In article <[email hidden]>,
Anth said:A disorder is a disorder be it 100% 50% 10% be it metabolic nutritional or
whatever.
No it isn't, and your constant repeating it does not make it so.
Quoted message said:
You'll be telling me that the current cancer trends are leading to a trait
for diseased humans next....
No, because not 100% of humans get cancer.
Quoted message said:(Of course you pass that off as irrelevant because it's not the case yet.)
No, I pass it off as irrelevant because it IS irrelevant--just as
irrelevant as your trying to define the lack of the necessary enzyme as
a "disorder" or "deficiency" because other mammalian species happen to
have that particular enzyme and hence never get scurvy and because there
is evidence that ancestors to [censored] sapiens may have had that enzyme
sometime in the distant past but lost it during evolution.
Quoted message said:The fact is that you quote scurvy as not being a disorder, but a trait which
it is a metabolic disorder.
No, scurvy is a specific disease caused by the lack of a specific
nutritional component that the human body needs to maintain its normal
physiological functioning, namely ascorbic acid (a.k.a. vitamin C).
Becasue 100% of humans lack the enzyme to make ascorbic acid, 100% of
humans need a certain minimal amount of vitamin C in their diet. Because
100% of humans lack the enzyme, in humans
Quoted message said:
Here's more proof :-
By definition, a disorder is a lack of order, thus scurvy (the end result of
a metabolic disorder) is caused by an imbalance.
That is not "proof." That is sophistry based on playing with semantics.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
