Investigating the topic of viral mutagenesis confirms that you are correct and that the usual virus strategy is mutagenesis close to the threshold which is lethal to population stability – in other words, employing very little if any controls on genetic variation. The result is that one strategy for fighting viruses has been to increase the mutation rate so as to push the population beyond the lethal threshold. I therefore must concede that for viruses the claim may indeed be essentially correct just as you assured me.
Sorry… I have never been one to accept things on the basis of authority but insist on checking things out for myself.
I didn’t say that cancer was merely stem cells. I said cancer was stem cell mediated immunity. The cancer tumor is generated by the cancer stem cells.
under Cell Facts they state the following.
Cancer stem cells (CSCs) represent a small subpopulation of cells within a tumor that express cell surface markers including CD44, CD24 and/or CD133.
CSCs are capable of self-renewal and differentiation into non-tumorigenic cell progeny.
CSCs are tumorigenic and capable of regenerating a tumor when transplanted into an animal host.
Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) may either enhance or inhibit CSCs in a cell type specific manner.
miRNAs are involved in the regulation of CSCs properties.
CSCs are resistant to conventional treatment including chemo- and radiation- therapies.
CSCs play important roles in cancer relapse and metastasis.
Now, as for asking an oncologist, I have and he pointed me to a medical text, which he considered “evidence”. If it is written there it is true. I was on that road once upon a time. I come a long way since then. Maybe I can show the oncologist a thing or two because none of them seem to know how to help the patient have a spontaneous remission of their cancer… even from stage 4.
Let’s look at another few articles. https://jcs.biologists.org/content/125/23/5591
You don’t need to read far… in the abstract…
“Cancers are not just masses of malignant cells but complex ‘rogue’ organs,” but sure they are still trying to stich this up with cancer clonal evolutionary theory.
These guy (Tumor microenvironment complexity and therapeutic implications at a glance | Cell Communication and Signaling | Full Text ) are certainly trying to make it sound as if there are cancer cells and then there is blah blah blah but the whole tumor is mostly non-cancer cells and they interact and are a whole. AND they claim:
"The reciprocal cell-cell/ECM interaction and tumor cell hijacking of non-malignant cells force stromal cells to lose their function and acquire new phenotypes that promote development and invasion of tumor cells. "
By clonal evolution, even in 50 or 60 years for cancer cells to be able to “hijack” non-malignant cells and “force” stromal cells to be transformed into co-workers, do you have any ideas how many new novel proteins would have to some how “pop” into existence out of random mutations and naturally selected… wow. Who is confused?
They conclude saying "It is now well known that tumor cells can turn their surrounding niche into a hospitable home to better meet their growth needs and dissemination " What hospitable home? It has all the characteristics of an organ. We need to call a spade a spade.
And none of them have any conflicts of interests. Of course not. They are in bed with the drug companies!
Oh and viruses causing cancer. Have a look at this virologists video on viruses and oncogenesis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-CUseRKYc4
If this is not weaving a story I don’t know what is. He is almost as good as psychiatrists in disease manufacture.
Have a nice day.
Scientists tend to be more pragmatic. If you want to draw philosophical borders around word usage and concepts, then fine. Scientists studying cancer recognize how the mechanisms of evolution apply to cancers so they use the theory in their work.
That’s fine as long as the context is made clear. Evolution means change over time, so if something is changing over time then it is evolving. Words are just tools we use for communication, they don’t use us.
There are definitely people who use religion for power over others but God was not invented and those people seeking power over others are not even capable of understanding anything about God.
Then you don’t read enough. Because I have READ it and continue to READ it defined in many other ways.
google dictionary
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Merriam Webster
descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
From the beginning of this theory put forward by Charles Darwin in his book entitled “Origin of the Species,” this theory was about the change and diversification of biological species from a common ancestor. It was NOT about the origin of life and it was NOT about the general topic of mutation and the development of living organisms or changes in populations.
Indeed! So how do you tell the difference? Well obviously those crafted by people for their own power put the power in their own hands rather than in the hands of God. And since they put themselves in the position of speaking for God and dictating God’s wishes, then the god they teach is all about power and obedience. What they don’t want you to believe in is a God who is all about love and freedom rather than power and control – as well as one who is quite capable of speaking for Himself outside of a religion and its theological dictates. So when you see a god in some religion who is supposed to have done all sorts things which are malign or inept then you have to ask yourself why? Generally it is because that is where the obsession with power and control leads… to a god who has to be responsible for every nastiness in life.
Does this play a part in anyone minds concerning evolution and cancer.
We don’t inherit cancer. We inherit mutated that are corrupted which can increase the risk. Is the risk even in those people increased by purely nature or is it in part activated by nurture. Such as a lifestyle
That creates a weakened immune system that results in a mutated cell not carrying out apoptosis?
Can lifestyle choices reduce the risk of cancer cells activating and ignoring apoptosis even if it’s hereditary?
Another related question would be does lifestyle choices equally affect the other types of mutation that resulted in the diversity of species from a common ancestor?
Then lastly, how does hereditary genes with bad data developing into cancer relate to intelligent design verses evolution from a common ancestor?
There is only one God and God is about love and freedom, otherwise God would not have sent prophets to help and would not have given free will.
Certainly there are inhumane people, who are well masked and make the right noises and thus are difficult to detect at times however they are the ones about power and control. This happens in all religions.
The current model is that you need deleterious mutations in multiple genes to get cancerous cells. People can inherit some of these deleterious mutations which means it requires fewer mutations in other genes. I think there are also mutations in DNA repair/copying genes that increases basal mutation rates which can predispose some people to cancer.
A weakened immune system may not catch as many cancerous cells and allow them to gain a foothold. This is what is seen with HIV/AIDS, for example.
Just to clarify, some mutations are inherited, and predispose individuals to cancer, and some mutations are somatic, and occur in cells later in life, which causes them to turn cancerous. Of course, that is where carcinogens affect things, chemicals, sun exposure, radiation etc.
ID as far as Steven Meyer and co. advocate is not true creationism. They are still talking evolution. So in their arguments you are right they are dealing with design detection.
ID as far as I am concerned is creationism and more than that upholds the way that the physical reality is sustained. So it does involve the creator /designer/ sustainer.
He just wrote something, posted, thought about it and withdrew the post. The system just puts that in. I do it all the time, but if you trash it before hitting the reply button, you don’t see it.
The predictions though are only the say so of evolutionary biologists. Regulatory gene networks could not possibly have evolved no matter how much time is given. This video explains it simply and still one can see that it is very complex.
Regulation of Gene Expression: Operons, Epigenetics, and Transcription Factors
