So why don't scientists leave cancer cells alone and let them "mutate" into healthy ones? If evolution is correct, then there's no reason not to do this, is there?
13 comments
Well, aside from the fact that it's hard to control what they'll mutate into, and the fact that by the time enough of them have mutated back to normal the body will be overrun by cancer and you'll be dead, no, there's no reason not to do it.
except that natural selection doesn't select for health, it selects for maximum reproduction, and cancer cells reproduce faster than normal cells. this is reminiscent of the difference between fundie and the rest of us.
They /are/ healthy cells, as far as their own reproduction goes. Even more so than non cancerous cells, as they produce faster than are more capable of surviving. And since when did anybody claim they could manipulate evolution, especially on such a specific level, in such a short time frame? This is just an all around fail
The thing that scares me is that this somehow makes sense to Carico. I think I understand her line of reasoning, but there's a break in logic somewhere around where she tries to apply social darwinism to medicine.
I guess I shouldn't try too hard, should I?
Here's a better "riddle". Cancer is a destroyer, it consumes it's host and dies from that end. It doesn't spread or find a new host, as bacteria, Viruses or infections do. It isn't caught or picked up from others of the species.
The only thing that stops it from being abiogenesis is it occurs only within living things.
And a related question. Why do you stay with a religion that will consider you God forsaken if you suffer terminal illness or tragedy?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
