• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Survival

Kumar

Unregistered
K
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
14,259
Hello all,

This simple & logical but brain-storming thought came to my mind so liked to interact here about it.

Every/most live being/s would like to live long, behave & evolve for his/her better survival. However nature's liking may be "survival of fittest". Then,

In view of above, if pathogens & cancer cells can also be unhealthy and die on our unhealth and death, why they will/should harm or kill us?

Best wishes.
 
You might get a response if this were in English. Can you re-word this in a way that makes it comprehensible?
 
lionking said:
You/he/she/it might/kinda/could get a response/reply/verification if/of this/that were in/on/sorta English. Can/could/would you re-word this/that in/on a way that makes it comprehensible?
Click to expand...

Gotcha ;)

Cancer cells are anomalous, and although biological, not "living". Their existence doesn't depend on propagating. They don't really have a choice do they?

Pathogens or germs don't really seek to kill the host either do they? It's a certain "runaway" effect that leads to the death of the host. My guess is they don't actually seek to kill the host, it's just an unfortunate result of them being in ideal conditions. They don't usually have it "really good", but when they do that's when things go bad for the host.

Just a guess, I'm obviously not a biologist.
 
lionking said:
You might get a response if this were in English. Can you re-word this in a way that makes it comprehensible?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Please try to manage. I have already cleared my stutus in my signatures. Anyhow, I try again:-

Most living beings including pathogens and cancer cells would like to live long and so would behave & evolve for their longer survival.

In view of above, if pathogens & cancer cells try and harm us, it will lead to their death also. Why will they try to harm and kill themself by killing their host?
 
One pathogen that I love, (not in a real and creepy way, maybe just more admire, like Ash admired the alien in Alien,) is the rabies virus; it infects the parts of the brain that, when tampered with, make the infected mammal not only prone to biting things, but also make the victim drool copiously, which allows for transmission.
It's awesome from an engineering standpoint, but horrific if one is convinced that there is a being that designed creation to include such horrors.
 
Just a nitpick, individuals to not attempt to behave and evolve for longer survival, but for better reproductive success. To be slightly more accurate, individuals do not evolve at all, species do.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Gotcha ;)

Cancer cells are anomalous, and although biological, not "living". Their existence doesn't depend on propagating. They don't really have a choice do they?

Pathogens or germs don't really seek to kill the host either do they? It's a certain "runaway" effect that leads to the death of the host. My guess is they don't actually seek to kill the host, it's just an unfortunate result of them being in ideal conditions. They don't usually have it "really good", but when they do that's when things go bad for the host.

Just a guess, I'm obviously not a biologist.
Click to expand...

Welcome and thanks. Don't cancer cells like to survive and live long?

About pathogens, Why they will create such conditions which can cause "runaway" effect or deficiencies of nutrients? On the other hand, they should create or maintain such environment which is beneficial to both host & them?
 
Kumar said:
Welcome and thanks. Don't cancer cells like to survive and live long?
<snip>
Click to expand...

Short answer - No.

Cancer cells are created due to some error. They do not depend on other cancer cells from other animals to spread. You may never have been in contact with any cancer cell and yet still get cancer.
 
Kumar said:
Welcome and thanks. Don't cancer cells like to survive and live long?

About pathogens, Why they will create such conditions which can cause "runaway" effect or deficiencies of nutrients? On the other hand, they should create or maintain such environment which is beneficial to both host & them?
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

You're attributing sentience and/or planning ability to individual cells, why?

Also, cancer cells can be immortal given the right conditions. HeLa cells are cancer cells that can divide an unlimited number of times, provided they are supplied with nutrients (usually on a petri dish). The reason cancer cells in the body eventually die is that they kill the host, cutting off their supply of nutrients.

Cancer cells do not "know" that they're killing their host, they just divide and divide as long as there are the raw materials for them to do so. It's what they do.
 
To my knowledge, cancer cells don't need to live long as long as they reproduce at a fast rate, which they do.

I believe that the timespan a cancer cell lives is perfectly sufficient for the cell itself. Being a cell, it won't really gain anything from living longer, would it?
 
Most very harmful pathogens are either "new", can survive outside a human host (in animals where they do less harm, in water, etc.), are harmless or less harmful in some people (carriers), or can spread before their effects become apparent. Diseases that require time and possibly the appearance of health in a human host in order to spread effectively will tend to evolve to become less virulent (at least initially), as has apparently happened to many common diseases.
 
Kumar said:
Welcome and thanks. Don't cancer cells like to survive and live long?

About pathogens, Why they will create such conditions which can cause "runaway" effect or deficiencies of nutrients? On the other hand, they should create or maintain such environment which is beneficial to both host & them?
Click to expand...

On the cancer cells, I don't think so. My understanding of cancer is it's a condition where the cells simply don't check themselves and just keep multiplying uncontrolled. To put it simply they don't know any better.

Of course this is personifying. "They" don't know to stop growing and not kill the host any more than say the road knows to get out of the way of a car and not get worn down, or a river to change direction to prevent from becoming a lake.

As for pathogens they are unique, some do require the death of the host to survive. Others don't and their life cycle is more like a parasite, they require the host surviving for their own survival. At least that's my understanding.

I think you aren't looking at the big picture. It seems to me the majority of pathogens, the majority of the time, don't kill the host. It's only a few them that do and even then it's not intentional.
 
Desmond said:
To my knowledge, cancer cells don't need to live long as long as they reproduce at a fast rate, which they do.

I believe that the timespan a cancer cell lives is perfectly sufficient for the cell itself. Being a cell, it won't really gain anything from living longer, would it?
Click to expand...

I should clarify.

Yes, you're right, individual cells do not live forever but the mass of cells can by indefinitely dividing, given the right conditions. I think the distinction between the two types of "immortality" is largely immaterial since, as far as I'm aware, one HeLa cell is virtually indistinguishable from another right back to the original culture.
 
Kumar said:
Hello all,

This simple & logical but brain-storming thought came to my mind so liked to interact here about it.
Click to expand...

great , fire away..

Every/most live being/s would like to live long,
Click to expand...
may i just add/edit your phrase here?

Every/most live being/s would like attempts to live long, enough....

"enough for what?" one may ask then, and the answer is long enough to breed. Longevity of life span itself without reproduction for organisms that reproduce is not a survival trait.

behave & evolve for his/her better survival.
Click to expand...
Suvival means, in terms of evolution, evolution and survival of the species, not any particular individual in that species. no breeding = no species essentially.

not the individual's survival, as a single unit, no, its more like
"behave & evolve for his/her " decendants better survival.

However nature's liking may be "survival of fittest". Then,
Click to expand...
Fit meaning "fit enough to reproduce" not fit enough to live to a hundred years or run the fastest.

In view of above, if pathogens & cancer cells can also be unhealthy and die on our unhealth and death, why they will/should harm or kill us?
Click to expand...
Because if the exisiting ones you can see today survived from host to host, then they lived long enough.

Look at the amazing variety of organisms lifespan lengths on the planet.
Those species obviously bred enough to get this far, and it worked.

(if it didn't , they died out and aren't here)

also "pathogens and cancer" is not a way I'd approach this.

They are small words for a big subject........

www.cancerhelp.org.uk/cells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen

I can see what you are on about I think, but an infected host for example would only need to be alive long enough for the organism to breed to other hosts really.

You may yourself consider there to be an advantage to the host living longer, but longer life span of itself and by itself is not a species survival trait, however breeding is.



Best wishes.
Click to expand...

And you, do you see here what i mean?
 
Last edited:
autumn1971 said:
One pathogen that I love, (not in a real and creepy way, maybe just more admire, like Ash admired the alien in Alien,) is the rabies virus; it infects the parts of the brain that, when tampered with, make the infected mammal not only prone to biting things, but also make the victim drool copiously, which allows for transmission.
It's awesome from an engineering standpoint, but horrific if one is convinced that there is a being that designed creation to include such horrors.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

However we can't take that virus left the host. Does he like to send his co-members or desendents to other host at his cost?
 
Hokulele said:
Just a nitpick, individuals to not attempt to behave and evolve for longer survival, but for better reproductive success. To be slightly more accurate, individuals do not evolve at all, species do.
Click to expand...

Thanks for correction.

However just a nitpick, we may not following it.

Do pathogens send their next generations to other host even at their cost?
 
rjh01 said:
Short answer - No.

Cancer cells are created due to some error. They do not depend on other cancer cells from other animals to spread. You may never have been in contact with any cancer cell and yet still get cancer.
Click to expand...

To be more precise, does it mean that cancer cells are either mad or self destructive?

Btw, is it common or necessary that cancer start from stem cells?
 
Kumar said:
To be more precise, does it mean that cancer cells are either mad or self destructive?

Btw, is it common or necessary that cancer start from stem cells?
Click to expand...
They are faulty. They are malfuctioning cells.

No, they have nothing to do with stem cells. (Or with homeopathy, for that matter).

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom