Why deny only one part of science? IDists branch out into AIDS denial

Also, for the past several months, a large fraction of the UD posts have been global warming denial.

Yes, ignorance knows no bounds. Sad to see how the same lack of skepticism that rules ID is not limited to evolution.
Scientific ignorance indeed.

My visits to the lunatic fringes have convinced me that a new (to medicine) syndrome exists. It is variously called, polykookism, polycrackpotism, polydelusionalism, polyrealitydenialism, etc.. Some people seem to just collect as many delusions as possible and believe them all.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if a lot of creos also don't believe HIV causes AIDS, don't believe the holocaust happened, don't see global warming, believe the moon landings were faked, do believe that there is a nest of UFO aliens at area51, and many other odd, strange, and zero proof "theories".

After all, 20% of the US population still believes that the sun goes around the earth. I expect a new entry in the next edition of the DSM.

Some of these beliefs are harmless, whether there is a flying saucer factory under the Nevada desert or not isn't going to affect one's everyday life (I hope). Some of them are deadly. In the last year alone, we have seen two people decline modern medicine (cancer and hypertension) for alternative quackery. They are both dead way before their time.

We often ask them why the normal rules of evidence apply in computers, the germ theory of disease, rocketry, and not in phylogenetic evidence (which can hardly be epistemically based on unfathomable miraculous causes), fossils, and the extrapolation of known mutation and "selection" processes to explain not only the "micro" scale of change but also the "macro" scale of change---the two of which are very similar (speciation being the only difference "in kind").

Maybe they're taking our counsel to heart. First deny that HIV causes AIDS, that biology has anything to do with medicine (well, they're halfway there with evolution denial), then they can move on to levitation through meditation and telepathy. Why worry about our pathetic level of detail when magic can do it all?

Indeed, the latter has always been the implied message of ID. I applaud their consistency, where it exists, and urge them on to greater and greater consistency.

Come on Phillip Johnson, you know you want it. Why should evidence ever matter, when you have pompous lawyerly speeches which you have to replace all of that fussy detail nonsense that those "materialists" laughably concern themselves with.

Glen D
http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic

The ostensible "aneuploidly versus mutation" argument is an oversimplified straw man, and can only appeal to those quite ignorant of cancer biology. I'm going to simplify a bit, too, to make my point, but in a way that is non-deceptive. Biochemical and cell biological events that disrupt chromosome structure, typically in offsring cells during cell division, are obviously a type of mutation. It is primarily the resulting disruption of gene expression that leads to an abnormal phenotype, of course. Genes are disrupted, or removed from their regulatory environment in one chromosomal millieu and placed into an abnormal location. Constitutive expression of a gene which should be regulated, lack of expression of a regulatory gene, etc, can result. Arguing that disruption of chromosome structure is somehow distinct from disruption ("mutation") of genes and their regulatory elements is, in essence, a confession that one does not know what genes or chromosomes are. In lymphoma and leukemia, cancers of cells which are already circulating when normal, the resulting translocations frequently lead to the transposition of an oncogene. This link leads to promotional material for a commercial lab, but it discusses several example translocations quite nicely. http://www.invitrobiotec.de/pdf/chromotrans_en.pdf With solid tissue cancers, the situation is more complex. By the time a clone of solid tissue cells has become metastatic, it has undergone an enormous number of abnormal genetic events. Cancer is clearly analagous to evolution. A population of genetically variant cells emerges, which is free from the controls of multicellularity. The individual cells enjoy a selective advantage, relative to cells that "obey the rules" (not necessarily by dividing faster). They are able to consume a disproportionate amount of the available resources, and to some degree "take over". Eventually, the cancer cells "foolishly" destroy their own environment (in this case, the individual multicellular organism), and go extinct. It is conceivable that chromosome structure alone might have some gene-independent effect, but there is no reason to think that this would be major. ID jacka$$es are remarkably deficient in any idea of what they are talking about. They repeatedly show that even basic biochemistry and genetics are utterly unknown

My visits to the lunatic fringes

Torbjorn: ......have turned to the dark side!

My take as a cancer researcher on Duesberg's chromosomal aneuploidy hypothesis:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/04/peter_duesberg_chromosomal_chaos_and_can.php

Basically, Duesberg commits the cardinal sin of the crank in that to him it's all-or-nothing, either-or thinking. It's either mutation or aneuploidy. Of course, we in the cancer research biz know that there's no reason that both couldn't be major contributors to the development of cancer. There's little doubt that chromosomal derangements are big players in cancer, and there's lots of interesting research going on about it right now. However, Duesberg did not originate the concept, nor has he done particularly compelling work on the topic.

Re "polykookism, polycrackpotism, polydelusionalism, polyrealitydenialism, etc..'

pollywannacrackerism...

Henry

pollywannacrackerism

Cancer, (the unregulated, rapid growth of human cells) is caused when a cell loses it's program, and the cell replacing it also doesn't have the correct programming. Then the cell doesn't know what it's to do, or become, so it grows haywire, and so the the cells that replace it because they don't have the right code (program), either.

(Please, accept my apology for the run on sentence.)

Enzymes play an important part in keeping our cells healthy, which encompasses our cells keeping their proper programming.

There is, of course, a lot more to cancer than this, but this is the mechanism going on in most, if not all cancers, at the basic cellular level.

If anyone would like more clarification, please ask.

Then the cell doesn't know what it's to do, or become, so it grows haywire, and so do the cells that replace it, because they don't have the right code (program), either.

Cancer, (the unregulated, rapid growth of human cells) is caused when a cell loses it's program

If anyone would like more clarification, please ask.

Cancer, (the unregulated, rapid growth of human cells)

is caused when a cell loses it's program,

and the cell replacing it also doesn't have the correct programming.

Then the cell doesn't know what it's to do, or become, so it grows haywire, and so the the cells that replace it because they don't have the right code (program), either.

(Please, accept my apology for the run on sentence.)

Enzymes play an important part in keeping our cells healthy, which encompasses our cells keeping their proper programming.

There is, of course, a lot more to cancer than this, but this is the mechanism going on in most, if not all cancers, at the basic cellular level.

If anyone would like more clarification, please ask.

1. "Rapid Growth" meaning rapid cell division.

2. "Cell loses it's program". For example, when a viral gene is encoded into the cell, it "loses" it's original program, since the expressed genetic encoding has now changed.

3. "The cell replacing it." Meaning when the cells encoding has changed, the cell now multiplies and divides with the new genetic coding.

4. "Grow haywire" means that the newly formed cell dosn't grow or function the way the original healthy cell did, resulting in tumors & other cancerous growths.

5. "Enzyme": A complex protein produced by living cells that promotes a specific biochemical reaction by acting as a catalyst.

6."How do enzymes help cells keep their proper programming?"
Answer: For example, Proline Dehydrogenase is an important cancer-preventing enzyme in the human body.

Quote: "Proline dehydrogenase is important because it plays a role in apoptosis, the process of cell death, by enabling the creation of superoxide, a highly reactive electron-rich oxygen species. Superoxide is involved in the destruction of damaged cells and therefore is important in preventing the development and spread of cancer."
REF: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=70799

If cells "keep their proper programming" then they do not turn into cancer cells. I realize I did not word this quite right. Sorry.

___________________________________________________________
To the other guy Torb: Gosh, jus' 'cause I don't use big words, does that make me stupid???