Survival Of The Fittest: Even Cancer Cells Follow The Laws Of Evolution

Science Daily ^ | Aug. 1, 2008

[Soliton]

Scientists from The Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton and the University of California discovered that the underlying process in tumor formation is the same as for life itself—evolution. After analyzing a half million gene mutations, the researchers found that although different gene mutations control different cancer pathways, each pathway was controlled by only one set of gene mutations.

This suggests that a molecular "survival of the fittest" scenario plays out in every living creature as gene mutations strive for ultimate survival through cancerous tumors. This finding, which appears in the August 2008 issue of The FASEB Journal, improves our understanding of how evolution shapes life in all forms, while laying a foundation for new cancer drugs and treatments.

[Liberty1970]

If each cancer pathway is controlled by only a single set of mutations, this seems more like a design feature than an evolutionary happenstance. I would expect variation to arise from a process that is itself assumed to arise from chance mutations (variations) acted upon by natural selection.

I don't see a lot of sense in speaking of cancer pathways being 'naturally selected.' Natural selection is supposed to operate by fit organisms breeding more offspring than unfit organisms. Cancer is not an organism, and it leads to lack of fitness/offspring, not increase thereof. So how would natural selection act on a cancer pathway at all, except to work to eliminate all such pathways?

In the creation model, cancer is a mechanism by which death is caused, as a result of the Fall. That there would be a single pathway makes sense if it is a designed tool to bring about death in nature. It is interesting that cancer now appears to be less a random breakdown than a deliberate mechanism. Almost as if cancer is part of some kind of macro-apoptosis mechanism, hmmm...

[Yo-Yo]

This suggests that cancer can pass from body to body, in order to propogate the selection successes.

Certain cancers can be triggered by viruses (chlamydia for instance) but I don’t know about anyone who has shown that lung cancer, for example, can be passed along from person to person.

[Soliton]

In the creation model, cancer is a mechanism by which death is caused, as a result of the Fall.

So God needs biology to kill people?

[Liberty1970]

Death is a process requiring a mechanism, yes. That mechanism could be as simple as having us fall off cliffs. I don't think the particulars matter. At least, I'm not wise enough to discern why one process or mechanism would be favored over another. But without death we'd be stuck here in limbo forever.

I suppose there might be advantages to having us die in an 'orderly' manner as opposed to just sheer entropy. At least, I can infer as much from the cellular process of programmed cell death (apoptosis), which I refered to in my first post.

[autumnraine]

I’m confused by this as well. Evolution is supposed to be designed for survival of the fittest. If the purpose of this “organism” is to kill it’s host, what purpose is that towards anything?

[exDemMom]

In this case, the natural selection is only on the level of the host (i.e. the cancer victim), not the species. Within the host, some cell types could be seen as trying to enhance their survival at the expense of other cell types. The more successful ones would be the more virulent cancers. None of these cancers are thinking about the fact that the more successful they are, the quicker they will kill off their host, causing their own death. They are only looking at the short-term advantage, which means they have to grow faster and more aggressively than any other cells.

In a few cases, the characteristics of being fast-growing and aggressive has led to long-term survival of the cancer long past the death of the host: Hela cells, for example, are a cell line established from a tumor of a woman who died in 1956, and there are many other cancer cell lines like that.

[Soliton]

Very interesting. Thanks.

[Deinococcus radiodurans]

So would a cure for cancer be going against God’s will?

[Liberty1970]

Not at all. To clarify, _we_ are responsible for death (cf. Genesis 3). God just manages the details. Relieving suffering and showing compassion, such as by finding a cure for cancer, is in effect dovetailing with God's own work of love in redeeming lost sinners, bringing them back into a right relationship with Himself.

In the Bible, death is described as 'the last enemy' to be overcome as God restores the fallen world we screwed up.

This has wandered from the topic, however...

[grey_whiskers]

This suggests that a molecular "survival of the fittest" scenario plays out in every living creature as gene mutations strive for ultimate survival through cancerous tumors.

OK, say that again, slowly.

Successful tumors grow.

Growth leads to death of the organism.

Which leads to death of the tumor.

Which leads to an end of the gene line.

Methinks these particular tumors have not read enough Dawkins (or too much).

Cheers!

[js1138]

Most cancers occur after childbearing years. It would be interesting to know if genes that make one prone to cancer offer some subtle benefit in earlier years.

[grey_whiskers]

Now *that* is an interesting thought -- however, given that many genes *turn on* in response to specific environmental stimuli -- it might be more of an 'unforeseen side effect' rather than true feedback.

Cheers!