Posted on 06/11/2009 8:43:17 AM PDT by Scythian
Our large brains may make us cognitively superior to chimps, but, according to a new hypothesis, we could be paying a price for our sizable cerebrum: a higher rate of cancer.
Chimpanzees are thought to be the closest evolutionary relative to humans, and we share around 98 percent of our genes with these primates.
But for years, scientists have observed that chimps have a surprisingly low cancer rate compared to humans.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If you want to beleive that cancer is gene related go ahead ... I for one file that under junk science as well, in fact, it’s pure foolishness
Oncogenes, for those of you in Rio Linda; are genes associated with cancer.
They are usually mutated in cancer such that the genes that prevent cell division are mutated off, and/or the genes that promote cell division are mutated on.
Now why is it that the p53 gene is mutated in about 50% of cancers?
If you claim to be smarter than a doctor and know how the body works; perhaps you can explain to me why about 50% of cancers have the p53 gene mutated?
Why is there such a high heritability of some forms of cancer that can be directly linked to a gene mutation if there is no connection between genes and cancer?
Oh wow. Maybe bananas cure cancer.
Or maybe it's because they throw the crap instead. Hmmm... This could prove interesting and healthy at the upcoming DC tea party.
So WHY is it mutating?
Mutations are caused by something, they don't just "happen."
You act as though the mutation is the cause, not the result of some external force.
So this is how they are going to explain the dumbing down of our children, lowering of test grades and graduating morons. It really is better for them, no risk of cancer that way, huh?
Because mutation happens all the time as a result of cross linking radiation, intercalating agents, and even just the process of DNA replication.
Mutations introduced by DNA replication is one of the contributing factors to cancer.
Thus we see that cell lines that are under constant replication are MUCH more prone to cancer than cells that rarely if ever replicate.
There is a reason prostate cancer is common and brain cancer or heart cancer are rare.
Do you want me to answer my own question?
I will if you want, as it seems unlikely that you or Mr. “I am smarter than a doctor” has any idea why the p53 gene is mutated in about 50% of cancers.
Go ahead Nobel Laureate, answer your own question and rid us of the scourge!
Oh wait, maybe you're just another keyboard pounding know-it-all....
Yep. Took me about 10 seconds to google it: Chimpanzees live about 60 years in captivity; their life span in the wild is only about 35-40 years.
These “scientists” attribute to brain size what life span easily explains. But even if common sense eludes them, why single out brain size as the causative factor? Why not one of the other human/chimp differences? I suspect it’s the shaving that’s killing us.
Nah, just ODD (oppositional defiant disorder). Drag out your DSM-IV and check it out ... a classic specimen.
Always on the opposite side of anything approaching a consensus on FR.
There are several of them here. Evolution and birth certificate threads really bring them out of the woodwork.
It is a valuable process for a multi-cellular organism to allow cancerous cells to kill themselves.
Those cancers that have a p53 mutation are not subject to this process of p53 induced apoptosis.
Thus the of the cancers that grow and survive within the body long enough to be detected; around 50% have already shut off the mechanism whereby the cell would be instructed to kill itself.
And you think that ‘genes have nothing to do with cancer’ is or should be a consensus opinion here on FR?
But, we have so-called "precancerous," damaged cells in our bodies all the time. They're effectively recognized and removed, by a healthy immune system.
Going into some bizarre comparison to chimpanzees and blaming brain size for cancer is ludicrous to the point of near incomprehensibility. It's your side of the debate, so defend it.
Let's see about these genetic percentages being bandied about. Want to toss out a few other creatures? How about an earthworm? And why do you think it important?
Pardon, but your a priori is showing, lol.
PH Balance, Low Oxygen, System Candida, Mineral Defiencies (including Amino Acids). Genes do not cause cancer, not only that, much of what we call “cancer” is not “cancer” but systemic fungal infections. Ever try a PH strip, go get some, hold them into your stream when you take a pee, I bet it’s 5.5 or less, ie, extremely acidic as it is on most Americans, your blood will therefore be carrying much less oxygen, anerobic bacteria will flourish, cancer will form (not get in). Do some research on PH and Oxygen and cancer and do something about your health or sit there and wait for a p53 patch it’s your choice.
K.
You're still describing the effect, not the cause.
Now instruct us (who are less likely to die from cancer) about the WHY question I asked. Why is p53 mutating and allowing cancerous cells to propagate?
It's easy to point to a breakdown in the defenses, but why are the defense mechanisms of the immune system breaking down in the first place and allowing the cancerous cells to live?
If you have the answer to that, you should stop wasting your time lecturing noobs on a political board and get down to the CDC with your findings!
“If you want to beleive that cancer is gene related go ahead ... I for one file that under junk science as well, in fact, it’s pure foolishness”
Cancer is not always directly related to genes, but genes definitely have a bearing on how resistant you are to cancer-causing factors.
I did not agree with the premise of this article in any way.
I did correctly point out the DNA comparison between human and chimp is over 99% of the “same” genes; that the “same” genes are about 98% the same, and over the entire genome we are about 94% the same. That has nothing to do with the genetic causes of cancer and is not an a priori assumption on my part, but is a clear consequence of looking at the data.
Do you agree that cancer has nothing to do with genes?
Is that the position you wish to defend?
The cause of around 50% of people admitted to MIT having SAT’s above 1400 is that those without high test scores are eliminated from consideration.
Why is p53 mutating? Because mutation can and does happen.
Why are those cancers that grow and survive more likely to have p53 mutated? Because a functional p53 gene kills growing cancer cells.
p53 is not part of the immune system. The gene is expressed in every cell line.
*Slaps hand against forehead*
Thank you for playing, you may step down.
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.