All living things are enormously complex and subtle chemical machines. At the same time, industry and commerce are releasing thousands of tons of new chemical compounds into the environment every year, many of which have no analogues in nature and which no living organism has evolved the ability to metabolize or excrete safely. Even if the vast majority of these compounds are completely harmless, it would be extremely naive, if not downright irresponsible, to suggest that this barrage of exotic chemicals has no deleterious effect on life, especially since many of these materials are concentrated or altered in the environment by natural processes in ways which we cannot predict.
I don't think that there can be any doubt that the "cancer epidemic" is due, at least in part, to some of these chemical substances. Exactly which ones, how, and what we should do about it, may not be understood or agreed upon, but that doesn't mean we should ignore this issue because of economic or political considerations. But the usual conflicts of interest make this a very controversial topic. Is any of this starting to sound familiar?
Space/Science » in reply to re: I wasn't implying that. - DNA, natural selection, cancer.
Enzyme breakdown deja vu.
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Seasonality may not drive evolution at all...
- Evolution is a biofeedback driven process.
- Drive v. influence??
- re: Seasonality may not drive evolution at all... - I think it had plenty to do with it.
- A rocky planet that massive would have alot of volcanism
- re: Seasonality may not drive evolution at all...
- re: Seasonality may not drive evolution at all...
- I do not know if this even applies, but
- Zipping up and down through the galaxy might, though
- re: Seasonality may not drive evolution at all...
