3 ms·
> humans often are just not equipped to fight cancer But we are? The immune system is constantly at work killing malignant (or otherwise dysfunctional) cells.
by outworlder 5y ago
> humans often are just not equipped to fight cancer
But we are? The immune system is constantly at work killing malignant (or otherwise dysfunctional) cells. Cells themselves have mechanisms to commit suicide (apoptosis) if they are not working properly.
It's only when the several mechanisms we have get defeated at the same time (often due to mutations) that cancer can even develop.
If you mean, we are not as equipped as elephants or whales to fight cancer, then that's true.
> there’s little survival advantage for people who can effectively fight cancer after their reproductive age
There's some advantage, but as far as nature's concerned, there's indeed diminishing returns. As in, for the individual that has already reproduced there's no reason to stay alive, but this is beneficial for the offspring - until they are adults. So there's some selective pressures there, specially if you are competing against another group.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoMy understanding is there are cancer cells in all adults. They are constantly killed off and never develop into tumors or anything of significance until … they do in some people. So to say we are not equipped to fight them is incorrect.
- dtech 5y ago> If you mean, we are not as equipped as elephants or whales to fight cancer, then that's true. There's some debate as to whether they have better cancer fighting mechanisms, or whether their size means they are less fast affected by cancers, and/or whether they are large enough that their cancers split into competing cancers before they are affected.
- f6v 5y agoI’m not disputing that, just stating that there’s no evolutionary pressure on keeping adults cancer-free. There is a big pressure at eliminating child cancers from the population.