Conceptualizing cancer cells as ancient 'toolkit'

Arizona State University ^ | February 7, 2011 | Unknown

[dangerdoc]

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.

[dangerdoc]

My working theory is that God doesn't change. We see in the Bible that he has nearly destroyed the Earth once and plans on our current version going away and making way for new creation.

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.

[Matchett-PI]

“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

[Springfield Reformer]

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

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

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.

[muawiyah]

Currently the more classical versions of Evolution are under some serious stress.

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.

[decimon]

...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.

[muawiyah]

Buy a ticket at the station on the rock island line.

Oh the rock island line is a mighty fine line.

Whachyou mean Willis? We can't fly?

[Springfield Reformer]

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

[SunkenCiv]

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · 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  Google  LiveScience  Mirabilis.ca  Nat Geographic  PhysOrg  Science Daily  Science News  Texas AM  Yahoo  Excerpt, or Link only?	Thanks decimon. First Dinosaur Brain Tumor Found, Experts Suggest by John Pickrell National Geographic News November 24, 2003 Cancer isn't just an affliction of the modern world, new research suggests. Scientists behind the preparation of a fossil belonging to a new Tyrannosaurus rex relative believe they may have discovered the first known fossilized brain tumor. Tumors are rare, even in living animals. But as a soft tissue, the average tumor's chance of making it to the fossil stage is even slimmer, said researchers behind the find, making the discovery highly unusual. The golf-ball-sized brain tumor appears as a spongy mass inside the skull cavity of a 72-million-year-old Gorgosaurus fossil, now on display at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis in Indiana. The probable tumor would have affected the animal's balance and caused other damage, explaining the many crippling wounds and fractures recorded in her skeleton. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·

[bigheadfred]

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.

[decimon]

Some reasonable people.

Thanks for the laugh. ;-)

[tanknetter]

Interesting, but I don’t follow the part where he says cancer is a “preprogrammed response to stress”. Does that mean that those of us who don’t stress don’t get cancer?

"Stress" is, I imagine, being used in the broadest possible sense. Being out in the sun a lot causes "stress" to skin cells. That "stress" could therefore be the "key" that "unlocks" the skin cancer genetic trigger.

Same thing with smoking, which causes "stress" in lung tissue (triggering lung cancer). Or eating copious amounts of red meat, which correlates to all kinds of cancer (pancreatic, for instance).

[DariusBane]

Dam, reading this article really is stressing me out... Dam... Just dam.

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[bigheadfred]

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.

[dangerdoc]

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.

[null and void]

Lazamataz ~ All you have to know is that God's days are probably VERY long.

decimon ~ It's those meetings.

One could argue that we are still in the 7^th 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.

[Silentgypsy]

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.

[dangerdoc]

I’ve already forgotten which one is which.