Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Colds May Trigger Childhood Cancers

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the staying-in-a-bubble-until-you're-twenty dept.

Tiger4 writes "BBC News is reporting that the incidence of childhood cancers may be affected by the colds that child has had. From the Article: 'Scientists have found further compelling evidence infections such as colds may trigger childhood cancers. The University of Newcastle-led team looked at 3,000 childhood cancers in 0 to 14-year-olds from 1954 to 1998, the European Journal of Cancer reported. Researchers found unusual clusters of brain tumors and leukemia which were typical of infection-related disease.' As much as an 8 percent increase was observed. However, the article goes on to say that some risks go down with very early exposure to other children, 'In April, a Leukemia Research Fund study found that children introduced to nursery before the age of one were found to be at lower risk of leukemia.'"

43 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm,... by Bill+Wong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I personally think once more research is done into this, they're going to realize that it's not the colds themselves, but, people overmedicated their children with over the counter pills with doses larger then recommended...

    1. Re:Hmm,... by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must be a victim of spell-checker overuse during childhood.

    2. Re:Hmm,... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia starting in 1980. There is thought to be a viral and a genetic trigger for ALL in-addition to the environmental factors from carcinogens and radiation.

      In the years before I got cancer, I was never "overmedicated" or medicated at all for colds or the flu. Since all the OTC and perscription drugs for colds are tested and none of them cause cancer, I think you might be off base.

    3. Re:Hmm,... by xiao_haozi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although I do agree with the observation of over-medication in our society (e.g. the abuse of antibiotics and the catalyzed evolution of resistant strains of bacteria), the most likely causation here is from the actual viral infection. The corona virus (i.e. "common cold") has been shown to utilize very unique and distinct replication strategies which may be causing the mutations that would lead to increased susceptibility of tumor develop. As is stated in a later comment in these topic, HPV viral expression patterns have been shown to be linked to almost all cervical cancers. There is most likely some such related mechanism of cellular disruption causing either altered expression patterns in the cells of these children or mutations affecting the proteins that are responsible for regulating cell growth (hence tumor development). What is interesting, however, is that such situations have been shown in adults many times with various viral infections which is logical when one considers the risks of cancer related to age progression.

      --
      my site of misleading and incorrect information!
    4. Re:Hmm,... by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, so children today are overmedicated. How to you jump from that to this unfounded claim that they're causing cancer?

      I'll easily grant you that bacterial immunity of antibiotics is a very bad thing, but to make the audacious claim that it causes cancer is going a bit overboard, no?

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Hmm,... by Manchot · · Score: 3, Informative

      The thing about science is that your opinion does not change the facts.

      Fact 1: Cancer is caused by mutated cells run amok.
      Fact 2: Over-the-counter pills do not directly change your DNA. They are not overtly carciongenic, and even if they are carcinogenic in large quantities, the effects would take years to manifest. (Think about how long it takes most smokers to get lung cancer.)
      Fact 3: Cold viruses do change your DNA. Just because our bodies are used to fighting off various strains of the common cold, it doesn't make them any less mutagenic to individual cells.

      With these facts in mind, which is most likely to cause cancer? The weak drugs, or the cell-mutating virus? You offer no evidence to support your claim except for your social commentary. That is not science any more than Intelligent Design is.

  2. Living condition by biocute · · Score: 2, Funny

    If a kid has to suffer cold, most likely her family's financial condition is not good, therefore cannot provide a lot of necessary nutritions to her developing body. Could this be the cause too?

    --
    Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
    1. Re:Living condition by MagicDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know if you misunderstood it or not, but it's not about kids being cold, but about kids catching colds (most often rhinovirus infections). Regardless of financial status, kids are going to get sick now and then, particualy when they're young and their immune system is developing. In fact, being too sterile can lead to problems, as animals grown in germ free environments had severe developmental abnormalities in their GI tract, and died very rapidly upon removal from that environment. I read a paper recently which suggested that increases in general hygine and lowered pathogen prevalence in the US may be linked to an increase in the number of allergies people have today compared to previous generations, as it may be as a result of our immune systems not being as well developed from challaneges to it as our parents and grandparents were.

    2. Re:Living condition by sartin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A child that is forced into daycare (sometimes after six weeks!), is going to incurr many more illnesses than a child that has the benefit of a stay-at-home-parent.

      That certainly feels true, but is it? Does anyone have supporting data?

      At least one recent study suggests children who go to day younger get cancer less frequently. The study results summary:

      Increasing levels of social activity were associated with consistent reductions in risk of ALL; a dose-response trend was seen. When children whose mothers reported no regular activity outside the family were used as the reference group, odds ratios for increasing levels of activity were 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.87) for any social activity, 0.62 (0.51 to 0.75) for regular day care outside the home, and 0.48 (0.37 to 0.62) for formal day care (attendance at facility with at least four children at least twice a week) (P value for trend < 0.001). Although not as striking, results for non-ALL malignancies showed a similar pattern (P value for trend < 0.001). When children with non-ALL malignancies were taken as the reference group, a significant protective effect for ALL was seen only for formal day care (odds ratio = 0.69, 0.51 to 0.93; P = 0.02). Similar results were obtained for B cell precursor common ALL and other subgroups, as well as for cases diagnosed above and below age 5 years.

      The study authors conclude "These results support the hypothesis that reduced exposure to infection in the first few months of life increases the risk of developing acute lymphoblastic leukaemia." The "dose-response" trend means that higher levels of social activity correlated directly to lower incidence of ALL.

      ALL is acute lymphoblastic leukemia (aka acute lymphocytic leukemia and less commonly a couple of other "L" words as the second word), the most common childhood cancer. It's also the type of cancer my five year old son is being treated for. He went to daycare young, didn't get sick often (and still doesn't even though he is immunosuppressed from the chemotherapy), and was diagnosed a year ago after a period that did not include a cold. Of couse, our experience can't be extrapolated to trends of childhood cancer.

      As a side note, a standard part of the treatment for childhood ALL includes twice daily doses of an antifungal and thrice weekly doses of an antibiotic. Patients undergoing chemotherapy are prone to getting bacterial and fungal infections. Supporters of alternative explanations for "cancer" claim these prophylactic meds may be what "cures" the cancer.

      Everything I've heard from oncologists and other doctors indicates that early exposure to other children (e.g. daycare) tends to result initially in more minor illnesses and a stronger immune system with lower incidence of illness later.

  3. Cause or correlation? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is is also possible that the same children that have a weak immune system and get more colds would also be more susceptable to cancer? So both the colds and the cancer are effects of some other, 3rd cause.

    1. Re:Cause or correlation? by jzeejunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's funny when slashdotters make comments like this. I mean a lot of researchers do these studies for "living". Do you really think they don't think of such factors. Have some faith in science and scientists okay? Infact to quote the researcher in question

      These findings provide more clues to a link between viruses and some types of childhood cancer, but we need more evidence before we can be sure

      clearly indicates he needs further evidence.

      --
      sarchasm
    2. Re:Cause or correlation? by ChrisKnight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that the vast majority of cervical cancer turned out to be a result of HPV infection, it easily falls into the realm of possibility that other cancers have their roots in viral infections, such as colds, as well.

      -Chris

      --
      -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    3. Re:Cause or correlation? by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many Microsoft developers develop software for a living. Yet look at the crap that came out of there until fairly recently.

      Just because somebody does something for a living, even if they have numerous qualifications and credentials, does not mean that they are actually any good at it.

      It's just as easy for a trained scientist or doctor to overlook a flaw in their data or findings as it is for a programmer to dereference a NULL pointer.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    4. Re:Cause or correlation? by BewireNomali · · Score: 3, Informative

      agreed.... so to the incidence of stomach cancer relative to those who've had ulcers. Ulcers are now known to be caused by h.pylori infections, which are notoriously difficult to eradicate.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    5. Re:Cause or correlation? by Blazeix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I read the article, it doesn't actually quote one of the scientists as saying 'colds cause childhood cancer.' It seems to me that the media has once again sensationalized this, and mixed up correlation and effect. Next up: When children cry, scrapes appear!

    6. Re:Cause or correlation? by Cipster · · Score: 4, Informative

      No read the article. It wasn't just a simple correlation, there was also a spatial and temporal association. Pretty much cancer data overlapped with infectious data. Things like weak immune system etc. would lead to constant rates not clustered in both time and space.

    7. Re:Cause or correlation? by Cipster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since I can't edit I'll reply again. This is what I've based my comment on:

      The team found a pattern emerged where by the types of cancer repeatedly occurred at similar times and geographical locations, known as "space-time clustering". Disease caused by more constant environmental factors produce clusters of cases in one place over a much longer period of time.
      The way I read that is that there was a time/space correlation between those cancer "outbreaks" which made them look like infectious outbreaks. When you have a constant environmental or genetic factor as the cause you tend to get more uniform patterns of disease whereas an infectious etiology requires spatial and time correlations (this is required because the infection needs to be able to spread).

    8. Re:Cause or correlation? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's funny too how often researchers make outlandish claims and manage to write whole books about it when in fact their data or analysis are wrong.

      In this case it might be the problem with the reporting. The researcher should report what she or he found in fact based on data. In this case what the researcher you quoted said was exactly what the headline should have been. Between the "link" and "cause" is a big difference. So to jump from that to "cold triggers cancer" is big mistake.

      You might also want to consider that some of the Slashdotters are also researchers and not just "kewl" 16 year old "Hax0rz".

      Have some faith in science and scientists okay? That is exactly the wrong way to approach science. People shouldn't have blind faith in scientists, instead they should be educated enough to scrutinize them.

    9. Re:Cause or correlation? by penthouseplayah · · Score: 2, Informative

      h.pylori infections, which are notoriously difficult to eradicate.

      Eh, no. H.pylori are quite easy to eradicate using a 3-way cure of
      1: omeprazole or esomeprazol (ProtonPumpInhibitor)
      2: clarithromyzin
      3: metronidazole or amoxicillin

      to be taken daily for a week. If that is difficult, look up the cure for TB.

  4. Is that really the cause? by bwd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or are the frequent colds indicative of a weak immune system, which in turn gives way to cancer later in life? I bet if the study was conducted over a broader range of illnesses, they'd find that these children suffered from all kinds of ailments.

  5. genes? by boog3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you have genetic structures being manipulted in pre-pubescent humans? Is there such a thing as early-onset testicular or ovarian cancer? Something like that could affect the stem cells producting reproductive cells.

    If so, this could be concrete evidence of an evolutionary mechanism.

    --
    signatures are for fools with hands
    1. Re:genes? by boog3r · · Score: 2, Interesting
      How, in all of Hades, do you draw that conclusion?

      Because I, dear Sir, are slightly more knowledgable about the subject than you.

      Isn't any cancer a genetic mutation of sorts?

      Exactly my point! The idea behind testicular or ovarian cancer, however, is that it can affect the reproductive organs of an individual. This makes a larger difference in an individual that has yet to reproduce than in someone who has already reproduced.

      ...despite the age of the victim.

      Ah. But the age of the victim is all too important here. With a young enough victim of a non-fatal mutation, you can be sure that any reproducing they will do incorporates that mutation. This is more true in males, who continually generate new reproductive cells, than in females, who are born with all their reproductive cells already generated. In this case, males produce a longer-term target for mutation because any changes made to their reproductive stem cells will affect ALL of their sperm produced from that point. With females, only one ovum at a time will be affected by any mutations that occur, and any mutations that happen to their reproductive stem cells would need to occur before they are born to have any effect on their ova.

      I would think, if anything, that your arguement would demonstrate a sort of anti-evolution....one in which the subjects to not mutate for the betterment of its species.

      Evolutions' premise, IIRC, lay's in the belief that species will adapt to environmental and physical stimula to ensure survival. If there is not a need, then there is not a mutation.

      If there didn't need to be a need to cause a mutation...then we would have horn's growing out of our head, or feathers on our butt...or something almost as silly as your conclusion.

      You have no idea how evolution is supposed to work, so let me help you out a bit. Evolution is not something that an individual or species chooses to happen (except for humans). The idea of mutations being introduced into a population is what makes evolution actually work. These mutations are neither good nor bad, they just are. Where we are today, why we do not have feathers or horns was dependent upon a very very long process where certain mutations in populations were eliminated via death and certain mutations were accentuated via enchanced reproduction.

      Also, after you are done with your evolutionary reading assignment, I suggest you read about the use of the apostrophe. Specifically about its usage regarding pluralization and possessiveness.

      Have A Nice Day.

      --
      signatures are for fools with hands
  6. Viral causes for disease by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's interesting that for awhile, people were looking at genetic causes for various diseases such as cancer. Now we're back to the disease model, which turns out to also be due to genetics.

    Basically anything that fiddles with your DNA is quite dangerous, be it smoking or radiation and the like. Viruses modify the DNA of millions of cells, most of which are destroyed in the process. Unfortunately a few survive, which can cause mutations that lead to cancer.

    I suspect the early exposure to colds actually boosts a child's immune system. They're better able to fight off colds, so though they get more at a younger age, the ones they get later don't modify as many cells. Just a guess, of course. I doubt they'd approve a scientific study on modifying the DNA of small children.

  7. Another one by MasterPi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They keep doing more studies and whaddaya know... everything causes cancer. Except those things which prevent it of course. Its enough to make a man skeptical.

    --
    ( I
  8. signal to noise ratio? by blackcoot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    interesting research, but i'm not exactly certain how useful their data are.

    first off, the study only speaks to cancer rates in one very small (geographically speaking) portion of the world. the researchers themselves point out the importance of geography, so i'm not quite certain how they arrive at their conclusion that viral infections are linked. i'm not saying it's not possible, i'm just saying that it's a pretty common occurrance when running clustering algorithms to find that you're either converge to different solutions, your clusters actually split "natural" class boundaries, and so on. without seeing their cluster analysis results (and, in particular, what clustering algorithm they used), it's potentially easy to explain away their results as artefacts of the clustering algorithm.

    secondly, the article doesn't really go into great detail, but i'm not really convinced that there is a statistically significant variation here (or, rather, i'm not sure what the statistical significance of the variation is). 8% isn't really a whole lot -- certainly not in my line of work. i imagine that when dealing with human beings, most things in that ballpark of 10% can be explained away by looking at the population variance. of course, i am not a doctor, i have no idea what their statistical methodology was, etc. etc. etc.

  9. EVERYONE suffers from colds. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you serious? Everyone gets colds, including the rich and the poor. Colds are a part of life, just as much as shitting and pissing are.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:EVERYONE suffers from colds. by HillaryWBush · · Score: 2, Funny

      As long as human mortality maintains its steady 100% average your statement is fact.

  10. Re:Not to mention cervical cancer by bwd · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not controversial. Most scientists believe that the only way for women to contract cervical cancer is to have HPV strains 6, 11, or 16 present. They're so sure about it that they believe cases in which HPV wasn't detected were due to an error in testing.

  11. Pathogens and genes by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A friend of mine, Greg Cochran, co-authored a paper a few years ago suggesting that pathogens, not genes, should be looked at as the possible cause for many fitness-reducing conditions. His reasoning was pretty simple: evolution gets rid of genes that reduce fitness.

    Along these lines, he suggests that homosexuality is best explained as a side-effect of some early childhood or pre-natal infection. The numbers simply don't work out for any genetic theory. (Such as the gay uncle who improves the fitness of his nieces and nephews.)

    1. Re:Pathogens and genes by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Homosexuality seems to hover at around 20% of the population, regardless of other factors. This would be reasonably consistent with the expected expression of a widespread simple recessive gene, where there is no selection FOR that trait.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  12. May depends on the virus specie by DrYak · · Score: 4, Informative

    First : The only thing that the article mentions is statistical correlation. As always repeated *THAT* doesn't constitute proof of causality. Experimental proof of the *processus* is necessary before reaching a conclusion, otherwise it may be anything else, including causes due to external 3rd factor (some other /.ers mentionned bad medication, defective immune system or poor socio-economic level. The article itselfs mentions this may depends on genetic factors), or even pure coincidence (this study hasn't been replicated yet).

    Second : There's a lot of virus that can cause cancer. They do this by inserting bogus genetic material into the cell that causes it to replicate, or that disables important anti-cancer genes at the point of insertion.
    Examples of such known viruses includes Human Papilloma Virus, of which some variants (although rarer in the western world) could cause cancer of the woman genitalia (to be precise : the cervix. It's a part of the uterus) and is routinely monitored by the gynecologist.

    Some of these viruses, like the Epstein Barr virus, may only manifest as "colds" or even be asymptomatic, specially in young children (Mononucleosis happens more to older children).
    So, most likely, cancer isn't caused by "common cold" (influenza, RSV, or a bunch of other common viruses and bacteria), but the increased numbers may be explained because some cancer-associated viruses may have "cold"-like symptoms. (Even if the "cancer" variant are rarer in europe than some other parts of the world, as far as I know)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  13. Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. by Seumas · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Intelligent Designer works in Mysterious Ways. Who are we to question? It's all part of the Intelligent Designer's plan. Cancer is probably just the Intelligent Designer's method of solving the need for more angels in Heaven.

    At least, that's my understanding from watching crazy religious people any time tragedy strikes.

  14. Grossly misinformed! by modecx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Haven't you ever watched TV? The rich never shit or piss!

    They're obviously wealthy enough to have someone do it for them!

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  15. Re:Not to mention cervical cancer by xiao_haozi · · Score: 2

    I just wanted to say that this is a correct statement... I did research related to this (well actually vaccine development utilizing HPV E2 E4 proteins) a while back and the controversy of causation is almost non-existent. I can't remember the statistic, but almost ALL cervical cancer cells from patients have contained HPV genomic fragments incorporated into the cellular DNA.

    --
    my site of misleading and incorrect information!
  16. Yes... by eosp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just another excuse to stay home from school.

  17. Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Does anyone know the explanation for cancer offered by the Intelligent Design proponents? Why would an intelligent designer create something that was so susceptible? Also, why would an intelligent designer create materials that proved to be carcinogenic? After all, an intelligent designer could just as well design such substances to not have such harmful properties.

    Not to support ID, but probably as a form of negative feedback. You don't want your creations populating your planet out of control. If you've ever written predator/prey population simulations, you know what I mean.

    I'm a staunch evolutionist, but "Why would God do X?" questions are not the way to fight Creationism. You are trying to claim you know what some immense superbeing would optimally do when creating a self-sustaining planetary ecosphere, and that's actually worse than the ID-ers arguments.

    Haven't you ever triggered and earthquake or flood in SimCity just to see what happens? ;-)

  18. Antibiotics, fungus and cancer by tigerflag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A number of researchers over the years discovered that what was being called cancer was in fact fungal infections, and tumors were masses of fungal cells. Fungi behave the same way "cancer" does: they change the DNA of their host cells, they cause oxygen-breathing cells to become anaerobic instead, relying on fermentation for their nutrition, etc.

    Antibiotocs kill the beneficial bacteria that keep fungus in check. Cancer rates started to explode after WWII, concurrent with the rise of antibiotic use. It could be that what we're seeing is actually an explosion of fungal infections, but interest in studying and testing for fungus waned as scientists became enthusiastic about studying bacteria, viruses and retroviruses.

    Many people seemingly come down with cancer after experiencing an illness for which they took antibiotics. Since many doctors and parents still insist on giving antibiotics to children with colds, there "could" be a connection. Many illnesses that doctors still give antibiotics for may actually be fungal infections, and the infection remains after the course of antibiotics runs out. Sinus infections come to mind. At least 80% of sinus infections are actually fungal in nature, but the majority of doctors don't test for fungus or prescribe antifungals- they still give antibiotics instead. There are other ways to "catch" a fungus; antibiotics are only one way.

    A number of children with leukemia that develop "secondary" fungal infections have gone into remission as a result of the antifungal medication they received. What if their problem was never cancer in the first place, but was a fungal infection to begin with? If you want more information about this, I HIGHLY recommend a book by Doug Kauffman called "The Germ that Causes Cancer". It has a lot more scientific documentation in it than the cheesy title would indicate.

    1. Re:Antibiotics, fungus and cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      At least 80% of sinus infections are actually fungal in nature

      Source? According to this Virtual Hospital article, Allergic Fungal Sinusitis accounts for "5% to 10% of cases of chronic sinusitis requiring surgical intervention". From the article, it sounds like the fungal infections tend to be worse than the bacterial ones, so it'd be less than 5-10% of all sinus infections.

    2. Re:Antibiotics, fungus and cancer by LothDaddy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yeah, great link (sarcasm). It actually states that:

      Fungi are closely related to bacteria.

      That is completely WRONG. In reality, we've learned that (true) fungi, things like bread mold (Rhizopus), black mold (Stachybotrus and Aspergillus), etc. are more closely related to animals (and yes, we are officially "animals") than bacteria.

      This is why bacterial diseases of animals are (relatively) easy to control with antibiotics. We can take seriously "powerful" inhibitors of bacterial biological processes (e.g. protein synthesis) because they do not affect us. In comparison, talk to someone who's had to take medication for a systemic fungal infection, it is basically chemotherapy.

      Say it with me people: Animals, plants and fungi are Eukaryotes. Bacteria are Prokaryotes. Viruses are not "alive". These are much different organisms.

  19. I think a few colds.. by teknomage1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think a few colds causing Childhood Cancer are a small price to pay for the continual protection from Martian Invasion that the common cold provides us.

    --
    Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
  20. Faith has no place in science by Albinoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "faith in science and scientists"

    Science is science because its based on doubt. I also immediately went for the third conclusion. Perhaps something is depressing the immune system, while weakening you enough for the cold may lead you to another infection. Perhaps its a hormonal problem, which often affects the immune system too, that is overstimulating cell growth in that region for a prolonged period. Maybe it is the previously mentioned overmedication, or a certian type of medication even. All that theyve proven at this point is that its more than coincidental that the two are found together. Faith only leads you to erroneous conclusions.

  21. Or causality? by leonbrooks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Children with weak immune systems are susceptible to both colds and cancer?

    William of Ockham would agree with me. (-:

    Either way, don't feed them crap: breast-feed for as long as reasonably possible, then get them into eating their food as fresh, raw and un-tinkered-with as possible (a tactic which admittedly might not go down well amongst meat lovers).

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  22. Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. by nusuth · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm a staunch evolutionist, but "Why would God do X?" questions are not the way to fight Creationism. You are trying to claim you know what some immense superbeing would optimally do when creating a self-sustaining planetary ecosphere, and that's actually worse than the ID-ers arguments.

    You are mixing two things up. The maker in the ID is unspecified. The only thing assumed about her is she made life on Earth. It is quite arrogant to claim you spotted one of her mistakes as that implies you know how to design a complete ecosystem better than her. This is just what is wrong with ID, no scientific argument can falsify it (short of designing a brand new ecosystem not modelled after Earth, performing better than Earth on some objective basis.)

    OTOH, Creationism's designer is already specified. He has some characteristics that doesn't allow him to do all stuff he wants to (eg. he can't possibly select random souls for eternal damnation, that wouldn't in character.) So, it is possible to attack creationism with arguments about design flaws in living beings. That would just be biological version of problem of evil.

    --

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!