0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Evolution includes mutation. This is usually disadvantageous, but occasionally it allows some adaptation.In a recent podcast it was said that some cancers act like an organ and set up "nests" for themselves. Certainly they are showing the same stubborn tenacity to survive that other forms of life show.So, in trying to eradicate this parasitic lifeform couldn't we forever lose an evolutionary benefit? Or is the argument that evolution is no longer worth the sacrifice?
On average, if a person lives to the ripe old age of 30... the genes are already passed on to the next generation. So diseases that occur at age 50+ have little impact on the reproduction of the species.Thus, it would likely take a significant amount of effort to select genetics that would lead to lifespans in excess of 100 years.
is "mutation" not the same as a "transcription error?"