Evolution study uncovering the roots of cancer:

Originally posted by sonhouse
And of course that is your considered opinion, being an expert on genetics and biology.

LOL

Originally posted by humy
You have probably spotted some significant flaws I have not.
How does it not add up?

Davies and Lineweaver claim that cancer is actually an organized and systematic response to some sort of stress or physical challenge.

So what advantages does it give the organism? The justification for their claim (that it follows a predictable pattern) simply doesn't justify it.

"We envisage cancer as the execution of an ancient program pre-loaded into the genomes of all cells," says Davies, an Arizona State University Regents Professor. "It is rather like Windows defaulting to 'safe mode' after suffering an insult of some sort."

OK, so what does this 'safe mode' do? What are the advantages?

As such, he describes cancer as a throwback to an ancestral phenotype.

So is he saying it was only 'safe mode' for single cellular organisms? If so, can we have some sort of indication that cancer would benefit single cellular organisms?

The new theory predicts that as cancer progresses through more and more malignant stages, it will express genes that are more deeply conserved among multicellular organisms, and so are in some sense more ancient.

Why would this be? It just doesn't make sense.

But if this is the case, then why hasn't evolution eliminated the ancient cancer subroutine?
"Because it fulfills absolutely crucial functions during the early stages of embryo development," Davies explains. "Genes that are active in the embryo and normally dormant thereafter are found to be switched back on in cancer. These same genes are the 'ancient' ones, deep in the tree of multicellular life."

So the genes for embryo development are important. This doesn't explain why the tendency to get turned on in later life has not been eliminated.

If the new theory is correct, researchers should find that the more malignant stages of cancer will re-express genes from the earliest stages of embryogenesis.

Why would this be? I don't see how it follows from the claims at all.

"As cancer progresses through its various stages within a single organism, it should be like running the evolutionary and developmental arrows of time backward at high speed," says Davies.

Why? It just doesn't make sense.

I can understand the possibility that cancer turns on various genes that are used during embryonic development, but the relationship with age and a sort of turning back the clock with progression makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Davies and Lineweaver claim that cancer is actually an organized and systematic response to some sort of stress or physical challenge.

So what advantages does it give the organism? The justification for their claim (that it follows a predictable pattern) simply doesn't justify it.

[quote]"We envisage cancer as the execution of an ancie rt of turning back the clock with progression makes no sense whatsoever.

Excellent points! I am in total agreement with you now.
Their theory just doesn't make any evolutionary sense whatsoever.

I had previously noted the general vagueness of their language with such sub-statements and terms as "... some sort of stress or physical challenge..." ("some sort of"? what "sort" of? very vague) and ".. defaulting to 'safe mode' after suffering an insult of some sort...." (again, "some sort"?) and "....the ancient cancer subroutine..." (what? cancer is defined in computer software now? OK, that is obviously not what they meant. So what did they mean exactly? that there is a genetic 'program' for making cancer? -What? you mean there evolved sets of specific genes to make cancer or what? how can that make any sense? I just assumed they knew what they meant and that I didn't).
But, I had still erroneously just assumed they knew what they were talking about despite this. Perhaps next time I see such vagueness in an article's language, I should see that as a possible sign that they don't know what they are talking about.