Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

New Paper Suggests Cancer's An Autocorrecter

RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 11:55:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 10:21:30 PM, reece wrote:
http://www.sciencealert.com...

Thank you, Reece. Primary source paper is at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...], title and abstract reproduced below.

The final checkpoint. Cancer as an adaptive evolutionary mechanism

The mechanisms for identification of DNA damage and repair usually manage DNA damage very efficiently. If damaged cells manage to bypass the checkpoints where the integrity of the genome is assessed and the decisions whether to proceed with the cell cycle are made, they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die. As a result, cancer may develop. Warding off the potential sequence-altering effects of DNA damage during the life of the individual or the existence span of the species is controlled by a set of larger checkpoints acting on a progressively increasing scale, from systematic removal of damaged cells from the proliferative pool by means of repair of DNA damage/programmed cell death through ageing to, finally, cancer. They serve different purposes and act at different levels of the life cycle, safeguarding the integrity of the genetic backup of the individual, the genetic diversity of the population, and, finally, the survival of the species and of life on Earth. In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected. Nevertheless, the medicine of today and the near future has enough potential to slow down the progression to terminal cancer so that the life expectancy and the quality of life of cancer-affected individuals may be comparable to those of healthy aged individuals.

Are members comfortable with this reasoning? With the expression? Especially this bit:

In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected.

Expected why? What are the authors saying here? Why would the authors expect all attempts at a cancer 'cure' to eventually fail? Is this a statement that 'science can't beat evolution'? What might the thinking be here?

The full paper is readable at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...]
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 12:18:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
This is more pseudo science nonsense. Cancer is a vitamin and oxygen supply problem. It is caused by an unnatural diet which contains dairy, sugar and grain products. These products cause blockages, inflammation, vitamin deficiency and cell dysfunction. Iodine deficiency is the main problem. If the body is deficient in iodine then apoptosis can't take place and mutant cells will multiply causing cancer.

City formation requires food being stored for long periods. This causes food to degrade and becomes toxic. Chemicals are used to preserve food which adds further dysfunction of cell metabolism.

Note - Beware of brain dead bureaucrats who protect the brain dead system that we are forced to live by.
Axonly
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 1:43:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 10:21:30 PM, reece wrote:
http://www.sciencealert.com...

Well, at this stage it is still just a hypothesis, but it seems possible. The role that natural selection plays in this seems very extraordinary.
Meh!
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:03:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 11:55:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/14/2016 10:21:30 PM, reece wrote:
http://www.sciencealert.com...

Thank you, Reece. Primary source paper is at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...], title and abstract reproduced below.

The final checkpoint. Cancer as an adaptive evolutionary mechanism

The mechanisms for identification of DNA damage and repair usually manage DNA damage very efficiently. If damaged cells manage to bypass the checkpoints where the integrity of the genome is assessed and the decisions whether to proceed with the cell cycle are made, they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die. As a result, cancer may develop. Warding off the potential sequence-altering effects of DNA damage during the life of the individual or the existence span of the species is controlled by a set of larger checkpoints acting on a progressively increasing scale, from systematic removal of damaged cells from the proliferative pool by means of repair of DNA damage/programmed cell death through ageing to, finally, cancer. They serve different purposes and act at different levels of the life cycle, safeguarding the integrity of the genetic backup of the individual, the genetic diversity of the population, and, finally, the survival of the species and of life on Earth. In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected. Nevertheless, the medicine of today and the near future has enough potential to slow down the progression to terminal cancer so that the life expectancy and the quality of life of cancer-affected individuals may be comparable to those of healthy aged individuals.

Are members comfortable with this reasoning? With the expression? Especially this bit:

In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected.

Expected why? What are the authors saying here? Why would the authors expect all attempts at a cancer 'cure' to eventually fail? Is this a statement that 'science can't beat evolution'? What might the thinking be here?

The full paper is readable at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...]

It is definitely a bit strange. He positions cancer as a tool to kill a person if a person's cells become immortal meaning there is an issue with telomers and a cells ability to let itself die after X number of splits. Most cancers require this state and the production of telomerase.

At this point, "they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die", it is cancer. He positions it as a final check point so the organism dies, but it is really no different than an exterior organism invading and overwhelming the body's to the point they are nonfunctional.

In other words did the evolution of telomers allow an organism to survive and thrive longer than without? The answer is yes because if there is no mechanisms to keep immortal cells from overwhelming us and we would die as babies unable to procreate.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:29:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 11:55:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/14/2016 10:21:30 PM, reece wrote:
http://www.sciencealert.com...

Thank you, Reece. Primary source paper is at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...], title and abstract reproduced below.

The final checkpoint. Cancer as an adaptive evolutionary mechanism

The mechanisms for identification of DNA damage and repair usually manage DNA damage very efficiently. If damaged cells manage to bypass the checkpoints where the integrity of the genome is assessed and the decisions whether to proceed with the cell cycle are made, they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die. As a result, cancer may develop. Warding off the potential sequence-altering effects of DNA damage during the life of the individual or the existence span of the species is controlled by a set of larger checkpoints acting on a progressively increasing scale, from systematic removal of damaged cells from the proliferative pool by means of repair of DNA damage/programmed cell death through ageing to, finally, cancer. They serve different purposes and act at different levels of the life cycle, safeguarding the integrity of the genetic backup of the individual, the genetic diversity of the population, and, finally, the survival of the species and of life on Earth. In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected. Nevertheless, the medicine of today and the near future has enough potential to slow down the progression to terminal cancer so that the life expectancy and the quality of life of cancer-affected individuals may be comparable to those of healthy aged individuals.

Are members comfortable with this reasoning? With the expression? Especially this bit:

In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected.

Expected why? What are the authors saying here? Why would the authors expect all attempts at a cancer 'cure' to eventually fail? Is this a statement that 'science can't beat evolution'? What might the thinking be here?

The full paper is readable at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...]

Isn't the problem of genetic stagnation something that manifests over hundreds of generations?

Our technology manipulates selection on a much faster scale than nature. Genetic stagnation fears might be a tad overblown.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 5:50:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 12:29:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:55:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/14/2016 10:21:30 PM, reece wrote:
http://www.sciencealert.com...

Thank you, Reece. Primary source paper is at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...], title and abstract reproduced below.

The final checkpoint. Cancer as an adaptive evolutionary mechanism

The mechanisms for identification of DNA damage and repair usually manage DNA damage very efficiently. If damaged cells manage to bypass the checkpoints where the integrity of the genome is assessed and the decisions whether to proceed with the cell cycle are made, they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die. As a result, cancer may develop. Warding off the potential sequence-altering effects of DNA damage during the life of the individual or the existence span of the species is controlled by a set of larger checkpoints acting on a progressively increasing scale, from systematic removal of damaged cells from the proliferative pool by means of repair of DNA damage/programmed cell death through ageing to, finally, cancer. They serve different purposes and act at different levels of the life cycle, safeguarding the integrity of the genetic backup of the individual, the genetic diversity of the population, and, finally, the survival of the species and of life on Earth. In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected. Nevertheless, the medicine of today and the near future has enough potential to slow down the progression to terminal cancer so that the life expectancy and the quality of life of cancer-affected individuals may be comparable to those of healthy aged individuals.

Are members comfortable with this reasoning? With the expression? Especially this bit:

In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected.

Expected why? What are the authors saying here? Why would the authors expect all attempts at a cancer 'cure' to eventually fail? Is this a statement that 'science can't beat evolution'? What might the thinking be here?

The full paper is readable at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...]

Isn't the problem of genetic stagnation something that manifests over hundreds of generations?

If I might dig at a deeper concern: all the eukaryotes or complex and multicelled organisms ([https://en.wikipedia.org...]) have mechanisms that strongly promote evolutionary adaptation, including: mate selection, rearranging genes in the production of sex-cells and again during sexual reproduction, producing more offspring than the environment can support, and a reproductive life limited to a double handful of generations. Having been around for around two billion years, eukaryotes now comprise about half the planet's biomass, with prokaryotes or simple and single-celled organisms and viruses comprising the other half.

So what does genetic stagnation actually mean to a eukaryote? I'm not seeking to be rhetorical here -- I'm genuinely wondering. I can understand why a small breeding population can induce genetic vulnerabilities, but is that the same as stagnation? How is stagnation recognised among eukaryotes?

Our technology manipulates selection on a much faster scale than nature. Genetic stagnation fears might be a tad overblown.
Also an interesting point, Parrot. Due to emerging genetic and environmental adaptation technologies, would you expect the range of human species diversity to increase over time, or decrease?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 5:55:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 5:50:49 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Also an interesting point, Parrot. Due to emerging genetic and environmental adaptation technologies, would you expect the range of human species diversity to increase over time, or decrease?

Obviously decrease diversity, as biological genetic features that enhance reproductivity and survival are early all made obsolete with technology.

Humans will naturally evolve biologically in the direction that enhances technology.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 1:20:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Hey, guys. Let's pretend that the elephant is not in the room and carry on regardless. Maybe the elephant will just go away! lol
Axonly
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 12:37:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 1:20:56 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Hey, guys. Let's pretend that the elephant is not in the room and carry on regardless. Maybe the elephant will just go away! lol

I suspect you have too much spin.
Meh!
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:28:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 12:37:31 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:20:56 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Hey, guys. Let's pretend that the elephant is not in the room and carry on regardless. Maybe the elephant will just go away! lol

I suspect you have too much spin.

Warney, where are you?
Axonly
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 11:58:39 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:28:29 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/23/2016 12:37:31 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:20:56 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Hey, guys. Let's pretend that the elephant is not in the room and carry on regardless. Maybe the elephant will just go away! lol

I suspect you have too much spin.

Warney, where are you?

Please do tell us how 9/11 was an inside job
Meh!
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2016 3:10:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/27/2016 11:58:39 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:28:29 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 6/23/2016 12:37:31 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:20:56 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Hey, guys. Let's pretend that the elephant is not in the room and carry on regardless. Maybe the elephant will just go away! lol

I suspect you have too much spin.

Warney, where are you?

Please do tell us how 9/11 was an inside job
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 1:36:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 12:03:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:55:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/14/2016 10:21:30 PM, reece wrote:
http://www.sciencealert.com...

Thank you, Reece. Primary source paper is at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...], title and abstract reproduced below.

The final checkpoint. Cancer as an adaptive evolutionary mechanism

The mechanisms for identification of DNA damage and repair usually manage DNA damage very efficiently. If damaged cells manage to bypass the checkpoints where the integrity of the genome is assessed and the decisions whether to proceed with the cell cycle are made, they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die. As a result, cancer may develop. Warding off the potential sequence-altering effects of DNA damage during the life of the individual or the existence span of the species is controlled by a set of larger checkpoints acting on a progressively increasing scale, from systematic removal of damaged cells from the proliferative pool by means of repair of DNA damage/programmed cell death through ageing to, finally, cancer. They serve different purposes and act at different levels of the life cycle, safeguarding the integrity of the genetic backup of the individual, the genetic diversity of the population, and, finally, the survival of the species and of life on Earth. In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected. Nevertheless, the medicine of today and the near future has enough potential to slow down the progression to terminal cancer so that the life expectancy and the quality of life of cancer-affected individuals may be comparable to those of healthy aged individuals.

Are members comfortable with this reasoning? With the expression? Especially this bit:

In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected.

Expected why? What are the authors saying here? Why would the authors expect all attempts at a cancer 'cure' to eventually fail? Is this a statement that 'science can't beat evolution'? What might the thinking be here?

The full paper is readable at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...]

It is definitely a bit strange. He positions cancer as a tool to kill a person if a person's cells become immortal meaning there is an issue with telomers and a cells ability to let itself die after X number of splits. Most cancers require this state and the production of telomerase.

At this point, "they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die", it is cancer. He positions it as a final check point so the organism dies, but it is really no different than an exterior organism invading and overwhelming the body's to the point they are nonfunctional.

In other words did the evolution of telomers allow an organism to survive and thrive longer than without? The answer is yes because if there is no mechanisms to keep immortal cells from overwhelming us and we would die as babies unable to procreate.

And how could any 'final checkpoint' evolve? That would imply multiple trials of species failure with the checkpoint getting selected eventually. We know that nowhere near that quantity of whole species trials could possibly have occurred. So if this take on cancer is true it would actually be strong evidence for design.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 1:41:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 1:36:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
... The answer is yes because if there is no mechanisms to keep immortal cells from overwhelming us and we would die as babies unable to procreate.

And how could any 'final checkpoint' evolve? That would imply multiple trials of species failure with the checkpoint getting selected eventually. We know that nowhere near that quantity of whole species trials could possibly have occurred. So if this take on cancer is true it would actually be strong evidence for design.

Yeah, it wouldn't be "whole species" trials, more like "whole ecosystem". A renegade species would overwhelm the system. The analogy would be the ecosystem dying from an immortal species. Interesting.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 1:44:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 1:36:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/17/2016 12:03:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:55:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/14/2016 10:21:30 PM, reece wrote:
http://www.sciencealert.com...

Thank you, Reece. Primary source paper is at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...], title and abstract reproduced below.

The final checkpoint. Cancer as an adaptive evolutionary mechanism

The mechanisms for identification of DNA damage and repair usually manage DNA damage very efficiently. If damaged cells manage to bypass the checkpoints where the integrity of the genome is assessed and the decisions whether to proceed with the cell cycle are made, they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die. As a result, cancer may develop. Warding off the potential sequence-altering effects of DNA damage during the life of the individual or the existence span of the species is controlled by a set of larger checkpoints acting on a progressively increasing scale, from systematic removal of damaged cells from the proliferative pool by means of repair of DNA damage/programmed cell death through ageing to, finally, cancer. They serve different purposes and act at different levels of the life cycle, safeguarding the integrity of the genetic backup of the individual, the genetic diversity of the population, and, finally, the survival of the species and of life on Earth. In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected. Nevertheless, the medicine of today and the near future has enough potential to slow down the progression to terminal cancer so that the life expectancy and the quality of life of cancer-affected individuals may be comparable to those of healthy aged individuals.

Are members comfortable with this reasoning? With the expression? Especially this bit:

In the light of the theory that cancer is the final checkpoint or the nature's manner to prevent complex organisms from living forever at the expense of genetic stagnation, the eventual failure of modern anti-cancer treatments is only to be expected.

Expected why? What are the authors saying here? Why would the authors expect all attempts at a cancer 'cure' to eventually fail? Is this a statement that 'science can't beat evolution'? What might the thinking be here?

The full paper is readable at: [http://www.tandfonline.com...]

It is definitely a bit strange. He positions cancer as a tool to kill a person if a person's cells become immortal meaning there is an issue with telomers and a cells ability to let itself die after X number of splits. Most cancers require this state and the production of telomerase.

At this point, "they may evade the imperative to stop dividing and to die", it is cancer. He positions it as a final check point so the organism dies, but it is really no different than an exterior organism invading and overwhelming the body's to the point they are nonfunctional.

In other words did the evolution of telomers allow an organism to survive and thrive longer than without? The answer is yes because if there is no mechanisms to keep immortal cells from overwhelming us and we would die as babies unable to procreate.

And how could any 'final checkpoint' evolve? That would imply multiple trials of species failure with the checkpoint getting selected eventually. We know that nowhere near that quantity of whole species trials could possibly have occurred. So if this take on cancer is true it would actually be strong evidence for design.

I would agree with that, but I disagree there is a final "check point". I think mortal cells allow organisms to live healthier and give greater odd of passing on their genetics.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2016 1:59:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/29/2016 1:44:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
...

I would agree with that, but I disagree there is a final "check point". I think mortal cells allow organisms to live healthier and give greater odd of passing on their genetics.

The premise is that passing on your genes might sometimes be a bad thing.

We see a small scale model of the [alleged] problem when a plant or animal gets introduced where there is no natural predator. We've got these 'stink bugs', for instance, in the eastern US. They've not been a major problem like gypsy moth, but you just can't get rid of the bloody things. So we can see that too successful of reproduction can also be a problem. The ecosystem depends on death - not too much, not too little.
This space for rent.