sausages...
I haven't had them in ages.
I used to enjoy the odd full English breakfast.I enjoy a good banger
Genetic entropy isn't a mystery. Is is a creationist crock of shit.
I assume you are talking about Sandford's "The Mystery of the Genome". This rubbish is largely based on easily discredited creationist arguments. The chap who writes this blog has spent far too much time debunking this creationist propaganda.
http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com.au/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-i.html
http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/mystery-in-comments.html
http://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com.au/2006/10/review-of-mystery-of-genome-ii.html
Last edited:
Sanford's arguments are based on the population models, and are certainly not baseless. You shouldn't label critiques of evolutionary theory as propaganda; I used to be a firm atheist and a devoted believer in Darwinian evolution. I spent years of my life studying the subject. It is not nearly as straight forward as the popularisers would like to make out.
But let's get back on subject, after a long detour.
By the way, that's a very poor critique; it doesn't even scratch the surface of Sanford's arguments, merely goes off on a rant in the second link about how he was unable to read beyond the first two chapters because it was so bad. The part of Sanford's argument he did address focused on the analogies Sanford used, not the science he deals with extensively within the pages of the book. There's a lot of projection and appeals to authority (that he teaches the subject to undergrads and graduates. You might want to look up Sanford's qualifications in this case) within this blog. Why are evolutiuonary biologists always so angry and withering? I find it quite amusing. If I didn't believe anything, you would certainly not convince me of the theory with rhetoric like this.
Last edited:
I think they are full of shit, if that was right 90% of the people in Texas will die with cancer. If they say pollution is the main cause of cancer (plus all the chemicals they dump in processed food).
I'm surprised why they don't say fried food raises the chance for cancer
That's exactly what I was saying. He misinterpreted me due to a typo hence the confusion in the following posts.
It does far more than scratch the surface. It utterly dismantles his baseless arguments. There are a large number of uttery and demonstrably wrong "facts" in his book but the largest turd in the bowl is that he thinks that positive mutations aren't selected for. They are and there is a huge and overwhelming amount of evidence demonstrating this.
I don't care what his qualifications are because since he was a genuine scientist he has converted to being a born again creationist lunatic spouting baseless pseudo science.
BTW you can't believe in evolution. No faith is required, just evidenced based understanding.
The reason that scientist get a bit snippy is that people who spout agenda based rubbish without evidence and then demand to be taken as seriously as people who have spent their lives actually investigating and understanding things are hugely irritating and insulting. Basically assertions of unicorn existence are annoyingly stupid. Worse still pseudo science does huge harm. Witness the hugely harmful anti-vax movement.
Last edited:
That isn't true; you don't understand Sanford's argument because you haven't read his work or you lack comprehension. You're taking somebody else's word (somebody who hasn't read the book either) because he has a set of qualifications in biology. I used to do that as well.
Come down from all the sanctimonious claptrap; I've heard it all before. Sanford is a scientist with a lifetime's experience (in the field by the way, not just as a student of the literature like most popularisers). He's allowed an interpretation of data as much as anybody else is.
Unicorns do exist, by the way. Look up the etymology of the word. Study and use your own brain. I don't care what conclusions you come to, since only you are responsible for your life choices, but it would be wise to approach all things with a caution that comes from humility and humility in turn from honesty.
He is no longer a scientist because he has substituted the scientific method for pseudoscientific creationist "intelligent" design claptrap. He is an intelligent man who has chosen to be an idiot.
And I do understand his arguments. It is just that the evidence makes me understand that he is completely and utterly wrong.
You do know that he believes that the universe is less that 100,000 years old? Anyone who holds such silliness to be true can't be trusted on anything IMO. TBH I doubt I'd let him park my car.
And yes, I know enough latin and (sadly) have enough biblical knowledge to know what you are talking about, just as you know I was talking about one of these.
And I do understand his arguments. It is just that the evidence makes me understand that he is completely and utterly wrong.
You do know that he believes that the universe is less that 100,000 years old? Anyone who holds such silliness to be true can't be trusted on anything IMO. TBH I doubt I'd let him park my car.
And yes, I know enough latin and (sadly) have enough biblical knowledge to know what you are talking about, just as you know I was talking about one of these.
And just to set a few points unclear about the OP
@Mutter Merkel
I'm not very familiar with this guy or his work.
What does he say about gene duplication, which would allow mutations to accumulate without a fitness cost?
What about the specific HbS gene for sickle cell, which provides malaria protection?
Does he really think random mutations will always lead to death before a beneficial mutation appears? Selection can work on some really tiny effects, the advantage of lactase persistence was some fractions of a percent but it has been fixed very rapidly. I mean, in-vitro selection can be done in a few generations---and produces amazing enzymes.
EDIT: Just found this
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/
Seems like he doesn't mention duplication
Also, can't believe I didn't mention Richard Lenski's awesome experiment!
I'm not very familiar with this guy or his work.
What does he say about gene duplication, which would allow mutations to accumulate without a fitness cost?
What about the specific HbS gene for sickle cell, which provides malaria protection?
Does he really think random mutations will always lead to death before a beneficial mutation appears? Selection can work on some really tiny effects, the advantage of lactase persistence was some fractions of a percent but it has been fixed very rapidly. I mean, in-vitro selection can be done in a few generations---and produces amazing enzymes.
EDIT: Just found this
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/
Seems like he doesn't mention duplication
Also, can't believe I didn't mention Richard Lenski's awesome experiment!
Last edited:
To summarise a review of this book.
"It's utter bollocks".
I suspect I wasted more words there than it deserved.
Certainly seems so!
The thing is, there was a paper* on evolution of a particular gene using gene duplication which was one of the triggers that convinced me to switch from chemistry to genetics. So gene duplication is literally the first thing I think of whenever I see a bio problem...
*From a prof at Wis-Mad. I was rejected by U Wis-Mad for a phd, I still carry that paper around like a jilted lover
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06151.html my genetics porn
Gene duplication is awesome and if I remember correctly a major facilitator of evolution.
Seems we have several geneticists here. I must confess, I struggle with genetics. I'm a protein kinda guy.
Poor @berbatrick I was jilted by a few too.
Poor @berbatrick
I was jilted by a few too.i would have thought it was kinda irrelevant if sausages give you cancer or not, surely the fact that contain nothing but shit off the floor, would have been a more off putting. Ask a Butcher if he eats them, and then ask him why.
I honestly am puzzled by the person who has a fry up, followed by a cigarette, after a night out drinking (most of the people I work with) who harp on about how tragic Cancer is, and how its not fair. Surely common sense tells you, that what you put into your body has an effect somewhere down the line.
I honestly am puzzled by the person who has a fry up, followed by a cigarette, after a night out drinking (most of the people I work with) who harp on about how tragic Cancer is, and how its not fair. Surely common sense tells you, that what you put into your body has an effect somewhere down the line.
Every state has its very own problems. Drive through NJ and look at the oil refineries, DE and their chemical plants, WV and their coal mines, the smog in CA etc.
My wife's old man is from a long line of butchers and wouldn't think twice about eating a sausage.
The smoking thing, I get but the occasional fry-up is unlikely to make a huge difference. Binge-drinking probably does a lot more harm than the recovery fry-up anyway.
Is this thread still about meat and cancer ?
Blame the creationist for attracting the biologists!
I ran from chemistry/proteins to genes - so much easier! I can't deal with structure.Seems we have several geneticists here. I must confess, I struggle with genetics. I'm a protein kinda guy.
Poor @berbatrick
I said Texas because they eat and shit meat 24 hours a day and if red meat gives cancer then they would be in first place.
I know. My counter point was you can't tease that out of the data as many other things cause cancer as well. Things that may not be a problem in Texas but are in other states. Several states have radon problems, for instance. I must admit though, I half expected to see higher rates of cancer in Texas due to meat consumption, BBQ (grilling and smoking), and oil refineries.
I saw a map showing the states with more cancer are on the east side of the country but then they are the states with more pollution plus smoking and obesity is a big factor for high levels of cancer.
Going back to New Jersey they have 3 nuclear power plants and several coal plants and the one in Lacey had some health issues because people living around the plant have high levels of cancer.
Last edited:
The more things same the more they remain the same.
Amazing isn't it. And before these reports cane out, smoking was being touted as good for your health.
The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off.
Lifestyle is just one element of cancer, genes are a far bigger one.
I look forward to seeing you rock up at work on Monday on your high horse.
Surely lifestyle can play a role in reducing the risk ?
Of course it can, it's just not the biggest factor.
Expanding things beyond just cancer, I'd imagine diet is also factor behind the likes of heart disease, obesity, diabetes etc. Basically, food can be poison or it can be medicine, depending on the choices you make.
totally agree, having T1 diabetes I'm very aware of the effects of diet contributing to the rest. Exercise is massively important
Excellent interview, she answers most of the questions raised here:
http://www.lamag.com/digestblog/a-s...rning-questions-about-carnivorism-and-cancer/
http://www.lamag.com/digestblog/a-s...rning-questions-about-carnivorism-and-cancer/
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Seems like I miss missed this thread initially. Your are what you eat. Can't keep eating clearly unhealthy or low quality food and expect no consequences.