Survival

Kumar said:
Does it mean that cancer cells are not gifted with "survival" but gifted with live-long?
Click to expand...

Every cancer is different and has different "gifts." They are all gifted with "immortality" meaning they can divide an unlimited number of times, but they may grow at different rates. Some cancers will be better at adapting to things that may kill them than others. Some cells can be immortal, but still not cancer because they will still respond to proper signals to stop growth.


Does it mean that if nutients are available then cancer cell can live for more time? If so, what about life cycle of our non-cancerous cells in vitro?
Click to expand...

Yes. Generally, noncancerous cells are not immortal...the time they can be cultured in vitro is limited (some stem cells and immortalized lines are exceptions).

Suppose if cancer cells are injected in other's body, will they behave in same manner?
Click to expand...

The human system of the other body will kill the cancer cells. If the other body had no immune system the cancer might be able to grow (depending on the specific type of cancer).
 
Kumar said:
These look to be forgotten words:-

"For when the morning breezes blow toward the town at sunrise, if they bring with them mist from marshes and, mingled with the mist, the poisonous breath of creatures of the marshes to be wafted into the bodies of the inhabitants, they will make the site unhealthy"
Click to expand...

Hokulele said:
Forgotten for a good reason, they are nonsense.
Click to expand...

PixyMisa said:
Not forgotten, just not true.

Malaria. Possibly you've heard of it? The name means bad air.

It's not caused by bad air. That's pre-scientific nonsense. It's caused by the Plasmodium parasite, which is carried by mosquitos.
Click to expand...


Indeed, not forgotten. Nonsense, but still used by certain people.

Where do you think Hahnemann got the idea for "miasms"?
 
Sledge said:
Nothing controls cancer. That's why it's cancer. Do you know what cancer is?
Click to expand...

I am trying to better understand it. Is there any difference in activities of cancer cells in body and in lab.?
 
Taffer said:
And who decides what this balance is? You?



That's exactly my point, Kumar. The closest you can get to Absolute and Final is through science.



So?
Click to expand...



Who decide or how it is decided we are in homeostatis?

Probably;-

[When "live & let live" is prominient we can be in/near to "nature balance".

When "might is right" there we may be in nature's imbalance. "surrvival of fittest" next state followed again by "live & let live".

Obioustly, satisfied/balanced people can go for "live & let live" wheras unsatisfied/imbalanced for "might is right".]

Yes but to true science.

They may have other type of brain by which they act.
 
Kumar said:
I am trying to better understand it. Is there any difference in activities of cancer cells in body and in lab.?
Click to expand...

No. In both conditions they divide until they run out of a food source.
In the lab that is because the media is spent.
In the body that is because the patient has died.
 
Taffer said:
The brain is part of biology, yes, but it does not control cells. It is made of cells itself. Think of cells as little robots. They perform the task they are programmed to do. In the case of cancer, that programming is "replicate".
Click to expand...

"Functions
From an organismic perspective, the primary function of a brain is to control the actions of an animal."

It can be a cordinated function of brain at mactro level but if it control every cell at micro level & how is need to be understood.
 
Hokulele said:
Why is a natural death more acceptable than an unnatural one? I find that mindset to be despicable. No death should be considered acceptable when it can easily be prevented. For me, the difference isn't natural/unnatural, but something based on sentience and species' kinships. Your pretense that "natural" is somehow better than "killing" is nonsense at best, certain death for many cancer patients at worst, which for me at least, is horribly inhumane.




Sure. My dog has a brain that differs from mine. However, there is evidence that even I as a fully fledged skeptic can accept that her brain exists. There is no such evidence for individual cells.
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
Kumar said:
"Functions
From an organismic perspective, the primary function of a brain is to control the actions of an animal."

.... if it control every cell at micro level & how is need to be understood.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't control every cell, as was earlier explained to you. Therefore there is no question of how, and nothing to understand.
Do you actually read any of the replies or are you just merrily going around on the carousel?
Is there a carousel in Copenhagen?
 
Hokulele said:
No, because she is a tough bitch, I would say it is still about even. I wouldn't give odds against her in the long run.


And no, I don't really think of nature as female, singular, or whatever the feminine version of anthropomorphized is, but I am all for doing whatever it takes to help humans survive. Yay! I am back on topic in regards to the OP!
Click to expand...

Ok. Whether survival mean just survival or survival of fittest?
 
kumar said:
"functions
from an organismic perspective, the primary function of a brain is to control the actions of an animal."

it can be a cordinated function of brain at mactro level but if it control every cell at micro level & how is need to be understood.
Click to expand...
It doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom