Age and Down Syndrome?

For the last time, my entire position is just that damage is not a good word to use in this context. Damage is simply not the correct terminology! That's all I'm saying, for God's sake!

"Look it up" isn't synonymous with "Google it".And is it? Is "normal" defined as what the gene did before the mutation? Isn't that gene, then, abnormal based on what it is a mutation of?It isn't what it was before, but is that necessarily "damage"? I understand where you are coming from and don't doubt your knowledge, I'm just saying that damage is a poor word to use, because it implies certain things, like tampering. The way "damage" is usually used, it implies someone tampered with something and caused it harm.

I have no idea how to use the quote function. No one has told me. Remember, this is my 6th day on this site.What do you mean by "when a gene gets fixated"?I see your point, and there's nothing to argue about, because we are agreeing here that damage is a sloppy term

Okay, let's say there's a gene for, I don't know, having your legs be 45 inches. Now, the gene mutates and legs are only 43 inches. Is that damage? No, it is change. All I'm saying is that change is a better term here, if we want to be nit-picky. This is hardly about Faith anymore, is he even here still?

So because everyone else would call it damage, that makes it more correct? I would definitely call that detrimental, I just wouldn't say the word damage.

I'm not trying to, like, troll. I was making an argument for why using the word "damage" is not correct. Regardless of what the word actually means, it is how it is commonly used. For example, we use the word "peruse" to mean "skim over quickly" commonly, but it actually means to read something, usually quite thorough and careful way. Similarly, we use damage in a sense that it was tampered with by an outside force (like a small child, or a hurricane), even though it may mean something else. Do you see my point?

Who said that, and when? Please, go on and quote it. As I have said, "damage" in its most common usage implies tampering, and as far as I know, there isn't some little man in your DNA tampering with your genetic information.

I never said it had to be a human agent. Where'd that idea come from? I was simply reminding you that we had covered this ground before. And please quote me freely, because you seem to be lacking that. I mean, the least you could do is give examples!Anyway, all this argument is is terminology, and I'm frankly bored with it, so I probably won't respond much more, but just to clear this up: the way we usually use the term "damage" (as a verb, of course) implies a subject (e.g. I damaged that, the plane damaged the building, etc.). That isn't the case with genomes. There is no "I" damaging the genes and no plane crashing into them. I never said it had to be human!And I am fairly certain that UV radiation damages your skin CELLS. We are strictly talking about the genetic information.

I've provided an argument, and that argument was "using 'damage' to apply to genetic mutations is not a great thing to do, because 'damage' has connotations that shouldn't be applied". Somehow its been blown into this whole new thing, though. You still can't even tell me how damage is an okay word to use, other than the textbook definition which, if we know anything about language and humanity, is pointless because there are many words which we use differently than what the dictionary says.

No, no, I'm pretty sure I said this: Where is the study saying this? Who has ever asserted this? Where is your evidence, your statistics?I'm starting to think this is really stupid. We're arguing over a word that isn't even used in this thread's topic.

I actually misread your post. You said that "many" mutations were caused by the enviornment, not "most". That's my bad. I still have a problem with this, however:

I don't have to argue against it. You have to prove it to me. You made the claim, now back it up. I'm open to having my mind changed.

quote:

---

claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

​

-Hitchens (paraphrased)

---

"You claim the dictionary is wrong without citing any source. You claim that terminology is wrong without citing any examples of the terminology being used in the way you suggest. And then you don't see to recall the silly stuff you've posted and insist that I point quote back your folly to you."Firstly, I never said that the dictionary was wrong, I said that the dictionary form is somewhat, well, useless because people commonly use words almost oppositely than what they actually are supposed to mean (and yes, I did provide an example). Secondly, a perfect example of how 'damage' could be incorrect when talking about genetic mutations is that the word 'damage' as it is commonly used implies tampering, often times active and intentional tampering. Thirdly, I posted those quotes to remind you of things I have said, such as when you said that I was a re-hashing of someone else.I've never insisted that you quote me back! If I have, it was an accident, but I'd like it if you'd provide me with a quote of me doing so. (That was a postitve statement, so I'd like some backup)

Meh. Maybe you're right. But I'd like to get back to the what this thread was originally intended for.