Natural Selection

[buzsaw]

Thailanders have the least incidence of cancer of all nations across the board. Why? Imo, it's their diet and lifestyle. It certainly can't be that they have more hospitals and modern facilities to treat cancer than the US. However some of these underdeveloped nations have a rapidly increasing chart because they are adopting western lifestyles.

 

The World Health Organization reports that the projected increase in cancer rates for the future in less developed nations is attributed partly to their adoption of unhealthy Western habits. It would be prudent to look at the foods in their diets which may be excluded in that shift to Western eating.

www.owendot.com/Health_Science

[Dak]

But if 42.4 is the average, that implicates a heck of a lot of incidents under that age.

about half of them. but under by how much depends (on the standard distribution etc). it doesnt nessesaraly follow that half of them are significantly under 42.4

[swansont]

about half of them. but under by how much depends (on the standard distribution etc). it doesnt nessesaraly follow that half of them are significantly under 42.4

 

No, I don't think you can conclude that. Without knowing the average lifespan in question and the distribution involved, you really can't say. If some cases happen at age 80, you need e.g. either a whole bunch of 40 year-olds getting cancer, or much younger people getting cancer, to end up with an average of 42.4. There's no way you have enough data to conclude that it's half, or anything else.

[swansont]

As such it is clear that a large part of the increase in cancers is due to the increase in life expectancy. Other causes of death being eliminated.

 

This zero-sum event is often overlooked and misinterpreted, so I wanted to reiterate it. Everybody dies exactly once. (semantics/operating room heroics aside). So eliminating, reducing or delaying one affliction necessarily has an increase somewhere else.

[buzsaw]

about half of them. but under by how much depends (on the standard distribution etc). it doesnt nessesaraly follow that half of them are significantly under 42.4

 

I guess my point in this is that since such a significant amount is not the elderly is indicative that lifestyle/diet/smoking, et al is a major factor with cancer. Holistic health practitioners have been saying this for a long time. The question remains as per this thread topic as to whether if a persistent un-natural lifestyle continues to prevail, will it be a negative NS factor. It is my personal opinion that if NS is happening, it has been prevalently negative from the Genesis creation account, with a significant negative spike beginning with the onset of the industrial revolution and escalating significantly the last 70 or so years.

 

People, especially in nations of advanced technology live longer, but not healthier.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think that people in developing or under-developed coutries are exposed to more diseases and pathogens more ofton than people are in other coutries. This could mean: (1) they don't live to the ages where cancer and related diseases are more likely to happen, and/or (2) the ones that live are stronger and will less likely die from Cancer or related disease, and/or (3) their immune system can disern between actually pathogen and the body's cells (so auto-immune diseases are less likely) and also between cancerous cells (make cancer less likely).

[buzsaw]

I think that people in developing or under-developed coutries are exposed to more diseases and pathogens more ofton than people are in other coutries. This could mean: (1) they don't live to the ages where cancer and related diseases are more likely to happen, and/or (2) the ones that live are stronger and will less likely die from Cancer or related disease, and/or (3) their immune system can disern between actually pathogen and the body's cells (so auto-immune diseases are less likely) and also between cancerous cells (make cancer less likely).

 

Thailand has a somewhat lower life expectancy than average, being age 69, but not enough to be all that significant, imo.

 

As for your items 2 and 3, these appear to be lifestyle/diet, et al related as per my statements.

[-Demosthenes-]

True, however I felt that the phrase "lifestyle and diet" was little vague, and if fact not what I was getting at. It was my opinion that the environment shaped the people of the devoloping/under developed countries to be more resistant to auto-immune/cancerous diseases, and not so much their lifestyle or diet, although thier lifestyle and diet are affected by their envionment just as their health is.

[Dak]

No, I don't think you can conclude that. Without knowing the average lifespan in question and the distribution involved, you really can't say. If some cases happen at age 80, you need e.g. either a whole bunch of 40 year-olds getting cancer, or much younger people getting cancer, to end up with an average of 42.4. There's no way you have enough data to conclude that it's half, or anything else.

i was assuming it had a normal distribution, which virtualy everything in nature does, but yeah your right my conclusion was more than likely innacurate.

[Dak]

I guess my point in this is that since such a significant amount is not the elderly is indicative that lifestyle/diet/smoking, et al is a major factor with cancer.

theres also the fact that there are less old people than young people. 50% of 90 year olds developing cancer will probably have less of an impact on the mean than 10% of 20 year olds developing cancer, because there are more than 5 times as many 20 year olds as there are 90 year olds, which could result in a non-representative statistic.

 

welcome to the fun world of statistics.

[Sayonara]

Do you think a global prevalence of the deteriation of food quality over a long period would have any long term effect on NS?

Yes, in the sense that everything we involve ourselves with does.

 

How is that related to the point I was replying to?

[buzsaw]

Yes' date=' in the sense that [u']everything[/u] we involve ourselves with does.

 

How is that related to the point I was replying to?

 

The point of my original statement was to the effect that diseases were the (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyles, implying that it seemed to be related to NS negatively.

 

You said that They are not a "product" of un-natural and careless lifestyle as such - disease is more visible in conjunction with those lifestyles because they provide more suitable conditions for pathogenic diseases to operate, while simultaneously reducing the natural ability to combat the diseases and repair the damage that they do.

 

Then I said, Do you think a global prevalence of the deteriation of food quality over a long period would have any long term effect on NS?

I was assuming what we eat as inclusive in un-natural and careless lifestyles, thus implicating NS to your statement about those lifestyles..........reducing the natural ability to combat the diseases.......

 

Am I making sense to you here? Admittedly, sometimes I have some difficulty in communicating my thoughts clearly.

[buzsaw]

theres also the fact that there are less old people than young people. 50% of 90 year olds developing cancer will probably have less of an impact on the mean than 10% of 20 year olds developing cancer' date=' because there are more than 5 times as many 20 year olds as there are 90 year olds, which could result in a non-representative statistic.

 

welcome to the fun world of statistics.[/quote']

 

90 year olds are not very representative of the elderly. How about 70 to 75 year olds, to be more representative of the elderly in applying the statistcs.

[buzsaw]

 

welcome to the fun world of statistics.

 

Well' date=' my friend, I've been in that world for about 70 years. Maybe [i']I[/i] should be welcoming you into it??

[Dak]

alright, same comment but with 70 year old in place of 20 year old. there are still less 70 year olds than 20 year olds.

[buzsaw]

alright, same comment but with 70 year old in place of 20 year old. there are still less 70 year olds than 20 year olds.

 

Checking the charts, it appears there's roughly as many folks 1 to 34 as there are 35 to 70. After 70 there's maybe 10 to 15 percent more people to add to the older group (without doing the math.) I don't know how the cancer charts would come out with these groups. Suffice to say, likely enough of the young folks to make my point.

[Sayonara]

The point of my original statement was to the effect that diseases were the (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyles' date=' implying that it seemed to be related to NS negatively.

 

You said that [i']They are not a "product" of un-natural and careless lifestyle as such - disease is more visible in conjunction with those lifestyles because they provide more suitable conditions for pathogenic diseases to operate, while simultaneously reducing the natural ability to combat the diseases and repair the damage that they do.[/i]

 

Then I said, Do you think a global prevalence of the deteriation of food quality over a long period would have any long term effect on NS?

I was assuming what we eat as inclusive in un-natural and careless lifestyles, thus implicating NS to your statement about those lifestyles..........reducing the natural ability to combat the diseases.......

 

Am I making sense to you here? Admittedly, sometimes I have some difficulty in communicating my thoughts clearly.

The average diet has been steadily improving over the past hundred years, if you ignore the fast food explosion in the past ten, which is why I don't see where you are going with this.

 

Change your original statement to "a handful of diseases seem to be the naturally selected (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyle" and it is possibly true. However you'd need sample groups covering significantly longer periods of time to demonstrate a good causal link.

[Dak]

Checking the charts, it appears there's roughly as many folks 1 to 34 as there are 35 to 70. After 70 there's maybe 10 to 15 percent more people to add to the older group (without doing the math.) I don't know how the cancer charts would come out with these groups. Suffice to say, likely enough of the young folks to make my point.

how did i get into a stats discussion I HATE MATHS my head hurts i am officially withdrawing from this aspect of the discussion.

[rakuenso]

ew stats, I <3 calculus

[rakuenso]

woot atom...

[buzsaw]

The average diet has been steadily improving over the past hundred years' date=' if you ignore the fast food explosion in the past ten, which is why I don't see where you are going with this.

 

Change your original statement to "[i']a handful of[/i] diseases seem to be the naturally selected (cause and effect) product of un-natural and careless lifestyle" and it is possibly true. However you'd need sample groups covering significantly longer periods of time to demonstrate a good causal link.

 

In your first statement, are you giving consideration to the way we're depleting the quality of much of our soil by chemical fertilizers and how we're processing much of our foods for longer shelf life, higher profits, et al? We no longer have animals ranging on much of our land to naturally fertilize it. Erosion also is taking it's toll on the soil. Poultry, beef, farm fish, et al are being treated with hormones and other stuff in production. I've heard that wire cage hens are so enimic that if their eggs were fertilized they'd not hatch. I don't have documentation on that, but having raised natural chickens, I do know the difference in quality. Farms are getting much larger and producing inferior products for the profit sheet.

 

There are, however indeed some pluses in the food chain, in that with refrigerated transportation, we can get a larger variety of products from longer distances quickly. Also, the natural food industry is making some progress in bettering food quality. I haven't done a thorough study on this subject, so until I do, I'll concede that your points are well taken and I'll keep on searching out the facts on this. Do you have any links showing data on the past hundred years?

[Sayonara]

Afraid not, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere.

 

I think you have a point, just that it won't be that evident yet. Give it another hundred years and the conditions you have described will be causing significant selective pressure.

[buzsaw]

Give it another hundred years and the conditions you have described will be causing significant selective pressure.

 

For sure, at the pace change is escalating, we'll see a lot of change in the next hundred years. Of course as an apocalyptic Biblical creationist, having been into the Biblical prophecies most of my life, I likely see the change in a different perspective than you. The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 65:20) sees a day coming in the messianic millenium when a child shall die young being 100 years old, implicating, imo, a pre-flood like condition on earth. I have some hypotheses on some geographical and atmospheric changes that could come about to effect some of this but, of course, this forum and thread isn't the place for it as I understand the guidelines. I do appreciate that you have a pseudoscience forum to aire some alternative science thinking and assime that would be the place to talk about some of this some day.

[Kleptin]

Heres a question...is the feeling known as "love" an adaptation? If so, in what way? I can understand lust and attraction in terms of furthering the species, but doesn't love hinder fitness through monogamy?

[jcarlson]

1. It's a known and proven fact that modern diet of processed foods' date=' et al and incidence of cancer is related.

[/quote']

 

correlation != causation