3 ms·

Wrong. For one people used to die a lot younger, many genetic defects will only kill an older, weaker human. For two the environment is different, e.g. many m

Wrong. For one people used to die a lot younger, many genetic defects will only kill an older, weaker human. For two the environment is different, e.g. many more cancerogens in and around us. Just have a look at the cancer rates. A middle aged man in US today has a 70% chance of getting cancer during his lifetime.

robbiep 11y ago
Sorry mate, what? The op said a friend discovered they had a genetic mutation that lead to an increased risk of cancer. There are several conditions that do this: multiple endocrine neoplasia (types 1 and 2), li fraumeni syndrome (a p53 mutation), familial adenomatous polyposis (apc mutation), hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer and a handful of others. All of these present with strong family histories. In fact, patients with APC mutations often have cancer before their 30s. Yet have been successfully passing on this mutation for generations now. If you do not have defective copies of the above (or a small subset of mutations of other regulatory and proto-oncogenes) then you have no greater chance of developing cancer than the next person, lifestyle and virus exposure factors not withstanding. Now I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about because your two points are at odds with each other: you first state that we are living longer, and defects 'will kill older, weaker humans'. Bullshit. Your next point, that cancer rates are higher now than at some indeterminate point in the past, is also bullshit and out of context: if we are living longer, then of course we are going to get cancer. But this has no bearing on our genetic susceptibility to cancer over a certain age. In fact, there are no known genetic mutations that predispose to cancer later in life; all the syndromes predispose to cancer early. I can only suppose you are trolling very hard, and hence hiding behind 'anon1mous'

robbiep 11y ago

Sorry mate, what? The op said a friend discovered they had a genetic mutation that lead to an increased risk of cancer. There are several conditions that do this: multiple endocrine neoplasia (types 1 and 2), li fraumeni syndrome (a p53 mutation), familial adenomatous polyposis (apc mutation), hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer and a handful of others. All of these present with strong family histories. In fact, patients with APC mutations often have cancer before their 30s. Yet have been successfully passing on this mutation for generations now. If you do not have defective copies of the above (or a small subset of mutations of other regulatory and proto-oncogenes) then you have no greater chance of developing cancer than the next person, lifestyle and virus exposure factors not withstanding. Now I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about because your two points are at odds with each other: you first state that we are living longer, and defects 'will kill older, weaker humans'. Bullshit. Your next point, that cancer rates are higher now than at some indeterminate point in the past, is also bullshit and out of context: if we are living longer, then of course we are going to get cancer. But this has no bearing on our genetic susceptibility to cancer over a certain age. In fact, there are no known genetic mutations that predispose to cancer later in life; all the syndromes predispose to cancer early. I can only suppose you are trolling very hard, and hence hiding behind 'anon1mous'