Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Senescence

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 4:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Senescence is basically cell and organism death. As our cells multiply, the telomeres at the ends of our DNA shorten, and limit how many times cells can mutate (usually about 50 times in vitro). Some organisms, like sharks and lobsters, don't experience this and thus do not experience "old age" in the sense that their survival-rates don't sink dramatically as they age - but just because they can potentially live for a very long time, doesn't mean they do. The Aspen colony called Pando is thought to be the oldest known organism, probably about 80,000 years old. However it isn't a discrete organism... there's a tree in California dated at about 4,500 years to claim that title.

While some plants would appear to be nearly immortal, I would argue that, without a complex brain like ours, there's little hope in extending the same definition of "alive" from a tree over us. There's never been a very good, very concise definition of an organism, and I don't think it's much more impressive that a colony of Aspens or a gigantic single tree can live forever than it is that an entire ecosystem lives forever. The essence of mortality is owned by the brain, not the vague and dubious definition of "organism" which is probably more to simply classify our size as opposed to define our essence (i.e., the classification of organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism, community). IOWs, the classification of "organism" might need to be further divided to reflect having a brain or not in order to accurately catalogue the differences between plants and animals.

It is thought that the reason senescence is built into our cells is because it has one distinct advantage - cells that cannot reproduce too many times won't tend to become malignant. Ironically, one pre-requisite for a cell to become cancerous is to turn off senescence so that multiplication can be limitless. It would seem then, that there is a fundamental aspect of cancer that it provides a balance to our mortality. Without an age-limit to our cells, cancer will be a great threat to our survival. The "magic" of cell-division, in which our bodies grow and replicate, is balanced out by the possibility that this growth will take off unchecked and overcome the order that gives us life in the first place. Life is death, and death is life - for a beings like us, the concept of immortality is useless. Cancer is not just a disease amongst thousands that happens to be terminal, it is the very entropy of our physical existence and you cannot remove it without removing the very magic that breathes life into us at every moment.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:24:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:25:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Senescence is basically cell and organism death. As our cells multiply, the telomeres at the ends of our DNA shorten, and limit how many times cells can mutate (usually about 50 times in vitro). Some organisms, like sharks and lobsters, don't experience this and thus do not experience "old age" in the sense that their survival-rates don't sink dramatically as they age - but just because they can potentially live for a very long time, doesn't mean they do. The Aspen colony called Pando is thought to be the oldest known organism, probably about 80,000 years old. However it isn't a discrete organism... there's a tree in California dated at about 4,500 years to claim that title.

While some plants would appear to be nearly immortal, I would argue that, without a complex brain like ours, there's little hope in extending the same definition of "alive" from a tree over us. There's never been a very good, very concise definition of an organism, and I don't think it's much more impressive that a colony of Aspens or a gigantic single tree can live forever than it is that an entire ecosystem lives forever. The essence of mortality is owned by the brain, not the vague and dubious definition of "organism" which is probably more to simply classify our size as opposed to define our essence (i.e., the classification of organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism, community). IOWs, the classification of "organism" might need to be further divided to reflect having a brain or not in order to accurately catalogue the differences between plants and animals.

It is thought that the reason senescence is built into our cells is because it has one distinct advantage - cells that cannot reproduce too many times won't tend to become malignant. Ironically, one pre-requisite for a cell to become cancerous is to turn off senescence so that multiplication can be limitless. It would seem then, that there is a fundamental aspect of cancer that it provides a balance to our mortality. Without an age-limit to our cells, cancer will be a great threat to our survival. The "magic" of cell-division, in which our bodies grow and replicate, is balanced out by the possibility that this growth will take off unchecked and overcome the order that gives us life in the first place. Life is death, and death is life - for a beings like us, the concept of immortality is useless. Cancer is not just a disease amongst thousands that happens to be terminal, it is the very entropy of our physical existence and you cannot remove it without removing the very magic that breathes life into us at every moment.

"Organism" is well-understood, actually. Having a brain has nothing to do with it. It doesn't even separate animals from plants, because not all animals have brains.

Senescence exists so that cells stop dividing when they don't need to. It is a normal part of the cell cycle. Cancer is usually not a problem for dividing cells, because there are many regulators that check for DNA damage and trigger apoptosis if it occurs. Cancer usually won't form unless there is damage AND the p53 tumour suppressor stops working.

I suggest that you brush up on your biology before drawing spiritual implications from it.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:31:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:24:49 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:25:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Senescence is basically cell and organism death. As our cells multiply, the telomeres at the ends of our DNA shorten, and limit how many times cells can mutate (usually about 50 times in vitro). Some organisms, like sharks and lobsters, don't experience this and thus do not experience "old age" in the sense that their survival-rates don't sink dramatically as they age - but just because they can potentially live for a very long time, doesn't mean they do. The Aspen colony called Pando is thought to be the oldest known organism, probably about 80,000 years old. However it isn't a discrete organism... there's a tree in California dated at about 4,500 years to claim that title.

While some plants would appear to be nearly immortal, I would argue that, without a complex brain like ours, there's little hope in extending the same definition of "alive" from a tree over us. There's never been a very good, very concise definition of an organism, and I don't think it's much more impressive that a colony of Aspens or a gigantic single tree can live forever than it is that an entire ecosystem lives forever. The essence of mortality is owned by the brain, not the vague and dubious definition of "organism" which is probably more to simply classify our size as opposed to define our essence (i.e., the classification of organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism, community). IOWs, the classification of "organism" might need to be further divided to reflect having a brain or not in order to accurately catalogue the differences between plants and animals.

It is thought that the reason senescence is built into our cells is because it has one distinct advantage - cells that cannot reproduce too many times won't tend to become malignant. Ironically, one pre-requisite for a cell to become cancerous is to turn off senescence so that multiplication can be limitless. It would seem then, that there is a fundamental aspect of cancer that it provides a balance to our mortality. Without an age-limit to our cells, cancer will be a great threat to our survival. The "magic" of cell-division, in which our bodies grow and replicate, is balanced out by the possibility that this growth will take off unchecked and overcome the order that gives us life in the first place. Life is death, and death is life - for a beings like us, the concept of immortality is useless. Cancer is not just a disease amongst thousands that happens to be terminal, it is the very entropy of our physical existence and you cannot remove it without removing the very magic that breathes life into us at every moment.

"Organism" is well-understood, actually. Having a brain has nothing to do with it. It doesn't even separate animals from plants, because not all animals have brains.

I know the definition of organism, it is nothing but a list of traits that we happen to see in all organisms. This suggests we still have not found the real categorization that is important.

Senescence exists so that cells stop dividing when they don't need to. It is a normal part of the cell cycle. Cancer is usually not a problem for dividing cells, because there are many regulators that check for DNA damage and trigger apoptosis if it occurs. Cancer usually won't form unless there is damage AND the p53 tumour suppressor stops working.

I suggest that you brush up on your biology before drawing spiritual implications from it.

I don't see how this paragraphs contradicts anything I said. Are you arguing against my claim that senescence probably evolved to avoid cancer?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:51:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:31:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:24:49 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:25:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Senescence is basically cell and organism death. As our cells multiply, the telomeres at the ends of our DNA shorten, and limit how many times cells can mutate (usually about 50 times in vitro). Some organisms, like sharks and lobsters, don't experience this and thus do not experience "old age" in the sense that their survival-rates don't sink dramatically as they age - but just because they can potentially live for a very long time, doesn't mean they do. The Aspen colony called Pando is thought to be the oldest known organism, probably about 80,000 years old. However it isn't a discrete organism... there's a tree in California dated at about 4,500 years to claim that title.

While some plants would appear to be nearly immortal, I would argue that, without a complex brain like ours, there's little hope in extending the same definition of "alive" from a tree over us. There's never been a very good, very concise definition of an organism, and I don't think it's much more impressive that a colony of Aspens or a gigantic single tree can live forever than it is that an entire ecosystem lives forever. The essence of mortality is owned by the brain, not the vague and dubious definition of "organism" which is probably more to simply classify our size as opposed to define our essence (i.e., the classification of organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism, community). IOWs, the classification of "organism" might need to be further divided to reflect having a brain or not in order to accurately catalogue the differences between plants and animals.

It is thought that the reason senescence is built into our cells is because it has one distinct advantage - cells that cannot reproduce too many times won't tend to become malignant. Ironically, one pre-requisite for a cell to become cancerous is to turn off senescence so that multiplication can be limitless. It would seem then, that there is a fundamental aspect of cancer that it provides a balance to our mortality. Without an age-limit to our cells, cancer will be a great threat to our survival. The "magic" of cell-division, in which our bodies grow and replicate, is balanced out by the possibility that this growth will take off unchecked and overcome the order that gives us life in the first place. Life is death, and death is life - for a beings like us, the concept of immortality is useless. Cancer is not just a disease amongst thousands that happens to be terminal, it is the very entropy of our physical existence and you cannot remove it without removing the very magic that breathes life into us at every moment.

"Organism" is well-understood, actually. Having a brain has nothing to do with it. It doesn't even separate animals from plants, because not all animals have brains.

I know the definition of organism, it is nothing but a list of traits that we happen to see in all organisms. This suggests we still have not found the real categorization that is important.

So... you object to the word "organism" because it describes all organisms? I would have though the important thing is that it distinguishes between organisms and non-organisms.

Senescence exists so that cells stop dividing when they don't need to. It is a normal part of the cell cycle. Cancer is usually not a problem for dividing cells, because there are many regulators that check for DNA damage and trigger apoptosis if it occurs. Cancer usually won't form unless there is damage AND the p53 tumour suppressor stops working.

I suggest that you brush up on your biology before drawing spiritual implications from it.

I don't see how this paragraphs contradicts anything I said. Are you arguing against my claim that senescence probably evolved to avoid cancer?

We don't know exactly why it evolved. Cancer avoidance is one possible reason, but there are others.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 10:48:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes it is plausible that senescence evolved to prevent unchecked cellular growth but cancer isn't an abstract phenonomen that balances our mortalitly. It is usually product of a change in one or more of the genes that produces abnormal proteins resulting in a faulty cell cycle control system.

It looks as though your trying to call cancer the reverse of senescence when it its really just an abnormality based in genetics. On the other hand, senescence seems to be prevalent in the human species and is possibly programmed into the genes or a result of the accumulative effect of biological processes.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 4:50:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:51:55 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:31:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:24:49 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:25:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Senescence is basically cell and organism death. As our cells multiply, the telomeres at the ends of our DNA shorten, and limit how many times cells can mutate (usually about 50 times in vitro). Some organisms, like sharks and lobsters, don't experience this and thus do not experience "old age" in the sense that their survival-rates don't sink dramatically as they age - but just because they can potentially live for a very long time, doesn't mean they do. The Aspen colony called Pando is thought to be the oldest known organism, probably about 80,000 years old. However it isn't a discrete organism... there's a tree in California dated at about 4,500 years to claim that title.

While some plants would appear to be nearly immortal, I would argue that, without a complex brain like ours, there's little hope in extending the same definition of "alive" from a tree over us. There's never been a very good, very concise definition of an organism, and I don't think it's much more impressive that a colony of Aspens or a gigantic single tree can live forever than it is that an entire ecosystem lives forever. The essence of mortality is owned by the brain, not the vague and dubious definition of "organism" which is probably more to simply classify our size as opposed to define our essence (i.e., the classification of organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism, community). IOWs, the classification of "organism" might need to be further divided to reflect having a brain or not in order to accurately catalogue the differences between plants and animals.

It is thought that the reason senescence is built into our cells is because it has one distinct advantage - cells that cannot reproduce too many times won't tend to become malignant. Ironically, one pre-requisite for a cell to become cancerous is to turn off senescence so that multiplication can be limitless. It would seem then, that there is a fundamental aspect of cancer that it provides a balance to our mortality. Without an age-limit to our cells, cancer will be a great threat to our survival. The "magic" of cell-division, in which our bodies grow and replicate, is balanced out by the possibility that this growth will take off unchecked and overcome the order that gives us life in the first place. Life is death, and death is life - for a beings like us, the concept of immortality is useless. Cancer is not just a disease amongst thousands that happens to be terminal, it is the very entropy of our physical existence and you cannot remove it without removing the very magic that breathes life into us at every moment.

"Organism" is well-understood, actually. Having a brain has nothing to do with it. It doesn't even separate animals from plants, because not all animals have brains.

I know the definition of organism, it is nothing but a list of traits that we happen to see in all organisms. This suggests we still have not found the real categorization that is important.

So... you object to the word "organism" because it describes all organisms? I would have though the important thing is that it distinguishes between organisms and non-organisms.

No, organism is simply the step between "organ system" and "community" on the hierarchy I gave earlier. It's a convenient distinction, but I fail to see the relevance of it when a human being is comparable to a virus. Humans have complex brains, and we should consider placing animals with brains in a higher category than something like grass, for instance. Senescence, then, would have a more powerful meaning because we could say that all "higher" organisms experience it. Right now, it's hard for me to make my argument when there's an 80,000 year old root a few thousand miles west of me :P

Senescence exists so that cells stop dividing when they don't need to. It is a normal part of the cell cycle. Cancer is usually not a problem for dividing cells, because there are many regulators that check for DNA damage and trigger apoptosis if it occurs. Cancer usually won't form unless there is damage AND the p53 tumour suppressor stops working.

I suggest that you brush up on your biology before drawing spiritual implications from it.

I don't see how this paragraphs contradicts anything I said. Are you arguing against my claim that senescence probably evolved to avoid cancer?

We don't know exactly why it evolved. Cancer avoidance is one possible reason, but there are others.

That's true, there could be another reason. But consider, for the moment, that cell-division is the essence of life - the process by which our parts create themselves, in a manner that is unparalleled in any other sense in the universe (unless we can make a 3D printer that can make and assemble another 3D printer, which as of yet is impossible). Our cells, through apparent necessity, chose to choke-off the very life essence they depend on. I don't find that coincidental... I don't find it likely that we are a series of technical innovations away from overcoming that fundamental hurdle. Cancer is a fundamental balance to life's ability to proliferate.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:08:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 4:50:40 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:51:55 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:31:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:24:49 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:25:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Senescence is basically cell and organism death. As our cells multiply, the telomeres at the ends of our DNA shorten, and limit how many times cells can mutate (usually about 50 times in vitro). Some organisms, like sharks and lobsters, don't experience this and thus do not experience "old age" in the sense that their survival-rates don't sink dramatically as they age - but just because they can potentially live for a very long time, doesn't mean they do. The Aspen colony called Pando is thought to be the oldest known organism, probably about 80,000 years old. However it isn't a discrete organism... there's a tree in California dated at about 4,500 years to claim that title.

While some plants would appear to be nearly immortal, I would argue that, without a complex brain like ours, there's little hope in extending the same definition of "alive" from a tree over us. There's never been a very good, very concise definition of an organism, and I don't think it's much more impressive that a colony of Aspens or a gigantic single tree can live forever than it is that an entire ecosystem lives forever. The essence of mortality is owned by the brain, not the vague and dubious definition of "organism" which is probably more to simply classify our size as opposed to define our essence (i.e., the classification of organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism, community). IOWs, the classification of "organism" might need to be further divided to reflect having a brain or not in order to accurately catalogue the differences between plants and animals.

It is thought that the reason senescence is built into our cells is because it has one distinct advantage - cells that cannot reproduce too many times won't tend to become malignant. Ironically, one pre-requisite for a cell to become cancerous is to turn off senescence so that multiplication can be limitless. It would seem then, that there is a fundamental aspect of cancer that it provides a balance to our mortality. Without an age-limit to our cells, cancer will be a great threat to our survival. The "magic" of cell-division, in which our bodies grow and replicate, is balanced out by the possibility that this growth will take off unchecked and overcome the order that gives us life in the first place. Life is death, and death is life - for a beings like us, the concept of immortality is useless. Cancer is not just a disease amongst thousands that happens to be terminal, it is the very entropy of our physical existence and you cannot remove it without removing the very magic that breathes life into us at every moment.

"Organism" is well-understood, actually. Having a brain has nothing to do with it. It doesn't even separate animals from plants, because not all animals have brains.

I know the definition of organism, it is nothing but a list of traits that we happen to see in all organisms. This suggests we still have not found the real categorization that is important.

So... you object to the word "organism" because it describes all organisms? I would have though the important thing is that it distinguishes between organisms and non-organisms.

No, organism is simply the step between "organ system" and "community" on the hierarchy I gave earlier. It's a convenient distinction, but I fail to see the relevance of it when a human being is comparable to a virus. Humans have complex brains, and we should consider placing animals with brains in a higher category than something like grass, for instance. Senescence, then, would have a more powerful meaning because we could say that all "higher" organisms experience it. Right now, it's hard for me to make my argument when there's an 80,000 year old root a few thousand miles west of me :P

Senescence exists so that cells stop dividing when they don't need to. It is a normal part of the cell cycle. Cancer is usually not a problem for dividing cells, because there are many regulators that check for DNA damage and trigger apoptosis if it occurs. Cancer usually won't form unless there is damage AND the p53 tumour suppressor stops working.

I suggest that you brush up on your biology before drawing spiritual implications from it.

I don't see how this paragraphs contradicts anything I said. Are you arguing against my claim that senescence probably evolved to avoid cancer?

We don't know exactly why it evolved. Cancer avoidance is one possible reason, but there are others.

That's true, there could be another reason. But consider, for the moment, that cell-division is the essence of life - the process by which our parts create themselves, in a manner that is unparalleled in any other sense in the universe (unless we can make a 3D printer that can make and assemble another 3D printer, which as of yet is impossible). Our cells, through apparent necessity, chose to choke-off the very life essence they depend on. I don't find that coincidental... I don't find it likely that we are a series of technical innovations away from overcoming that fundamental hurdle. Cancer is a fundamental balance to life's ability to proliferate.

Okay, I can't be stuffed quibbling over the definition of "organism" or whether cancer is part of some divine plan to keep humanity in check. Neither conversation will be productive. Therefore, I invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword and end the debate.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:12:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 6:08:15 AM, Jack212 wrote:

Okay, I can't be stuffed quibbling over the definition of "organism" or whether cancer is part of some divine plan to keep humanity in check. Neither conversation will be productive. Therefore, I invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword and end the debate.

That sounds like some homosexual jargon... I think that if Freud were here, he would have a lot to say about your psychosexual connotation. Do you practice in the mirror holding your flaming laser sword, defeating people verbally and then defeating them sexually? Lol! And what is this about you being "stuffed?" The only thing you need to invoke is a chastity belt, buddy! I just wanted to discuss biology, I don't know how it came to this -_-
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:22:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 10:48:03 PM, Disquisition wrote:
Yes it is plausible that senescence evolved to prevent unchecked cellular growth

It's VERY plausible. Either that or it's an incredible coincidence.

but cancer isn't an abstract phenonomen that balances our mortalitly. It is usually product of a change in one or more of the genes that produces abnormal proteins resulting in a faulty cell cycle control system.

Perhaps I'm going overboard with the spirituality aspect, but I see a very-nice balance here between the essence of life (cell-division) and the fact that this ability is also directly responsible for the most ubiquitous, most absolute form of death known to animals. I can't help but think that this is the precise mechanism that prevents anybody from attaining immortality. I mean think about it - the process that makes us "old" is necessary to keep us alive. I don't find that merely coincidental... it sounds more like a fundamental biological balance to me.

It looks as though your trying to call cancer the reverse of senescence when it its really just an abnormality based in genetics. On the other hand, senescence seems to be prevalent in the human species and is possibly programmed into the genes or a result of the accumulative effect of biological processes.

Senescence is programmed into our genes, but cancer exists at a level equally as basic and fundamental as cell-division itself, at least for any organism that has the complexity necessary to create any sort of consciousness.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:26:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 10:48:03 PM, Disquisition wrote:
Yes it is plausible that senescence evolved to prevent unchecked cellular growth but cancer isn't an abstract phenonomen that balances our mortalitly. It is usually product of a change in one or more of the genes that produces abnormal proteins resulting in a faulty cell cycle control system.

It looks as though your trying to call cancer the reverse of senescence when it its really just an abnormality based in genetics. On the other hand, senescence seems to be prevalent in the human species and is possibly programmed into the genes or a result of the accumulative effect of biological processes.
Cancer is the direct result of a false diet! As well lifestyle contributes to it. It has nothing to do with genetics other than perhaps that there are certain qualities that are under false conditions are more susceptible to go wrong.

Where does the human body get its raw building material? From food. If building materials are in an unnatural state compared to what our body is evolved to use, and if that's basically the only kind of material it gets, then what is the result? It should be no surprise that something will go wrong already on cellular level and smaller.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 10:26:21 AM, nummi wrote:

Cancer is the direct result of a false diet! As well lifestyle contributes to it. It has nothing to do with genetics other than perhaps that there are certain qualities that are under false conditions are more susceptible to go wrong.

Yes, lifestyle is one of the many external factors that can dictate whether or not someone can get cancer. I'm not denying that. However, how exactly do you think these external factors affect the bodily cells? Well it's on a genetic level that usually results in some sort of mishap in the paring of nitrogenous bases. This abnormality then gets replicated causing cancer. So it definitely has a lot to do with genetics.

Where does the human body get its raw building material? From food. If building materials are in an unnatural state compared to what our body is evolved to use, and if that's basically the only kind of material it gets, then what is the result? It should be no surprise that something will go wrong already on cellular level and smaller.

True, but as I stated earlier, many variables can contribute to cancer not just diet.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:18:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:55:30 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 2/22/2014 10:26:21 AM, nummi wrote:

Cancer is the direct result of a false diet! As well lifestyle contributes to it. It has nothing to do with genetics other than perhaps that there are certain qualities that are under false conditions are more susceptible to go wrong.

Yes, lifestyle is one of the many external factors that can dictate whether or not someone can get cancer. I'm not denying that. However, how exactly do you think these external factors affect the bodily cells? Well it's on a genetic level that usually results in some sort of mishap in the paring of nitrogenous bases. This abnormality then gets replicated causing cancer. So it definitely has a lot to do with genetics.

And the only way something can go wrong is if the building material is faulty, or the process lacks something essential to the process itself, or something that doesn't belong there gets in the way.

Not inheritable genetics. Cancer is generally regarded as something inheritable, but it is not.

Where does the human body get its raw building material? From food. If building materials are in an unnatural state compared to what our body is evolved to use, and if that's basically the only kind of material it gets, then what is the result? It should be no surprise that something will go wrong already on cellular level and smaller.

True, but as I stated earlier, many variables can contribute to cancer not just diet.
I never said just diet, I said diet is the primary cause.
It is about body absorbing and coming into contact with damaged nutrients, toxins, etc., by whatever means. Whether by breathing in, through the skin, via an injury, etc. Of all the possibilities, what you put into your mouth accounts for the most of it. And in most cases is actually the main cause. Cancer may be caused by something else, but would it still have formed if the diet was right and as a result the body strong and capable enough to remove the fault before it got too severe? The body cures itself of cancer, provided you provide all that is needed for it (real food).
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:23:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 10:22:38 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/21/2014 10:48:03 PM, Disquisition wrote:
Yes it is plausible that senescence evolved to prevent unchecked cellular growth

It's VERY plausible. Either that or it's an incredible coincidence.

but cancer isn't an abstract phenonomen that balances our mortalitly. It is usually product of a change in one or more of the genes that produces abnormal proteins resulting in a faulty cell cycle control system.

Perhaps I'm going overboard with the spirituality aspect, but I see a very-nice balance here between the essence of life (cell-division) and the fact that this ability is also directly responsible for the most ubiquitous, most absolute form of death known to animals. I can't help but think that this is the precise mechanism that prevents anybody from attaining immortality. I mean think about it - the process that makes us "old" is necessary to keep us alive. I don't find that merely coincidental... it sounds more like a fundamental biological balance to me.

Eh, maybe but its probably just a matter of time before we discover the exact mechanisms that cause senescence and figure out a way to manipulate them to some degree. This manipulation will probably come about through the inserting nano-particles to perform a particular function. Check out this article which talks about the specificity of this technology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

But as you said mother nature does have a way of maintaining a certain degree of balance.

It looks as though your trying to call cancer the reverse of senescence when it its really just an abnormality based in genetics. On the other hand, senescence seems to be prevalent in the human species and is possibly programmed into the genes or a result of the accumulative effect of biological processes.

Senescence is programmed into our genes, but cancer exists at a level equally as basic and fundamental as cell-division itself, at least for any organism that has the complexity necessary to create any sort of consciousness.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:31:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 10:22:38 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 2/21/2014 10:48:03 PM, Disquisition wrote:
Yes it is plausible that senescence evolved to prevent unchecked cellular growth

It's VERY plausible. Either that or it's an incredible coincidence.

but cancer isn't an abstract phenonomen that balances our mortalitly. It is usually product of a change in one or more of the genes that produces abnormal proteins resulting in a faulty cell cycle control system.

Perhaps I'm going overboard with the spirituality aspect, but I see a very-nice balance here between the essence of life (cell-division) and the fact that this ability is also directly responsible for the most ubiquitous, most absolute form of death known to animals. I can't help but think that this is the precise mechanism that prevents anybody from attaining immortality. I mean think about it - the process that makes us "old" is necessary to keep us alive. I don't find that merely coincidental... it sounds more like a fundamental biological balance to me.

It looks as though your trying to call cancer the reverse of senescence when it its really just an abnormality based in genetics. On the other hand, senescence seems to be prevalent in the human species and is possibly programmed into the genes or a result of the accumulative effect of biological processes.

Senescence is programmed into our genes, but cancer exists at a level equally as basic and fundamental as cell-division itself, at least for any organism that has the complexity necessary to create any sort of consciousness.

There are multiple pathways for 'cell suicide' to occur, another example is a response triggered by disease. A cell infected with a virus can be told by the immune system to die, and it will. I'm not sure on the evolutionary understanding of it, there were a number if experiments done on mice where the telomerase enzymes were kept active and they found that although they didn't age - the cancer deaths were much higher instead.

So makes sense to have this feature. And regardless it doesn't matter too much for humans considering the brain deteriorates substantially anyway at old age. Which is why I probably would turn down any such therapy if it did exist. Who wants to live forever as a vegetable?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:36:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:18:34 PM, nummi wrote:


And the only way something can go wrong is if the building material is faulty, or the process lacks something essential to the process itself, or something that doesn't belong there gets in the way.

Yes, faulty building material can be a prerequisite that causes an issue on a genetic level which will then result in cancer. Its all about gene expression you can't skip that and just say the issue isn't genetically based.

Not inheritable genetics. Cancer is generally regarded as something inheritable, but it is not.

Well i never intended to imply inheritable genetics, and cancer isn't generally referred to as something that is inherited. It can indeed be an inheritable trait but there are other external factors , that can affect the genes.

I never said just diet, I said diet is the primary cause.

It is about body absorbing and coming into contact with damaged nutrients, toxins, etc., by whatever means. Whether by breathing in, through the skin, via an injury, etc. Of all the possibilities, what you put into your mouth accounts for the most of it. And in most cases is actually the main cause. Cancer may be caused by something else, but would it still have formed if the diet was right and as a result the body strong and capable enough to remove the fault before it got too severe? The body cures itself of cancer, provided you provide all that is needed for it (real food).

I'm 100% sure that diet isn't the main cause of all forms of cancer but a simplified flow of things are:

External factor ---> Genetic issue ----> Cancer