Jump to content

Is cancer a side effect of our evolving so quickly?


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, oakley1812 said:

If you think about it, rapidly adapting species are the most cancerous. Or am I getting it all wrong?

What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

It's just an observation;

If you look at a crocodile or shark(which have remained the same for millions of years), you don't find cancer.

Could it be that rapid evolving species like humans or dogs are subject to mutations? mutation that maybe manifest as cancer.

 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What evidence leads you to that conclusion?

 

Edited by oakley1812
I screwed up the reply :)
Posted
14 minutes ago, oakley1812 said:

If you look at a crocodile or shark(which have remained the same for millions of years), you don't find cancer.

Sharks DO get cancer   -   it is a common and modern myth that they don't. Type 'shark cancer' into google - the myth has debunked over and over. 

Posted
Just now, DrP said:

Sharks DO get cancer   -   it is a common and modern myth that they don't. Type 'shark cancer' into google - the myth has debunked over and over. 

OK thanks, DrP. :)

That's another one of my observations for the rubbish can

Posted

I think it stems from the new age health freak types that claim that our modern diet is the cause of cancers and we wouldn't get them if we ate a hunter gather type 'natural' diet....  their proof of this is 'well sharks don't get cancer, because they eat a natural diet'...  which isn't true - they can get cancer too.

Posted

Could, (might) it be also connected somehow to our living longer?  Evolution only suggests we need to live long enough to reproduce.  I wonder at the overall incidents of human cancer before the age of 20 compared with all cancers at a later onset age?  We live much longer now.  Death will certainly come at some point.  Something will kill us.  Might also be a situation with definitions?

Ex RN

Posted (edited)

Cancer is caused from genetic decay after long periods of aging in the past we did not live as long you would usually die from another cause but now as you live longer cancer becomes more dominate as you live long enough to die from DNA decay death which is cancer's cause.

DNA-Damage-Response.jpg

types%20of%20damage.png

When  Apoptosis or Cell Cycle Checkpoint Activatation fails to protect against systemic DNA damage cancer happens. 

img_cancer_cells.jpg

cancer-development.png

 

 

Edited by Vmedvil
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If you live long enough, you die of cancer.

yep, everyone would get cancer sooner or later if they lived long enough and didn't die from something else, because you gotta think as you get DNA damage so do the systems that protect against DNA damage being constructed from it as a blueprint for proteins. As more and more DNA protection systems fail because of DNA damage deforming the proteins that do the job of DNA protection, the closer and closer it creeps along to being a cancerous cell at an increasing rate.

dna-translation.png

If you want to know about how the B-Cell version of cancer is cured here is a post about the leukemia cure on another site.

"Living Drug"

Edited by Vmedvil
Posted
18 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

ep, everyone would get cancer sooner or later if they lived long enough and didn't die from something else, because you gotta think as you get DNA damage so do the systems that protect against DNA damage being constructed from it as a blueprint for proteins. As more and more DNA protection systems fail because of DNA damage deforming the proteins that do the job of DNA protection, the closer and closer it creeps along to being a cancerous cell at an increasing rate.

That is a bit oversimplified. The transition from a non-cancerous cell to a cancerous one does not need to undergo  accumulation of mutations. Certain point mutations, often not in protective genes, but instead more often in genes involved in apoptosis or cell differentiation/proliferation and chromosomal stability  (and quite often in the promoter region instead within the genes themselves). Over time, the chance increases that these types of cells go undetected and are not cleared by the immune system. Which, in turn why quite a bit of current efforts have been invested into immunotherapies to target this mechanism.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That is a bit oversimplified. The transition from a non-cancerous cell to a cancerous one does not need to undergo  accumulation of mutations. Certain point mutations, often not in protective genes, but instead more often in genes involved in apoptosis or cell differentiation/proliferation and chromosomal stability  (and quite often in the promoter region instead within the genes themselves). Over time, the chance increases that these types of cells go undetected and are not cleared by the immune system. Which, in turn why quite a bit of current efforts have been invested into immunotherapies to target this mechanism.

That is true the genes that need to be mutated are the Apoptosis or Cell Cycle Checkpoint Activatation systems for cancerous cells to pass inspection but the other DNA Repair systems protect those from damage the odds are much more likely as those DNA Repair systems fail of a mutation of those going unnoticed or unfixed leading to cancer.

Edited by Vmedvil

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.