/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10916287

30KiB, 500x305, 1acid.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 18:04:04 2019 No.10916287 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10916312 >>10916849 >>10917937 >>10918662 >>10918703 >>10919163

is cancer necessary side-effect of evolution?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Earth-10011_from_Nova_Vol_7_6_001.jpg, 3MiB, 1988x3056

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:12:47 No.10916311 Report

Quoted By:

it's the next stage

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:12:56 No.10916312 Report

Quoted By: >>10916323 >>10916361 >>10916722 >>10917735 >>10918662 >>10918738 >>10918961 >>10919800

>>10916287
No. Most organisms have reached a degree of organization where they can modulate the behavior of their parts to a degree that, without daily bombardment of carcinogens and tumor promoters and immune suppressors, and malnutrition, the animal would never develop cancer. Man is ironically the peak of this evolution in that he may live up to 120 years and never succumb to cancer. People were living to 150 as recently as 1900.

I keep telling people, they don't listen. It's not the genes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:15:25 No.10916323 Report

Quoted By: >>10916335

>>10916312
but isnt the very fact that mutations happen the reason that cancer exists?

i mean didnt people have cancer since forever?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:18:06 No.10916335 Report

Quoted By: >>10916338

>>10916323
I think only some cancers are caused by a primary mutation. The rest are caused by mutations induced by micro-organisms.

I don't really care what anyone thinks. Cancer has been recorded forever, just like illness and immune issues.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:20:21 No.10916338 Report

Quoted By: >>10918742

>>10916335
>The rest are caused by mutations induced by micro-organisms
and these micro-organisms were always there or they are created by our modern age electronics, food etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:21:53 No.10916341 Report

Quoted By:

Some animals have ways to fight csncer back. However, it is an energy expensive process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 18:27:16 No.10916361 Report

Quoted By: >>10916536 >>10916722

>>10916312
>People were living to 150 as recently as 1900.
They weren't.
>Man is ironically the peak of this evolution in that he may live up to 120 years and never succumb to cancer.
Bowhead whales have an average lifespan of 200 years and whales in general have thousands of times greater cancer suppression ability than humans do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060950/
>Box 2. All Whales Should Have Colorectal Cancer by Age 80
>If we use the blue whale as an example of an animal that is 1,000 times the size of a human, where m could equal 1.5 × 1010 crypts, then this analysis reveals that over 50% of blue whales would have colorectal cancer by age 50 and all would have colorectal cancer by age 80. The chance of an individual person getting colorectal cancer by age 90 is only about 2.5% according to this model and just over 5% as reported by the American Cancer Society [10]. It is implausible that 100% of blue whales actually get colorectal cancer by age 80. Though we do not know how often blue whales are getting colorectal cancer, they have been reported to occasionally have other cancers [20, 21] and live over 100 years [35]. This model suggests that there is something fundamentally different in the initiation and progression of cancer in large, long-lived animals, like whales, compared to humans.
>If blue whales got 1,000 times more cancer than humans, they would likely die before they were able to reproduce and the species would quickly go extinct [17]. The mere existence of whales suggests that is it possible to suppress cancer many-fold better than humans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 19:16:00 No.10916536 Report

Quoted By: >>10918786

>>10916361
>They weren't.
They were. The problem is it's nearly impossible to prove since there are no records. But there is a long record of people getting suddenly very ill when civilization moved there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:43:11 No.10916722 Report

Quoted By: >>10917730

>>10916312
>>10916361
Aging started when people did something to the environment that our bodies haven't evolved to deal with. Virtually all cultures that have sources going far back enough agree that people did not used to age.

Some possible causes:

Too much calcium compared to magnesium and calcium accumulation.

Deficiency in essential metals as the result of farming, or in case of copper being picked up and used.

Zinc poisoning replacing other metals from enzymes. Soluble zinc is absent in nature.

Tin poisoning. Tin compounds are among the most toxic substances known.

Iron accumulates with the body, but it seems to be too late, people started to age way before.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 20:47:46 No.10916731 Report

Quoted By:

It's a side-effect of entropy.
Rule 1 of the universe: shit blows up

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Aug 2019 21:25:41 No.10916849 Report

Quoted By: >>10917730

>>10916287
its prob necessary for more complex evolution.
evolution needs you to die

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 02:44:07 No.10917730 Report

Quoted By: >>10918396

>>10916722
This is the stupid thing I have ever read in my entire life.
Virtually all organic organisms age.
Virtually every culture also has had a sense of aging, no one suddenly said "Suddenly that guy's covered in wrinkles"
Virtually every culture agrees animals talk and made was made by a disembodied entity and dirt.
Idk why you believe this retardation, but I'm more concerned why you spread it

>>10916849
Dammit, I just wrote that who thing and then this mother fucker post something even more retarded. Hate you all, I'm out

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 02:45:28 No.10917735 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916312
VAXXICIRCUMCLAMPED

The 5th dimention is scale

The 5th dimention is scale Mon 26 Aug 2019 03:59:12 No.10917937 Report

Quoted By: >>10918399

>>10916287

I dont even fucking care only here for prime Jolie sweet fucking Jesus, bitch single handedly skyrocketed me into puberty optimum

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 08:46:06 No.10918396 Report

Quoted By: >>10918755

>>10917730
>Virtually all organic organisms age.
No. Plants don't age some may be programmed to use up all energy for seed production at some point,but that is not the same thing. Virtually no woody plants age. Trees may succumb to pests or disease, but they don't have lifespan limited in nay way. Tortoises don't age. Many sea creatures don't seem to age, there are records of clams that were centuries olds. Greenland sharks don't seem to age.

>Virtually every culture also has had a sense of aging, no one suddenly said "Suddenly that guy's covered in wrinkles"

Many do actually say that. Greeks thought it was Zeus's punishment and that it appeared rather suddenly. Sumerians thought it was caused by the deluge. Indians believed it was because the Kali yuga starded and Krishna left Earth, etc. This makes it unlikely to come from a single source, because that would likely at least somewhat agree on the cause as well. Some cultures in the caucasus did not believe in aging until modern times as noted by somebody above, which seems pretty bizarre if they were regularly faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

>Virtually every culture agrees animals talk and made was made by a disembodied entity and dirt.

No.

>Idk why you believe this retardation, but I'm more concerned why you spread it

I believe it because it actually makes more scientific sense than any other explanation. There is absolutely no logical reason why we should age if you dig deep enough.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO AEB504CA-C053-4D80-88DA-2C9BE765 (...).png, 340KiB, 600x300

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 08:47:29 No.10918399 Report

Quoted By:

>>10917937
for me it was rachel weisz

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 10:27:55 No.10918534 Report

Quoted By:

It's just environmental and metabolic. Both of which is under our control. We just choose pollution, stress, sugar, inflammatory foods, lack of exercise, chemicals in products, pesticides, pollution, lack of nature air exposure.

Super centenarians have common characteristics. It's not the Western lifestyle really.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:11:09 No.10918662 Report

Quoted By: >>10918668

>>10916312
>>10916287
>evolution
Cancers before age 30 that are not self induced (I.e. from lead poisoning or other human eniviomental poisoning) are extremely rare genetic errors.
Evolution doesn’t really care about you post child rearing ages. basically you would start having kids at age 13 and by age 30 your kids would be having kids, anything past that is bonus time as far as the first million years of human and protohumans evolution are Concerned

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:15:45 No.10918668 Report

Quoted By: >>10918690

>>10918662
>Evolution doesn’t really care about you post child rearing ages.
Nope! This is incorrect.

Evolution spans many scales, and in man is population level. If your population benefits greatly from having experienced members who can pass down skills, ie, broader transgenerational information transmission, you as a child bearing age individual and your child would be at a major advantage and more of them would survive. They too would go on to live to an old age.

People take natural selection too much on the face of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:33:46 No.10918690 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918668
I am aware of this argument and it doesn’t really come reaveant till 3,000 years ago, nothing on a evolutionly scale.
It is also unprovable. And can also be countered argued that those older groups would benefit the species vs other spices but not nessacarly their one gene lines, and propagating mind viruses (knowledges) is not the same as propagating your genes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 12:41:50 No.10918703 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916287
Necessary? No.
Incidental? Yes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 13:00:54 No.10918738 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916312
>People were living to 150 as recently as 1900.
This is your brain on the Bible

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 13:01:58 No.10918742 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916338
Are you all highschool dropouts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 13:08:59 No.10918755 Report

Quoted By: >>10918923 >>10918940

>>10918396
>There is absolutely no logical reason why we should age if you dig deep enough.
Yes, there is. We do not produce enough telomerase reverse transcriptase to keep us away from the Hayflick limit. The old must die so that the young may eat and grow. We compete for resources. If the population didn't die, evolution would stagnate along with the gene pool. Then we'd be more susceptible to become extinct due to failure to adapt to environmental conditions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 13:26:00 No.10918786 Report

Quoted By: >>10918923 >>10918940

>>10916536
>They were. The problem is it's nearly impossible to prove since there are no records
Extremely good argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 14:41:52 No.10918923 Report

Quoted By: >>10918929

>>10918755
>Yes, there is. We do not produce enough telomerase reverse transcriptase to keep us away from the Hayflick limit.
No this is false.
> The old must die so that the young may eat and grow.
No.
>We compete for resources.
Not really and that would be a reason for not giving up the resources you obtained by just dying for no reason.
>. If the population didn't die, evolution would stagnate along with the gene pool.

There is actually evidence that evolution accelerated hundredfold in relatively recent times.

>Then we'd be more susceptible to become extinct due to failure to adapt to environmental conditions.

Actually not, because people would die of environmental conditions regardless of if they age or not.

>>10918786
>Extremely good argument
I know, but it is as it is. There are simply no documents from those places. (and documents from Sumer etc. are assumed to be made up)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO BC8E2540-1514-48B0-92D3-A44F425F (...).jpg, 52KiB, 567x554

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 14:45:16 No.10918929 Report

Quoted By: >>10918945

>>10918923
You can’t just say "no" to this man’s rebuttals and act like your chimerical argument derives merit from this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 14:50:27 No.10918940 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 14:52:15 No.10918945 Report

Quoted By:

>>10918929
It just isn't so. Trees also live indefinitely and young trees wait indefinitely until a place opens up. That is the thing, the young would also have a longer time to wait for opportunity, so the difference cancels out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 14:57:13 No.10918961 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916312
Show me proof on people reaching 150 in 1900. Also show me proof this is in any way extrapolatable to people in general.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 16:11:58 No.10919134 Report

Quoted By:

Yes, although it can still be prevented, with the help of evolution.
Refer to naked mole rats, they're a good example.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 16:28:06 No.10919163 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916287
No, cancer is a glitch. Evolution merely seeks the optimal path for survival and mating. If that means longer living beings who can forever create more, then that's what it will be. The problem is the longer something goes one, the higher chance of failure happening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 18:24:52 No.10919470 Report

Quoted By:

no, it's a necessary side effect of multi-cellular life

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Aug 2019 20:23:05 No.10919800 Report

Quoted By:

>>10916312
epic and schizopilled

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches