As paraphrased in the article, Davies&#x27;s claims appear either misleading or lacking substantive content.  (When he says &quot;activating ancient genes&quot; does this just mean &quot;activating genes that are inactive in some cell types but have been strongly preserved because they are used in other cell types&quot;? If so, how is this different than the mainstream understanding of cancer?)  However, the best criticism I&#x27;ve been able to find keeps getting bogged down in disputes over terminology, e.g., <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;scienceblogs.com&#x2F;pharyngula&#x2F;2012&#x2F;11&#x2F;20&#x2F;aaargh-physicists-again&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;scienceblogs.com&#x2F;pharyngula&#x2F;2012&#x2F;11&#x2F;20&#x2F;aaargh-physici...</a> .