Never considered by whom? Cancer is very often considered by biologists as an example of evolution in action.
3 Likes
From the way that cancer is discussed in biomedical science one would think it a malevolent one, but I have seen otherwise.
I have found that cancer is stem cell mediated immunity, erroneously ignited in the body owing to false beliefs and other associated issues. It is too much to discuss here and off topic.
However the fact of the matter is that the body creates what are called cancer stem cells and these, surprisingly enough have many “markers”, i;e., surface proteins that are embryonic stem cells markers.
If we scrap the idea that we are just a body and that body a machine and we rather consider that we are embodied conscious beings, then our reactions, which are somatic changes in structure and function, give rise to new forms in the body.
If we as co-creators can do that then it is, IMO, evidence that creation was intelligently designed. I would say that God upholds the information needed for all material forms (living and non-living) to come into being and be maintained in existence. So the body forms, the many species are created out of information. And what is the genome if not coded information. It has plasticity as we can see and may change in order to create even new novel structures. And more so, it can be reversed, which we see in spontaneous remission of cancer.
Evidence for ID in my book!
The cancer clonal evolutionary theory has no evidence to support it, but more to the point has evidence in contradiction to it.
In all cancers, it is cancer stem cells that give rise to ALL the other cells, which means not only the heterogeneity of cancer cells but also the cells of the connective tissue as well. In mouse models the only cancer they have seen is when they have grafted cancer stem cells into nude mice (i;e., mice with no immune system) They have grafted breast cancer stem cells and got the very same tumor as was in the human, in the mouse.
All of the experiments with the so-called carcinogens only give rise to what are known as transformed cells NOT cancer cells.
If you subject cells, whether in vivo or in vitro, to a chemical or virus or radiation, you get cells in crisis. This causes some of the cells to become locked into the cell cycle process. However they have such cells in the laboratory for fifty or more years and none have turned into cancer cells. So cancer evolutionary theory is dead in the water.
Citations please.
It sounds very much on topic, at least in terms of where you believe cancer and ID intersect. We can have another thread, if desired. Please clarify. Thanks.
Many cancer cells do not survive because they don’t carry the necessary blood supply (and most importantly, the body identifies and kills them before they get there, of course).
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you? It sounds like you are trying to buck the majority of scientific knowledge? I hope I’m mistaken. Anthroposophism? Thanks!
2 Likes
Hi Ani,
Without introducing yourself, in the space of a few posts you have attempted to overturn biology, oncology, and indeed the standard causal model in medicine.
However, I for one would like to know more about your training and studies so I can better understand how you reached your conclusions.
Would you be so kind as to share your lab work, your medical studies, your academic background, etc.?
My background is available at https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisfalter/
Best,
Chris Falter
2 Likes
I am not a biomedical scientist. I am a retired industrial chemist, but I had done enough biology units to enable me to be able to read a medical journal and understand enough.
I first got cancer in 1993. The first doctors said uterine cancer and they were in a hurry to operate and remove my uterus. “Spare organ” they said, “you don’t need it”. I didn’t trust the doctor as I had been going to him with complaints for almost a year and it was his locum that picked up on the cancer. So, I decided to get a second opinion and left to go to Sydney (2,600Km south) and as events worked out it took a month and a half to get there. On the way I saw some symptoms lessen and a few disappear.
In Sydney I was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer with metastases to the uterus, cervix, bowel and both lungs. AND type 2 diabetes as there were high blood sugars. “Nothing we can do for you” they said. I wasn’t about to give up on my life so I went to a Chinese herbalist and I believed back then that they helped because by early 1994 after more tests the doctors found no evidence of disease. I really believed that the Chinese herbs cured me but a decade later I realized that I must have had a spontaneous remission of the cancer the first time.
So here are my findings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owoFpAzBock&feature=emb_logo and I will try to explain the science, which backs my findings 100%.
About “the science”. In the first 50 to 60 years of chemotherapy treatment they were targeting rapidly dividing cells because they “believed” that this is what cancer was. You could call me cynical if I say that maybe they had drugs that killed rapidly dividing cells and why not make some money.
Albert K. Harris, Professor of Biology, UNC-Chapel Hill
Under point #2. he says…
Please notice that cancer cells do not grow or divide faster than normal cells, although many people believe that, and most forms of chemotherapy were designed on the assumption that they grow faster.
This means that the early chemotherapy was NOT evidence based and the best example of faith healing by doctors… placebo!
This is critical information because the reality here is that the people who saw cancers shrink (i.e., the 54% because the rest died of the treatment) had experienced a placebo effect. If there is no conscious being in the meat robot then how does that happen?
They are trying to say that placebo is the expectation of getting well but this would hardly be the case. The person has to believe that whatever treatment they are given addresses an underlying problem because the reality is that there is foul game play and related, inhumane people with an agenda behind cancer. Only if the person believed that the underlying problem perceived owing to the foul game play, be addressed by whatever they are give, chemo or anything else, would the body clear away the cancer.
Have they told the public about this debacle? No. They are still talking about abnormal cells dividing out of control, only now they are supposedly dividing slower than normal cells.
Let’s see the medical experts, Mr Cancer Biology himself, Dr Rob Weinberg PhD. He and Dr Hanahan wrote the Hallmarks of Cancer. If we look closely then they are the hallmarks of stem cells. Did they realize it?
Here from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer:
“" The Hallmarks of Cancer " is a seminal peer-reviewed article published in the journal Cell in January 2000 by the cancer researchers Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg. The authors believe that the complexity of cancer can be reduced to a small number of underlying principles.”
And what do you know… they knew about cancer stem cells at the time: Cancer stem cell - Wikipedia
“Cancer stem cells were first identified by John Dick in acute myeloid leukemia in the late 1990s . Since the early 2000s they have been an intense cancer research focus. The term itself was coined in a highly cited paper in 2001 by biologists Tannishtha Reya, Sean J. Morrison, Michael F. Clarke and Irving Weissman.”
And we are to believe that Hanahan and Weinberb “jbrain stormed at a conference” and whalla the hallmarks of cancer were “conceived”. Who’s making it up. These guy have got to be big pharma lap dogs, who bark as need when given a bickie to munch on.
Just to give a couple of papers. Some of it is behind pay walls but enough to see that cancer is not about abnormal cells dividing out of control.
EMT in cancer | Nature Reviews Cancer EMT or epithelial to mesenchymal transition is a biological program seen in wound healing/ tissue regeneration and embryogenesis.
And where not convenient the science is “poorly understood”. See here: GINS2 promotes EMT in pancreatic cancer via specifically stimulating ERK/MAPK signaling | Cancer Gene Therapy
In the discussion: The current study offers convincing evidence that overexpression of GINS2 contributes to advanced clinical stage of PC patients in coordination with EMT signaling.
And all this can come about by genetic errors and DNA scramble. Give me a break.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67325-7?elqTrackId=84de0a579bc84069aa2feb9febdbdec8
“Cancer stem cell (CSC) has the ability to self-renew and initiate tumor formation. “
And what about here they admit cancer is an organ, albeit a rogue organ: https://jcs.biologists.org/content/125/23/5591
“Cancers are not just masses of malignant cells but complex ‘rogue’ organs, to which many other cells are recruited and can be corrupted by the transformed cells.” And as you can see they are trying to justify cancer cells as “transformed cells” that “recruit” other normal cells. Lol.
It was published in Journal of Cell Science 2012! Twelve or more years after they know about cancer stem cells and tumor initiation and progression.
The tumor microenvironment is seen purely from the point of view of therapy. Tumor Microenvironment as A “Game Changer” in Cancer Radiotherapy - PMC
The public story is like saying that a car cuts corners or runs the red light because of the make of spark plugs or the type of cylinders and cylinder head gaskets used etc., etc. The notion that there is a driver in the car is not acceptable in biology, far less in oncology.
If we look at the science of cancer in particular, but not only, then we see clear evidence that there is a conscious being involved without a shadow of doubt. They want to give a cause and effect for everything so they have a problem with consciousness because it can’t be shown as some physical cause of anything.
Please see my answer to Chris_Falter
It is not that I am bucking the scientific knowledge but the medical stories given to the public.
I will find the citation needed but here is also a video that says precisely that cancer stem cells are needed to get cancer initiation and progression by Dr. Rob Weinberg PhD, the big authority on cancer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3508&v=Nou8VWpWba4&feature=emb_logo
Dr. Robert Weinberg - “Cancer Stem Cells: A New Target in the Fight Against Cancer”
ID is orthogonal to life. ID is the essence of machinery both in execution and result. Thus to attribute our existence to ID is not only to reduce ourselves to no more than machinery. but to look for God in ID is seeking to worship machinery – making us no more than watches made by the great watchmaker machine in the sky. For the ultimate in Intelligent Design is looking more like a machine these days than anything in Christianity.
So, not only is Evolution the scientific theory and ID nothing but anti-scientific rhetoric, but ID is also a very poor religion much more suitable to Deism than Christianity.
Cancer is evidence against ID except if you believe in a God which is inept or malign.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. But then I have heard other ill-conceived nonsense just as bad… like… the only reason viruses become resistant to drugs is because they copy their DNA so badly. It is downright idiotic and a disservice to science and the theory of evolution. But poor explanations of evolution by a few biologists does not evidence for ID make except in minds dedicated to the methodology of rhetoric.
Evidence for the self-organizing process of life in my book.
Biology is certainly a work in progress, but I think both medicine and oncology in particular could use a little overturning.
Very interesting.
Might be a reason to rethink oncology, but I see nothing here to support ID – quite the contrary.
Allow me to rephrase: cancer very clearly is an example of evolution in action.
That’s a bit of an odd statement since viral resistance is more of an issue with RNA viruses than DNA viruses, but other than that, yes, that statement is also basically correct. Development of drug resistance is routinely considered part of viral evolution – because it is.
What on earth are you going on about?
4 Likes
I can’t find the relevant paper but you can see here in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG22BEXscQE&t=1522s
Cancer Stem Cells - Max Wicha, M.D.
They took cancer breast stem cells and grew a cancer in a mouse. At 22mins for a few mins.
Normally they use genetically engineered mice to get a “tumor”, which they want to call cancer, but it is only cells growing out of control and not cancer.
As Dr. Wicha states quite clearly that cancer is an abnormal organ and not just abnormal cells growing out of control. So the genetically engineered mice are not developing cancer. They are developing a mass alright but it is not cancer.
This is the argument that atheists use to say that as there is evil in the world then God must be a malevolent being. Wrong! God is benevolent and all powerful.
Firstly cancer is referred to as a malignant tumor by biomedical scientists and doctors but it is not a true picture.
I would call cancer stem cell mediated immunity erroneously ignited in the body owing to false belief generated by foul game play. The person perceived a possible danger in some area and as a result the body reacts to build a barrier for protection. And we can see this is possible and been show through EMT, epithelial cells gain stemness and a novel organ is built.
If the person can be hassled more and more and particularly if they can be made angry the problem worsens since they believe the theatre of war is in the body.
All this shows is that we have the ability, through our beliefs and reactions to those beliefs to change both function and structure of an area in question in the body. This is because we, as conscious beings, have been made co-creators. We can reverse the problem… easy as, simply by realizing how and why we are reacting. And especially when we can resolve the underlying issues that give rise to ongoing emotional and /or other bodily reactivity. There is nothing malignant about it.
Which atheists? And how does God’s benevolence and all powerfulness show itself?
Not a few biologists. It is the mainstream, almost ALL biologists explain it that way. The official explanation is the cancer clonal evolutionary theory.
This is SMBE, the society of molecular biology and evolution, and they say:
“Understanding cancer from the lens of evolutionary theory is essential to fully comprehend cancer’s behavior.”
.And what about the National Institute of Health’s Library.
.CLONAL EVOLUTION IN CANCER - PMC
“Cancers evolve by a reiterative process of clonal expansion, genetic diversification and clonal selection within the adaptive landscapes of tissue ecosystems.”
It is utter rubbish because we see a lot of new and altered proteins in cancer all of which function and carry out some function. BUT it is the official consensus story on cancer. To say that there are random mutations that undergo natural selection produces the proteins seen is the equivalent of saying you sit a great ape at a grand piano and by random keystrokes it plays for you Beethoven’s ninth or some other masterpiece.
No it is not!
Evolution is a process of the filter of natural selection working on genetic variation of the genetic material which we pass on to future generations. Cancer is NOT an example of this process in any way shape or form. Cancer is an example of damage to our chemistry (particularly somatic rather than germline genetic material) by a variety of sources like chemicals (carcinogens), radiation, or pathogens.
(see suggestion of a different rewording of the claim below, to which I do not object)
Believe it if you like, but I do not. I am quite sure that the resistance which viruses have to the anti-viral defenses of other organisms is the product of a long history of evolution which evolves many different ways of introducing variation into the genome in a highly controlled manner to achieve highly tuned solutions to particular challenges. That is how the evolutionary algorithm works.
It is all far more intentional than some biologists make it out to be. Intentional but not a matter of intelligent design by a supernatural deity. Where do I get this from? From studies of mutagenesis, which for example find that organisms like E-coli have actually evolved mechanisms to bypass their own DNA repair process in order to introduce variation into their genome.
Incorrect. This is an argument of a THEIST objecting to the monster invented by those using religion for power over other people.
Well THAT is certainly correct! Cancer cells are alive too and also subject to natural selection just as all other living things are. The body has evolved defenses against cancer just as it has against pathogens and so unless a cancer cell can evade these defenses then they will not survive.
SO, if what glipsnort meant to say is that examples of the evolutionary process can be found in the phenomenon of cancer, then I have no objection to that claim. But, it is still very STRANGE to call these examples of evolution, since this is certainly not about the origin of any species – so it might even be better to call them analogies of evolution rather than examples of actual evolution.
1 Like
What do you define as cancer?
I’m in the medical field. In my experience, oncologists and scientists for Big Pharma by and large do try to do the best for their patients, and many millions survive because of them and because chemotherapy, radiation, and the new treatments work, due to appropriate trials (try Cochrane.org for good reviews, and clinicaltrials.gov to see what ones are going on–though the latter are not all standardized).
I am tremendously glad you did well with the diagnosis you had. I don’t know the particulars, but that is a wonderful story.
Thanks.
2 Likes
I define cancer as stem cell mediated immunity erroneously ignited owing to false beliefs of some possible danger in some area. The body moves to create, through EMT, pluriopotent stem cells that then create a barrier. Indeed the cancer stem cells have many markers (cell surface proteins) of embryonic stem cells. The body can build a barrier by creating a novel organ. Some researchers refer to it as an abnormal or rogue organ. Some only discuss the characteristics, which are clearly the characteristics of an organ.
We see that all solid cancer have the characteristics of an organ. They have stem cells, a basement membrane, connective tissue, blood and lymphatic supply and most also a nerve supply. And all of this is brought about by the cancer stem cells. And there is meaningful communication and co-operation between the cancer cells and the stromal cells as well as immune system cells.
Evolution is the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time (with or without natural selection). It occurs whether the population is of humans or viruses or cancer cells. The same processes apply across the board – mutation, selection, genetic drift, founder effects – and the same tools are used to reconstruct them – phylogenetic inference, tests for selection, demographic inference.
Since I study viral evolution for a living and you don’t, that works out quite nicely.
None of this has anything to do with your claim, which was about development of resistance by viruses (not bacteria) to antiviral drugs.
3 Likes