Posted on 02/08/2011 5:47:18 AM PST by decimon
TEMPE, Ariz. – Despite decades of research and billions of dollars, cancer remains a major killer, with an uncanny ability to evade both the body's defenses and medical intervention. Now an Arizona State University scientist believes he has an explanation.
"Cancer is not a random bunch of selfish rogue cells behaving badly, but a highly-efficient pre-programmed response to stress, honed by a long period of evolution," claims professor Paul Davies, director of the BEYOND Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at ASU and principal investigator of a major research program funded by the National Cancer Institute designed to bring insights from physical science to the problem of cancer.
In a paper published online Feb. 7 in the UK Institute of Physics journal Physical Biology, Davies and Charles Lineweaver from the Australian National University draw on their backgrounds in astrobiology to explain why cancer cells deploy so many clever tricks in such a coherent and organized way.
They say it's because cancer revisits tried-and-tested genetic pathways going back a billion years, to the time when loose collections of cells began cooperating in the lead-up to fully developed multicellular life. Dubbed by the authors "Metazoa 1.0," these early assemblages fell short of the full cell and organ differentiation associated with modern multicellular organisms – like humans.
But according to Davies and Lineweaver, the genes for the early, looser assemblages – Metazoa 1.0 – are still there, forming an efficient toolkit. Normally it is kept locked, suppressed by the machinery of later genes used for more sophisticated body plans. If something springs the lock, the ancient genes systematically roll out the many traits that make cancer such a resilient form of life – and such a formidable adversary.
"Tumors are a re-emergence of our inner Metazoan 1.0, a throwback to an ancient world when multicellular life was simpler," says Davies. "In that sense, cancer is an accident waiting to happen."
If Davies and Lineweaver are correct, then the genomes of the simplest multicellular organisms will hide clues to the way that cancer evades control by the body and develops resistance to chemotherapy. And their approach suggests that a limited number of genetic pathways are favored by cells as they become progressively genetically unstable and malignant, implying that cancer could be manageable by a finite suite of drugs in the coming era of personalized medicine.
"Our new model should give oncologists new hope because cancer is a limited and ultimately predictable atavistic adversary," says Lineweaver. "Cancer is not going anywhere evolutionarily; it just starts up in a new patient the way it started up in the previous one."
The authors also believe that the study of cancer can inform astrobiology. "It's not a one-way street," says Davies. "Cancer can give us important clues about the nature and history of life itself."
###
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY (www.asu.edu) BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science (http://beyond.asu.edu) Center for the Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology (http://cancer-insights.asu.edu) Tempe, Arizona USA
Don’t feel bad, LOL, I had to dust off an old book and look it up.
Tomorrow, I would need to pull out the same book and look it up again.
If the solution weighs 1 kg/liter they are the same anyway.
What the Bible doesn't tell us is how many times in the past the same thing has occurred. The fossil record tends to reflect that aspect of God. Whole global ecosystems popping up into existence then suddenly disappearing replaced by something new, over and over.
I have nothing to back that up other than it makes sense to me, so take it for what it is worth.
“I personally believe that Genesis is true but I also believe in an old Earth. I know it’s complicated but it makes sense to me.” ~ dangerdoc
Me too.
You may find these to be items of interest:
Creation Myths of the Tenured
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2010/08/creation-myths-of-tenured.html
Gilligans Walk (Creation Days)
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2010/12/gilligans-wake.html
Nature vs. History: The Truth of Evolution and the Evolution of Truth
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2010/06/truth-of-evolution-and-evolution-of.html
Why Darwinists Reject Evolution
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-darwinists-reject-evolution.html
The Fractured Fairy Tale of Darwinian Evolution
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2010/02/fairy-tale-of-darwinian-evolution.html
Degrees and Chimes of Freedom Fleshing
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2007/12/degrees-of-human-freedom.html
“...Every free act transcends matter, which is why any form of materialism is anti-liberty, which is why the secular left, dipso shitso, is so dangerous. ...”
bttt
Discussing the pros and cons of evolution and contrasting it with conflicting theories is highly disfavored in public education settings, and that is where they need no be happening, not in the “virtual ghetto” of “Answers in Genesis” discussion threads, especially now that we are getting important new insights, such formal information theory, a discipline not available 150 or even 50 years ago, which is revolutionizing our perception of DNA as a formal language.
As for evolution being the so-called dominant theory, the geocentric theory of astronomy also survived well past its usefulness in describing planetary motion, despite the superior explanatory power of heliocentrism, which did NOT first appear with Copernicus in the 16th Century, but with Aristarchus of Samos, around 300 BC. That’s a 1900 year run of junk science.
So your argument from wide acceptance is virtually meaningless. It reminds me of a time I was stumped in a sidewalk debate outside the Supreme Court in DC. We were awaiting the Kentucky Ten Commandments decision, and I was arguing with a young man about the merits liberalism versus conservatism. His argument to me then was essentially this: If conservatism is superior, why do all the finest institutions of higher education lean liberal? Obviously, smart people become liberals, therefore being liberal is the smart thing to be. Sensing the circularity there?
I’ve thought about that conversation often, because I had no ready response at the moment, and he went away grinning, feeling he had won. It later occurred to me that many bad things had been widely accepted, only to later fall on hard times once people had a chance to work it through. Slavery, woman’s suffrage, etc. Did you know it was once “widely accepted” that man could not travel faster than about 20-30 mph because he would just fall apart from the physical stress?
No, there is much to learn from the debate, but one trap we cannot fall to is intimidation of the intellectual elite. Evolution is a key political tool of the left in creating a universe for our children that has no need of a Creator and therefore implies no higher moral order which must supersede the dictates of the state in the conscience of the citizen. With evolution firmly in place, the state can play god and get away with it. Evolution, like global warming, was hatched in an ideologically powered birth chamber, and can skew the science of secular zealots as badly as any religious theory. If it is “dominant,” it is not because it has superior explanatory power; it is because the scientific priesthood will not permit our children to hear heretical views in public schools, blocking our progress of thought and our discovery of new truth, and that is troubling indeed.
The K-12 public education setting is where established science is taught, not new, controversial science (if you could in fact extricate the religious base from Intelligent Design). Get it to be the dominant theory, then you can expect it to get down to the K-12 schools. Until then, you are trying to do a dishonest end-run around the process.
Evolution is a key political tool of the left in creating a universe for our children that has no need of a Creator
This is where you betray that your real objection to evolution is not a scientific one. You want it out of schools because it offends your religious and social sensibilities, not because of any supposed lack of scientific merit. I remember statements such as these whenever someone tries to pass Intelligent Design off as science.
Evolution, like global warming, was hatched in an ideologically powered birth chamber
Evolution was "hatched" by highly religious Christians in an environment where those who supported it were branded as heretics, and later even put on trial. Yes, Darwin was a Christian when he started formulating his theory of natural selection; in fact, he rather annoyed others on the Beagle with his constant quoting of scripture. It survived religious, political, legal and scientific attacks for decades before it came to the forefront of science. Even the powerful Lord Kelvin was an opponent. That is a sign of a strong scientific theory.
Its history has no comparison with the history of global warming, which was latched onto and supported by politicians pretty much from the beginning. With so much support from the highest levels of international governments, there's pretty much no way it could fail, at least in the short term. But the short term is all the politicians need, maybe 40 or so years to remake the world as they want it using a time-tested political tool called threat of catastrophe. After that it won't matter if the public realizes global warming is a fraud, the damage will have been done.
Once we could examine DNA we found that the supposedly less fit but clearly ancestral species were still there doing just fine ~ with the same genes.
We even found that human beings had remarkably few genes and we weren't as different from chickens and fruit flies as we had hopefully imagined.
They can fly. I can't fly. I wanna fly.
Oh the rock island line is a mighty fine line.
Whachyou mean Willis? We can't fly?
No one is objective, my FRiend. I merely put my biases forward openly for your consideration.
As you have not answered my demonstration that junk science can also be dominant science for centuries, I must suppose that you accept the premise, rendering your “it’s right because it’s dominant” argument meaningless ... again.
As for your view of the sanctity of secular education, my dad was a K-12 science/math teacher for decades and then a principal in the Chicago public schools for more decades and if you truly believe that said schools are a beacon of “established” scientific objectivity then we are from different planets, because both my personal experience, my dad’s experience, and my broader research in the area indicate that flawed, biased human beings are involved, but who for economic reasons tend to hide their strong biases behind a patina of compliance with the reigning secular orthodoxy. It is a closed system that does not admit “heretics,” regardless of whether said heresy is rational, if the a priori presuppositions of an autocratic few at the top of the pyramid are the least bit threatened. It is entirely religious in character.
As for my religion being my “real” reason for objecting to evolution, you create a false dichotomy. Scientific facts are important to religious people too. We all have a vested interest in good science. There is no necessary conflict between religious belief and scientific observation. They are both paths to truth. Therefore, while my religion does suggest a certain prism for viewing scientific data, so does yours. Better to admit you’re wearing tinted glasses than to pretend you’re the only one in the room who sees the world as it truly is.
As for your history of the genesis of evolution, it’s a head scratcher. Darwin dropped his bomb right in the middle of the Enlightenment, which was anything but Christian, and the theory was quickly taken up and championed as a way to elevate rational materialism as a replacement for traditional theology and thus throw off the shackles of Victorian prudery. And the evidence suggests that Darwin himself, who had at one time thought to be a preacher, devolved from his early faith to something not recognizable as Christian at all. Ideas have their impact, given enough time. So I do not believe your presentation of the history of the theory is correct. I am open to new insights, but it would help if you would name names and cite specific incidents to support your view, as everything may turn on a matter of interpretation.
Peace,
SR
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
All right. Some reasonable people.
I like to think I’m smart enough to admit that I’ve got NO clue how to design and produce a UNIVERSE.
Cause sure enough, if I did, I’d be off doing that.
Call it evolution by design, or versa vice, or whatever, but there is one thing that proves to me GENIUS on an unimaginable scale.
Chocolate melts in your mouth. Not in your hand.
Thanks for the laugh. ;-)
Dam, reading this article really is stressing me out... Dam... Just dam.
bttt
What one thing one does notice is relativity.
If you take a step back from the micro to the macro we see the stress of global warming has caused one group of “cells” to go kinda apesh!+.
Some are easy to spot and are called blastocysts. They are often referred to as terrorist “cells”.
They cause lots of damage by blowing themselves up and taking out groups of cells around them.
Then there are the lococytes. They are the majority. They cause hate and discontent on a more massive scale. They show up everywhere and at first appear to be benign, but get malignant real quick.
They are countered by the lookocytes. These are the white “cells” that keep saying “Look here you worthless, cancerous, Islamomaniacal POS MFers. It is our mission in life to destroy you.”
Unfortunately there don’t seem to be enough lookocytes around and the cancer is growing.
There is good news though.
Research has proven radiation will kill cancer.
Reasonable?
I have a deep suspicion that then entire universe is similar to a stage prop, ready to be folded and stored when the show is over.
decimon ~ It's those meetings.
One could argue that we are still in the 7th day.
The descriptions of every one of the first days ends with "And the evening and the morning were the nth day."
Every day save one:
There is no such closure for the seventh day.
Thanks. I never could keep them straight for any length of time (osmolarity osmolality.) The light goes on for a little while and then goes off.
I’ve already forgotten which one is which.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
