Cancer (And Tumors) A Sign of Evolution?

Greetings,
We have all been affected by cancer with directly or indirectly, its just a fact. With cancer becoming such a widespread probably and changing in forms, the world has to grasp a real strangle hold on the 'disease'.

Now for the record, I am not a fan of Darwinism and his school of thought, so I am speaking from an ubiased perspective AND I happen to be Muslim-- the belief of evolution contradicting my entire belief system.. But..
If you look at the dynamics of how evolution occurs and you compare cancer, they are real similiar..

Without going into too much technical details..

Evolution was a slow process that not ALL BEINGS survived. Many beings were killed in the process of evolution and will continue to die as we involve. There was no memo that said "We are all going to get wings now..", many animals died trying to get wings..

So if you look at cancer.. From our medical perspective, it is uncontrolled cell division which leads to cancerous growth. But what if by trying to combat cancer we are fighting an evolutionary process of humans? We all know that we are not going to reach the next level of existence in one day, and nature goes through it's own trial and error.. Yet.. if we are fighting something that can possibly help us tomorrow, just because it is hurting today, we can be holding our civilization back.

Just a thought..

Interesting concept, absolutely.

The thing is, cancer has been around for thousands of years; there is anthropological evidence of tumour activity and invasion in skeletal and mummified remains dating back millenia. Perhaps the distinction now is that we've become more sophisticated in detecting and reporting cancers, although it's absolutely correct that there are more cases - if only because we have thousands of added carcinogens floating around that would not have existed Way Back When.

Having said that, I'm not sure that it's a "nature's way" type of issue; surely it would be far more efficient to prevent births, than wait until the post-fertile period (which is when the majority of cancers are diagnosed) - the patient has already completed their breeding program (!) by that state.

(I've just realised how...uh..."Handmaid's Tale-ish"that last sentence sounds...eek!)

Because many cancers are triggered by human interference (chemically induced, etc etc), this would seem to indicate that if cancer is a tool of Darwinism...it's not a very effective tool.

Sometimes though, I do wonder if we're not doing ourselves a grave disservice by prolonging life in that manner; with a planet already struggling with resources, might it not be more prudent (if....uh...cold) to "let them go", as it were? (an example would be....thirty years ago, a kidney cancer patient would have virtually no chance of recovery; now we find much higher survival rates, etc, which in turn keeps adding to the strain on resources).

Interesting stuff, without a doubt...but I think virii are the true geniuses of the "survival of the fittest" world, with their capacity to mutate and change faster than we can find cures...

i think it must have a lot to do with our diet and lifestyles. smoking has increased heart disease and lung cancer dramatically. could the same effects happen because of certain foods. 100 years ago they didn't have processed meats, over fatty foods, e numbers, colorings, chemicals etc etc...i think now we are finding out what effect our 'new age' diets have had.

Yeah, cancer is linked to diet, exercise, and environment... But then again, there are a lot of rare forms of cancer that we have no real grasp on how it was developed. Some people believe that it is due to genetics, while other think it may be due to natural cancer in the body that lays dormant.

But I agree with both of you, Cancer is something that is man-made in many senses, but then there are always those aspects that have no real explanation.

-Jago

This is a very interesting thread. Very interesting theory jago. I thought that we all had atleast 1 cancer gene, and cancer was the gene devided and grew and that growth was foreign to the body and is what we call 'cancer'. feel free to correct me if im wrong :p. Now could this gene or cell be the first step on our next evolutionary path.

Exactly, bro.. Thats what my thoughts were.. And considering we do have a cancer gene if you look at it from the right angle it could be looked at as a sign of evolution.. I mean it is known throughout the scientific community that we have junk DNA, but the question is how long will it stay functionlist..

I think that as we progress as a species, this is inviteable. We have to undertake "mutations" and thats what cancer is. We need to pass on genes to our offspring that have passed through the mutations with no adverse effects.These dna mutations will make us more advanced dna wise. We will gain more dna variation as we progress...

Originally posted by wyatt43
I thought that we all had atleast 1 cancer gene, and cancer was the gene devided and grew and that growth was foreign to the body and is what we call 'cancer'. feel free to correct me if im wrong :p. Now could this gene or cell be the first step on our next evolutionary path.

A bit on cancer

Cancer is caused by damage (mutation) to the DNA contained in a particular cell. Sometimes the cell will simply repair the damage or die - and that'll be the end of problem! But sometimes the mutated cell continues to grow out of control, and divides - this is what happens with cancer. That's all it is - a normal cell gone awry, because the mutation has disrupted the normal growth pattern (by changing the chemical processes therein).

There are so many reasons why this DNA might become damaged - it could be personal habits (smoking, drinking alcohol etc), it could be a mutation you've inherited from your parents. Some cancers are caused by virii - the Epstein-Barr virus is linked to Hodgkin's Disease and Burkitt's Lymphoma, while the HPV virus is linked to cervical cancer (in fact, cervical cancer is rarely found without the presence of HPV).

The bottom line though, is though we don't all have a "cancer gene", we all retain the potential to develop cancer (simply because we all have cells!) - and it's important to bear in mind that some cells undergoing uncontrolled growth can also develop into noncancerous tumours. Not every mutation will be a death sentence, you know?

The true difference between what we call a mutation and what we'd call a cancer is one of perspective, and it usually falls down to how it affects the body - a person born with six toes isn't going to die from their mutation, but a person with an advanced tumour will probably die as a result.

Anyway - I really just wanted to simplify the gene/DNA/cancer cell thing, before we get lost in a mire of misunderstandings

(Sadly, we can pass on some genetic mutations to our children without realising it)

Yeah^^

And to further that.. There has been cases of people who have had cancer for years and have been healthy..
This is the reason why treating diseases is so hard to do.. The condition of how the disease affects the person is relative to just that-- the person..

Many people develop tumors but do not die.. So it is not a matter of cancer being present, but the what it does to the body with it's presence.

That is why I brought up the point of evolution.. There are many people who have medical conditions that are considered to be lethal, but survive without pain.. Its rare, but it happens.. But, from a scientific standpoint

Mutation does not mean death.. The reason why people get tumors is because of the rapid celluar division.. I agree, but what I am trying to say is that we know for a fact that cancer is often a byproduct of our environment as well as mutation..

I think cancer can be considered a failure in the cells trying to adapt (hence the damage), hence why you may have many people who have tumors but never get sick. That the growths themselves may be natures way of trying to adapt to the environment we created..

But like I said..

Just a thought..