Theory In Crisis? What Crisis?

Evolutionary Ecology of Organs: A Missing Link in Cancer Development? | Trends in Cancer.

Creationists frauds continually feed their dupes with the absurd notion that somehow the Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis and is about to be abandoned by science and replaced by the absurd notion that it was all magicked by a magic man in the sky.

What is even more astonishing than their flagrant disregard for the self-evident fact that the TOE remains the fundamental theory underpinning all biological science is that their dupes readily convince themselves that for the first time in history an established scientific theory is going to be abandoned and replaced by a Bronze Age myth with not a single shred of evidence. No other scientific theory has ever been abandoned and replaced by 'Goddidit'.

No scientific theory has ever required the inclusion of magic entities for whom there is no credible evidence, and yet creationists believe this one is about to be. For some reason, the scientific method, which has been so successful for every other branch of science is suddenly going to be spectacularly wrong and we will all revert to the Bronze Age in our understanding of the Universe.

And yet, when you actually read the findings of real scientists who work with and apply the TOE in their everyday work, and base their entire scientific understanding of biomedical science on it, you find it's not only absolutely accepted without serious debate but has enormous explanatory powers which few other scientific theories have. When you actually look at the fact, you see that the TOE is not only not in crisis; not only not seriously questioned, but as firmly underpinning biology as the Theory of Gravity is underpinning to the science of ballistics or the Laws of Thermodynamics are to physics.

The organs that are the most important to keeping you alive and capable of reproduction, such as the heart, brain, or uterus, may enjoy a better protection against cancer, all other things being equal. We are not saying that this is the main factor to explain the different susceptibility of organs to cancer, but it is a factor that contributes with others.

Frédéric Thomas, evolutionary biologist."

This discussion paper on the incidence of cancer in different organs, for example, offers an evolutionary explanation for the observed difference in the incidence of cancer in different organs. The paper was written by a team which included evolutionary biologist, Frédéric Thomas, of the Center for Ecological and Evolutionary Cancer Research, France and Beata Ujvari, an evolutionary ecologist at Deakin University, Australia.

What has long been recognised is that cancers tend to occur more often in large and bilateral organs such as breasts, lungs and colon, and much less frequently in small, critical organs like the heart. The team offered one possible explanation for this difference based on their understanding of how different organisms survive in different ecosystems. The explanation is that natural selection has selected more strongly in favour of a cancer-resistant ecology in critical organs like the heart and less strongly for less critical systems which can tolerate a tumour for longer.

The paper was not making any specific claims but simply proposing that this evolutionary explanation is worth closer study as an explanation for the intrinsic causes of cancer. Not only is there no suggestion that the TOE has some major flaws in it which are proving its undoing but there is every suggestion that it might possibly have played a significant role in the observed differential incidence of cancer for which other explanations are currently elusive.

Apart from why they continue to pedal a lie which is so easily shown to be a lie, what creationists need to explain is why their supposed intelligent (sic) designer designed systems to inhibit the development of cancers in some organs but less effective systems in others. Unfortunately, although they will inevitable use the default 'The Fall' explanation for cancers in the first place, this excuse isn't open to them here.

The question is why their intelligent (sic) designer would design systems for inhibiting cancers in some organs but use less effective ones in others. Why would it want us to die of breast, lung, liver of colon cancer but not of heart cancer and why would it design cancers to kill us with, then design differentially effective systems for inhibiting them?


'via Blog this'

---