Nitrous, the reason cancer hasn't just vanished is because there is no gene in us that can fight it, no gene we can pass on. Lets say my grandfather died of cancer: that wouldnt make me any more likely to develop it. the same is true about fighting it. Who knows, maybe there is a gene and we just don't know if it prevents cancer yet? either way give us 2,000 years (if global warming doesn't kill us off) and we'll be fairly immune.
No we won't because that's not how cancer works. Cancer isn't a pathogen or a virus you can just develop immunities for, cancer is a mutation within a cells DNA that causes it to become cancerous. Your body thinks nothing is wrong with it and ignores it, which gives it the ability to spread. You can't evolve out of cancer, it is not a statistically high enough risk for our species to 'need' to evolve out of. There are ways of eliminating cancerous cells but you can't prevent it. Edit: I shouldn't say "can't." You could but it isn't likely.
Firstly, there is no such thing as devolving. Second, no we wouldn't evolve into cancer unless it was beneficial. Which, if it was, we wouldn't have the problems we do with it. We'd be congratulating people for "catching cancer." Stop being dumb.
Your the one that suggested it was in Gene's... and usually if it isn't a Virus or pathogen as you called it... it is Evolution as you call it. Please explain how Cancer is evolution then? I mean Gene are passed on by the ones most fit.. is cancer fix to pass on its genes?
Not devolve "into" cancer. Are you saying that we would turn into cancer cells? Or if you didn't mean that... cancer has a possibility of occurring in anyone, so you can't "devolve" and get a disease you already have.
It is a mutation within a cell's genome, though, it is not exactly a beneficial mutation, if you couldn't already tell. Now, I'm not too sure how cancer works so I couldn't get any deeper than, it's not beneficial so the genes wouldn't pass. In fact, I don't think it's possible for cancer to occur in cells undergoing meiosis. I'll look it up for you.
I think your correct sex cells usually do not become effected by the cancer usually in a persons body... So your suggesting that Devolution doesn't exist? How is it possible that old horse have died out in fossils then? And the horse's we have today are different... seems like your POV isn't totally fact... Now back to cancer... Yes it can be considered Neutral Gene information but it does effect the species its self... meaning that the life span on the species is limited, or self terminates. Kinda odd that genes would create a problem to self destroy it self...but w/e. Point being one thing not all traits passed down to next generation are desirable... Please explain why this isnt' factored into evolution...?
Devolution isn't possible for two reasons, number one it doesn't make sense. Two, if you evolve from a single cell into a human and the back to a single cell, you haven't "devolved" you have evolved into something that works better for a given environment. Humans are necessarily better than a single cell, in fact, single cells are incredibly good at surviving, humans kinda suck. Cancer develops in body cells so when they divide and multiply it doesn't have any effect on sperm so you are not passing on cancer to your child. I need more time to read but I'm fairly certain it doesn't affect sex cells, though, I'm not sure why that would be. It may be that if a sperm does become cancerous it can't divide (I don't think sperms divide anyway) and therefore reproduce and it might have problems when it comes to impregnating the egg. Wikipedia ^^Acquiring mutations over time causes cancer. And it does seem you CAN inherit cancer! Which is incredible I thought it was strictly constrained to one person. The more you know. I'm really glad this discussion has come this far, I should have read up on cancer much sooner than now.
Evolution is not instantaneous and it doesn't change many things just through one generation unless there is a severe outer stimulus (like a big environment change) to cause a significant adaptation. We have many medicines and solutions to our problems today, so our bodies don't see the need to adapt and overcome these diseases on its own. Since these medications help us, the body doesn't really get a chance to change. http://www.cancerquest.org/index.cfm?page=308
It is factored into evolution in a similar fashion as knife attacks and bad luck are. Everything effects evolution but that doesn't mean knife attacks are evolution. It just means they are a component of natural selection and, in cancer's case, the negative side of mutation. To say cancer was evolution would be to say that atomic formation is crystallization. Atomic formation can lead to crystallization is certain materials but it doesn't necessarily mean that all atomic formation will lead to crystallization. Do you see what I mean?
Your avoiding the fact that its a Direct Gene that Has been Here for quite a while in the Human Genome... for a gene that is considered a hurt more then a help... kinda old that the trait is staying. As well becoming more common place.
Here is a nice little article I found. The Petri Dish: Evolution: tinkerers not architects - The Stanford Daily Online Apparently, it's a sort of balancing act. There are benefits and drawbacks to having certain genes. Another take on evolution. Sexy Cancer in Fish Tiny Frog
True but all animals on the planet are capable of producing cancerous cells. I am no oncologist but if it does have benefits I am unaware. It can be passed hereditarily but why it remains in the population is a mystery to me. It may be that it waits to appear in late life (which is unture in leukemia's case) or it may have some positive traits that go horribly wrong. I am still fairly certain though that when it does pass on in the genes of a child it would die early in life and that cancers that develop in later life are due to body cell mutations which would mean cancer is not something you can evolve out of. That would be my best guess. If you can enlighten me, however, as to why this disproves evolution or has an effect on the creation/evolution debate please, do tell. Edit!!!: After reading the article Eons posted, I now have an answer. You should give it a quick read. Especially the one about fish, it's not technical and it doesn't give too much info but it does show how you can make the best of even the worst situations.
When I think about a Religion, its just one possibility. There are endless possibilities about how the universe could be created, and what happens after you die. Chances are, most relgions are wrong. In some religions, your "spirit" is sent to a place like Heaven or Hell. Simple? There could be a possibility that it goes to another dimension, or it re-incarnates, or it just floats around like a ghost. The spirit may not even exist. So letting a religion control your life is a waste of time, because what you're devoting your time to may not be real. You should devote your time to personal enjoyment, which is real.
as some people might already know but the big bang theory might get replaced with the Big Bounce theory. ''According to some oscillatory universe theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction.'' you can say its like a yoyo. at the top u have the universe as close to infinite density then when u let the yoyo go it shows how the universe expands and when the yoyo comes back up it shows how the universe contracts in back to near infinite density. ''The main idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, the behavior of the quantum foam changes. All the so-called fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in a vacuum, were not so constant during the Big Crunch, especially in the interval stretching 10−43 seconds before and after the point of inflection. (One unit of Planck time is about 10−43 seconds.)'' from there we would all have to come from eveolution because if there was life befor a contraction it would destroy all information from the previous universe and after contraction life would have to begin from atoms combining over billions of years to from life so eveolution would have to be the olny logical anwser. no offince but i think religion olny gives false hope (spelling does not count as being educated in my book =])
Replacement and displacement are two different concepts. It may be displaced from being the origin of the universe to just the origin of the current expansion. All evidence for its occurrence still exists.
Same here. It seems like a way to control people. The commandments (sp?) are pretty much a way to get you to do something without someone forcing you to do it (Like Police)