All cancer is not caused by DNA

First, Curious78 seems to imply that only nDNA is relevant in this debate. The prompt clearly states that the question is whether DNA causes cancer. Both mDNA (AKA mtDNA) and nDNA are DNA, and thus both are relevant. Curious78 erroneously says, "Note that Trarc refused to use DNA to explain Mitochondrial dysfunction." There is no "refusal." I already explained that all eight hallmarks of cancer are caused by DNA. To be even more explicit, quoting the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, "Mitochondrial diseases are the result of either inherited or spontaneous mutations in mtDNA or nDNA which lead to altered functions of the proteins or RNA molecules that normally reside in mitochondria." [1] For this reason, genetic theory does explain all of the 8 hallmarks. This is a major blow to Curious78's argument, which hinges on mitochondrial dysfunction. It also disproves another one of his claims. Genetic theory explains mitochondrial dysfunction using genetic mutations. It seems contradictory that Curious78, even knowing this, writes that "genetic theory doesn't explain mitochondrial dysfunction." Curious78 also claims: "To say we don't have the technology is incorrect, we have the ability to map the entire genetic code of a cancer cell, the problem is, when we have, no consistent combination has been found, hence why only 60% of p53 gene mutations were found in cancers tested and 25% of RAS genes." Curious78 is correct that we can map human DNA, but as I said before, doctors have only successfully analyzed parts of our DNA. The difference between mapping and successfully analyzing DNA is the difference between being able to copy Latin and understanding it. DNA is varied and complex, and we simply do not understand DNA well enough to know what how each and every segment of DNA affects cell function. For this reason, the claim "even if several genes code for cell death, at least one of these would need to be found to be mutated..." seems reasonable, except we do not know what those genes are. The cell's inner workings are intricate, and in general, the more complex a structure is, the more ways there are for things to go wrong. For example, there are many ways for a cell to evade apoptosis. Perhaps the command protein was defective, the cell was unable to recognize that it needed to die, or the apoptosis process was interrupted. This translates to there being many possible genetic mutations that would result in a cell evading apoptosis. And again, we simply do not know what all of those genes are. Curious78 also, in the above quote, cites that many cancer genes appear at a low rate in cancer. What if a cell only needed any 100 of a pool of 100,000 mutations to turn into cancer? This would explain ever lower percentages than what Curious78 provided, and it means there could be a truly great variety of cancers with different mutations. Unless Curious78 can prove that this is not the case, this thwarts his attempt to disprove genetic theory. Unfortunately for him, the answer is simply that we don't know, since, again, this goes back to our lack of understanding of DNA sequences. Curios78's section on nagalase proves little, and is based on a misunderstanding. The section of DNA that codes for nagalase gives the blueprint for that protein. Because of this, if there were a mutation in that gene, the result would be a defective protein. In other words, Curious78 is very correct that cancerous cells with high nagalse production would not have this mutation, because if there were such a mutation, it would result in defective or less nagalase, not more. Curious78 had a section where he attempted to refute my claim that "DNA controls everything in the cell." However, his refutation is based soley on a pedentic technicality: I think it was obvious I did not mean external factors. Of course DNA can't control toxins, viruses, or radiation. However, Curiosity78 does not give any internal examples, which is fatal. It is like arguing "If you are trapped in a room, you can't move your body. This means you don't have full control over your body," which is false. So my question to Curious78 is this: what internal factors doesn't DNA control? Proteins, which are controlled by DNA, command cell functions. Curious78 would have to explain a new mechanism for cell function. [1] http://www.umdf.org...