Why do those things cause cancer? Why do some smokers not die of cancer? The reason it’s so vague is because we don’t actually know what causes cancer. We know what is associated with cancer, but not what causes it.
Why do those things cause cancer? Why do some smokers not die of cancer? The reason it’s so vague is because we don’t actually know what causes cancer.
Ah, I see the misunderstanding now.
Just because a natural process contains some inherent randomness does not mean that we do not know how it works. Knowing exactly how a thing occurs does not make the action of that thing deterministic. Just because it is unpredictable on an individual scale does not mean it is mysterious, or beyond our understanding.
Some people exposed to a carcinogen will develop cancerous cells. Some will not. Some of their immune systems will remove the cancer cells before they cause problems. Some will not. Some will develop tumors from those cells. Some of those cells will die and get filtered out by the kidneys or liver before they reproduce and form tumors. Some of those tumors will grow enough to be lethal. Some will become benign before they cause significant health problems.
The outcome depends on many factors like age, health, exercise, diet, exposure, genetic background, etc. There are more variables than we can possibly track for any given person. Even if we could get all of that information, we are ultimately talking about the interactions of certain molecules with proteins in cells - meaning that quantum effects are relevant, so there is some probability involved.
We know what is associated with cancer, but not what causes it.
We know what causes cancer. Genetic mutations during cell reproduction cause cancer. We don’t know every possible thing that can provoke genetic mutations (that would require infinite knowledge), nor do we know if a specific individual will develop cancer in response to a specific carcinogen. The outcome is probabilistic.
Again, just because there is some inherent randomness does not mean that we don’t understand how it works. Understanding something does not make it deterministic.
Genetic mutations during cell reproduction cause cancer.
That is the somatic mutation theory of cancer. It has not been proven, it’s very popular. There are other theories such as the metabolic mitochondrial theory.
If the prevailing theory has many paradoxes (i.e. the oncogenic paradox) , then the model needs to be updated. So no, we don’t know what causes cancer, we know what is associated with cancer.
Gene mutations absolutely have a role to play, it’s reasonable, but is it causal or part of the chain toward cancer? I think it’s necessary, but not sufficient. Hence not causal, hence it doesn’t “cause” cancer by itself.
Why do those things cause cancer? Why do some smokers not die of cancer? The reason it’s so vague is because we don’t actually know what causes cancer. We know what is associated with cancer, but not what causes it.
Ah, I see the misunderstanding now.
Just because a natural process contains some inherent randomness does not mean that we do not know how it works. Knowing exactly how a thing occurs does not make the action of that thing deterministic. Just because it is unpredictable on an individual scale does not mean it is mysterious, or beyond our understanding.
Some people exposed to a carcinogen will develop cancerous cells. Some will not. Some of their immune systems will remove the cancer cells before they cause problems. Some will not. Some will develop tumors from those cells. Some of those cells will die and get filtered out by the kidneys or liver before they reproduce and form tumors. Some of those tumors will grow enough to be lethal. Some will become benign before they cause significant health problems.
The outcome depends on many factors like age, health, exercise, diet, exposure, genetic background, etc. There are more variables than we can possibly track for any given person. Even if we could get all of that information, we are ultimately talking about the interactions of certain molecules with proteins in cells - meaning that quantum effects are relevant, so there is some probability involved.
We know what causes cancer. Genetic mutations during cell reproduction cause cancer. We don’t know every possible thing that can provoke genetic mutations (that would require infinite knowledge), nor do we know if a specific individual will develop cancer in response to a specific carcinogen. The outcome is probabilistic.
Again, just because there is some inherent randomness does not mean that we don’t understand how it works. Understanding something does not make it deterministic.
That is the somatic mutation theory of cancer. It has not been proven, it’s very popular. There are other theories such as the metabolic mitochondrial theory.
https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12050662 - Paradoxical Behavior of Oncogenes Undermines the Somatic Mutation Theory
If the prevailing theory has many paradoxes (i.e. the oncogenic paradox) , then the model needs to be updated. So no, we don’t know what causes cancer, we know what is associated with cancer.
Gene mutations absolutely have a role to play, it’s reasonable, but is it causal or part of the chain toward cancer? I think it’s necessary, but not sufficient. Hence not causal, hence it doesn’t “cause” cancer by itself.