Ever hear of Inflammatory Breast Cancer ?
http://www.cancervids.com/play.php?vid=316
everyone needs to be aware of this. good link to share.
Please know that there are over 200 different types of cancer besides IBC or breast cancer . .. . you shouldn’t just be checking your breasts for ‘a lump’ . . you should be checking your entire body.
Is natural selection proven wrong?
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Natural_selection.pdf
‘THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG’
1 the cambrian explosion proves NS wrong as darwin noted
quote
.The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)
gould note nothing has changed since darwin
quote
Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…” (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)
and dawkins notes nothing has changed since darwin and the cambrian explosion gives weight to creationist argument
quote
It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229).
2) NS is
quote
”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”
note it says harmful traits become rare in the population- harmful meaning not good for survival or reproduction
but dean points out that there are common harmful genes in the population that affects survival and reproduction ie the common genes for breast cancer kill child bearing age women and their childbearing age daughters -you cant say once the mother has given birth she is irrelevant to NS because if all mothers died then there would be no one to look after the kids so they would die and the human species would die out
there are many genetic disorders which are common in the population but NS says rather than be common they should be rare
quote
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/sum…
“2001 MAY 25 – (NewsRx Network) — New research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.
The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more than two-thirds of all children admitted to a large full-service pediatric hospital over a one-year period.
Moreover, regardless of reason for admission, children whose underlying disorder had a strong genetic basis tended to be hospitalized longer, with charges for their care accounting for 80% of total costs.”
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/Ge…
“There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis”
quote
MORE EVIDENCE
these genes are harmful as they can lead to the death of the person –even child bearing women
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/defaul…
“But it is possible to be born with a gene fault that may cause cancer. This doesn’t mean you will definitely get cancer. But it means that you are more likely to develop cancer than the average person”
“The first breast cancer gene faults to be found were BRCA1 and BRCA2. These faults don’t mean you have cancer, or you definitely will get cancer but women with these genes have a 50 to 80% chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetime. We now know of other genes that significantly increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. They are called TP53 and PTEN. Genetic tests are available to women with a high risk of having changes in their BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 or PTEN genes.
“Researchers have found other common genes that can slightly increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. These are called CASP8, FGFR2, TNRCP, MAP3K1 and LSP1. No tests are available to find these genes yet.”
“Rare genes that can also increase breast cancer risk slightly include CHEK2, ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated), BRIP1 and PALB2. No tests are available for these genes yet”
“With particular groups of women, there are very common specific gene faults. Ashkenazi Jewish women tend to have one of 3 very particular gene mutations”
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=breastc…
“Hereditary cancers are those associated with inherited gene mutations. Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts”
“BRCA1 and BRCA2 are major genes related to hereditary breast cancer. Women who have inherited certain mutations in these genes have a high risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian ca
There may be another reason for the Cambrian explosion, namely that Earth’s oceans were a wide open market for complex life forms, initially without much by way of already established food chain. A power vacuum, sort of, with species evolving madly to fill it up and find their position in the biting order. There were no “sharks,” at first, to prevent certain other fish to evolve into becoming “sharks.”
Most studies now seem to show that many different factors affect how a species changes over time and what causes speciation. There is no one golden rule, as the above situations show. Its a mix of natural selection, sexual selection, random mutations, genetic influence and environmental influences on gene expression, population isolation, massive enviromental shifts, gradual enviromental shifts, random genetic drift, with other influences aswell that will be discovered in the future or that i just havent read about yet.
What you get know is a bunch of narrowed minded fools, who think that if you disprove a theory. it somehow adds strength to your own….. which is not scientific at all. If you want to prove your theory, you have to prove your theory! Disproving an old evolutionary method theory DOES NOT disprove evolution and it DOES NOT prove creationism. Some people need to go back to preshool and start again.
How about a series of fossil whales showing the migration of the nostrils to a position on top of the head which does exist. An intelligent designer of whales would have had to keep improving the nostril position over time by planting new improved species periodically like Chrysler coming out with new car models. There is no evidence of anybody or god that could do this and it seems to only exist as an idea kept alive by brain washing. Remember Santa Claus. It seems more reasonable that random mutations would have whales born with the nostrils more above the water line sometimes and sometimes lower to the water line. Then the obvious outcome.
Natural selection proven wrong-What do you think?
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Natural_selection.pdf
‘THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG’
1 the cambrian explosion proves NS wrong as darwin noted
quote
.The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)
gould note nothing has changed since darwin
quote
Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…” (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)
and dawkins notes nothing has changed since darwin and the cambrian explosion gives weight to creationist argument
quote
It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229).
2) NS is
quote
”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”
note it says harmful traits become rare in the population- harmful meaning not good for survival or reproduction
but dean points out that there are common harmful genes in the population that affects survival and reproduction ie the common genes for breast cancer kill child bearing age women and their childbearing age daughters -you cant say once the mother has given birth she is irrelevant to NS because if all mothers died then there would be no one to look after the kids so they would die and the human species would die out
there are many genetic disorders which are common in the population but NS says rather than be common they should be rare
quote
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-738782_ITM
“2001 MAY 25 – (NewsRx Network) — New research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.
The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more than two-thirds of all children admitted to a large full-service pediatric hospital over a one-year period.
Moreover, regardless of reason for admission, children whose underlying disorder had a strong genetic basis tended to be hospitalized longer, with charges for their care accounting for 80% of total costs.”
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/Genetic-Disorders.html
“There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis”
quote
MORE EVIDENCE
these genes are harmful as they can lead to the death of the person –even child bearing women
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5689
“But it is possible to be born with a gene fault that may cause cancer. This doesn’t mean you will definitely get cancer. But it means that you are more likely to develop cancer than the average person”
“The first breast cancer gene faults to be found were BRCA1 and BRCA2. These faults don’t mean you have cancer, or you definitely will get cancer but women with these genes have a 50 to 80% chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetime. We now know of other genes that significantly increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. They are called TP53 and PTEN. Genetic tests are available to women with a high risk of having changes in their BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 or PTEN genes.
“Researchers have found other common genes that can slightly increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. These are called CASP8, FGFR2, TNRCP, MAP3K1 and LSP1. No tests are available to find these genes yet.”
“Rare genes that can also increase breast cancer risk slightly include CHEK2, ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated), BRIP1 and PALB2. No tests are available for these genes yet”
“With particular groups of women, there are very common specific gene faults. Ashkenazi Jewish women tend to have one of 3 very particular gene mutations”
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=breastcancer
“Hereditary cancers are those associated with inherited gene mutations. Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts”
“BRCA1 and BRCA2 are major genes related to hereditary breast cancer. Women who have inherited certain mutations in these genes have a high risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian ca
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqyDRaWwaVKX88DO4mNwjVwjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20090430080523AA6ZHRd
> Natural selection proven wrong
Nope.
> 1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
It doesn’t, really. We don’t know what happened, but analysis of earlier fossils does suggest that Cambrian fauna was descended from earlier forms. As we find more fossils, we’ll fill in some of the missing pieces — and it’s unlikely we’ll find that God is a missing piece here.
> 2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
Mutation, isolation, genetic drift… and selection. Mutation makes new alleles.
> transmission of favorable triats so the fact that unfavorable traits
The unfavorable traits may not hamper reproductive ability. The “breast cancer gene” you keep mentioning has, historically, not prevented its carriers from having as many children, on average, as normal women.
> 4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species
Mutation, isolation, genetic drift… and selection. Mutation makes new alleles. Didn’t I say that before?
====
I copied my response from when I answered your question before. You know, God frowns on vain repetition. Stop asking this one.
Here’s what another responder said about Colin Leslie Dean, more than a year ago:
“What we know about Colin Leslie Dean is that he is a self-promoting wanna-be poet from Australia who posts queries here on YA (using fictitious profiles) about his own non-celebrity.
Which makes me wonder….is he at it again???”
* 6 days ago
**How did I eat today?????????????????????????????????…….?
Breakfast- 1 slice of whole grain bread, 2 scrambled egg whites, 1 cup of skim milk, 1 banana
=364 calories
Lunch- whole wheat pita bread, with 5 slices of turkey, 2 tbsp of an avocado, tomato, lettuce, mustard
=280 calories
Snack- 1 cup of nonfat plain yogurt with 5 strawberries, a handful of blueberries
=145 calories?
Snack-whole medium red bell pepper =30 calories?
Dinner- 4 oz chicken breast, 1/4 cup of brown rice, 16 steamed baby carrots, 6 steamed broccoli spears
=316 calories
Dessert- peach with 1/2 cup of low-fat cottage cheese and a sprinkle of raisins
=160 calories
it all came out to 1282..which is kinda low.. But I could of counted wrong and be much more.
I walked for 30 minutes, and I went on the elliptical for 20 minutes. I will do another 10 minutes on it tonight..So 30 minutes on the elliptical, I will do 100 squats (with 8lb dumbbells) and other toning exercises.
I also drank more than 8 glasses of water today..
**Should I put chick peas (110 calories) in with my brown rice??
Your meal plan today looked very good, very healthy but still not enough calories even to maintain your weight at the moment, especially with all that exercise and I would worry that you would continue to lose weight and end up in a very dangerous condition. Are you doing this alone or are you gatting help from anyone…a doctor, dietcian even a family member? Because although yes you can tackle it alone, it is so much easier to have someone to help you.
Okay so if you are doing it alone then you really need to battle and try and reduce your exercise a bit, even to begin with just cut 1 thing in half, the elliptical perhaps? Then just gradually increase your calorie intake. If eating big amounts scares you then try eating small but high calories and healthy food such as nuts, avacodos, cheese, seeds and protein bars. Try adjusting some of what you are eating aswell, perhaps by having whole milk, or if you cant do that just go for the midrange one instead of the skim one. The same for yogurts, try not to go for the fatfree ones. When your cooking use a little bit of olive oil, it will add some healthy calories and fat. When having salads add a dressing, even a low fat one and a sprinkling of nuts and seeds too. You are eating alot of fruit and veg which is great but you also need to add more protein and carbohydrates to your diet…1/4 cup rice isnt really enough for dinner, could you try 1/2 cup? And at breakfast could you have one more slice of bread? or even a very small portion of cereal maybe like 1 weetabix? And with your snacks could you add a little more protein, perphaps some nuts in the morning , a piece of cheese and a cracker in the afternoon? And try having something light in the evening for a snack before you go to bed, a cereal bar some popcorn or some dried fruit and seeds?
Just making little improvements like this will still be healthy and to be honest i dont think it will even make you gain, i think it would only maintain your weight.
I hope I have helped and I relally urge you to try and make some changes before its too late.
Good luck and take care!
Related Links
- Has Pelosi “played ball” with special interest, only days after trumpeting new ethics reform?
- leak-proof ideas for ice while flying for my injections?
- neighbor brings her kids to play when they have PINWORMS !?
- You are what you eat? I don’t understand. And how is a picture worth a thoudand words?
- Know what this movie is?
- My iPhone alarms aren’t working after Daylight savings time is over?
- Harry Potter fans and anyone else–What do you think?
- Are you a fan of the flight attendant that cussed out a passenger, grabbed a couple beers, and then exited?
- what does post dramatic stress syndrome feel like?
- Is it possible for people that have been arrested for domestic violence ever change?
If you cherry-pick quotes out of contect, you can appear to have evidence for almost anything. Gould differed from Darwin only in pushing punctuated equilibrium, rather than gradualism. He also had the advantage of being born after the rediscovery of Mendel’s work. He is hardly someone to be citing if you are looking for evidence against natural selection. Fot that you should go to people associated with “schools” like Liberty University.
If you are going to cite the increased risk of cancer with time, you should also note the age at which these cancers occur. Within historic time, people did not live long enough to get many cancers. This is not something I use as evidence of natural selection, though; it is an advance in medical technology.
The PDF paper you’re citing appears to be written by some 15-year-old poser who borrowed someone else’s name and credentials. No one with an MA degree (much less several of them) would write so badly, and put his real name on it.
> Natural selection proven wrong
Nope.
> 1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
It doesn’t, really. We don’t know what happened, but analysis of earlier fossils does suggest that Cambrian fauna was descended from earlier forms. As we find more fossils, we’ll fill in some of the missing pieces — and it’s unlikely we’ll find that God is a missing piece here.
> 2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
Mutation, isolation, genetic drift… and selection. Mutation makes new alleles.
> transmission of favorable triats so the fact that unfavorable traits
The unfavorable traits may not hamper reproductive ability. The “breast cancer gene” you keep mentioning has, historically, not prevented its carriers from having as many children, on average, as normal women.
> 4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species
Mutation, isolation, genetic drift… and selection. Mutation makes new alleles. Didn’t I say that before?
====
I copied my response from when I answered your question before. You know, God frowns on vain repetition. Stop asking this one.
Here’s what another responder said about Colin Leslie Dean, more than a year ago:
“What we know about Colin Leslie Dean is that he is a self-promoting wanna-be poet from Australia who posts queries here on YA (using fictitious profiles) about his own non-celebrity.
Which makes me wonder….is he at it again???”
Yes.