Cancer Selection: The New Theory of Evolution [Hardcover]

James Graham (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 1992

An extended amplification of (and a vigorous argument for) the idea originally published in Journal of Theoretical Biology: that conventional evolutionary theory which claims mechanisms observable in the plant kingdom were entirely responsible for the evolution of all complex animals, including humans, is profoundly incomplete. Graham corrects this major weakness by assigning a central role in the origin and evolution of complex animals to lethal cancer in juveniles, a process he calls "cancer selection." Written in an accessible but deliberately provocative style, Graham intends to provoke conventional evolutionists even as he welcomes the active support of thoughtful amateurs.

Editorial Reviews

Review

" ... well worth reading ..." Henry H. Bauer Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences Virginia Polytechnic Institute -- JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION, volume 16, number 1. Spring 2002. ISSN 0892- 3310.

"Mr. Graham, an avowed amateur scientist, has a bone to pick with evolutionists. He does not think that the theory of evolution itself explains the appearance of complex organisms such as people, although it is OK for simple things such as plants and colonial animals. I think I agree with him. Evolution 'by natural selection' does not explicitly seem to explain complexity (notwithstanding the eloquence of people such as Richard Dawkins.)... Graham [proposes] that diversification of differentiation mechanisms is the result of a defensive response to uncontrolled cell division. I, at least, like the idea." -- John W. Galloway, London's Nuffield Foundation, Nature, March 19, 1992.

"[Graham] quotes a plethora of research articles by experts in the various fields he taps, from Weinberg's work in cancer biology, to Ames' work in mutagens, Hayflick's work on human cells and aging, and on and on.... Graham's thesis is new, and it is meant to be thought provoking, a challenge to stir up the scientific community in the area of evolutionary thinking... It is a wonderful challenge in logical and scientific thinking, and the book is worthwhile for that alone." -- Lotte R. Geller, Roeper School for Gifted Students, The American Biology Teacher, May, 1993.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 226 pages
• Publisher: Aculeus Pr; First Edition edition (January 1992)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0963024205
• ISBN-13: 978-0963024206
• Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.5 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,369,498 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars Correction, September 8, 2009

By 

Ron Braithwaite "Hummingbird God" (El Indio, Texas United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Cancer Selection: The New Theory of Evolution (Hardcover)

Whoa!!!! I just wrote a review on Graham's 'Cancer Selection', which is beyond any possible shred of contradiction, an absolutely terrific, world-changing, review. Somehow Amazon managed to label it a 'Kid's Review.' Last time I looked in the mirror, I didn't see a 'kid'.

True, my hair was white as a wee tyke and it's still white but, as a child, it was because my melanocytes hadn't kicked in. Now it's because my melanocytes have kicked off.

Ron

5.0 out of 5 stars A completey novel way to look at the origins and biology of cancer, September 6, 2009

A Kid's Review

This review is from: Cancer Selection: The New Theory of Evolution (Hardcover)

I'ved given Graham's work 5*, not because I particularly agree with many of his conclusions, but because he has had the courage to posit a completely new way of looking at the formation of cancer and, even more startling, a completely new way of looking at animal evolution.

His theory basically revolves around the concept that cancer is the product of mutation. Cancer, and the mutations that cause it, are negative selective events. He therefore believes that, teleologically speaking, the 'avoidance' of cancer has driven the complexity of animal life forward.

It's an idea worthy of consideration. Mutations are a constant and predictable feature of cellular reproduction...and...arguments to the contrary, the vast majority are neutral or negative and some actually cause cancers...and cancers are lethal. I'd expand this a little and say that not only do some mutations lead to cancer but many others...even if they don't cause cancer...are immediately or eventually lethal, and this 'negative mutation factor' must, indeed, be a major factor in evolution.

I disagree to the extent that I don't really understand things [perhaps even Graham's own theory] as well as I would like to. I can well understand the mutational, lethal and evolutionary consequences of cancer but don't understand why it would drive increasing complexity and 'improvement' of animals.

Granted Darwin, and now many others, posited natural selection as the major positive motive force. Darwin knew nothing about DNA and little about genetics but modern Darwinists/evolutionists believe that the occasional rare 'positive' mutation is the stuff of positive evolution. MAYBE. But it is almost certainly true that the VAST majority of mutational events are neutral and/or destructive. It's very difficult for me to get my arms around this.

Has Graham provided an alternative explanation? Just possiblly. In a related matter I totally agree with Graham that sometimes a technical education is a kind of intellectual straight-jacket. We...and most cancer researchers...are trained in scientific dogma. It is difficult for them to come up with truly original concepts...precisely because of their training.

Graham, an interested and intelligent man, comes at the issue from an entirely different perspective and, not so remarkably, has the freedom to indulge in entirely new concepts. Excellent.

I will blow my own horn slightly. Although my own background, as a zoologist, physician and pathologist is more scientifically technical than Graham's, I still genuinely appreciate original thinking. Even in my case, in which I engaged in cancer diagnosis for years, there is a tendency to defer to the 'ivory tower' cancer researchers.

This is almost certainly foolish. Most of the researchers look through very narrow tunnels. They may carefully research an antigen, DNA recombination, cancer-related chemical factor but very, very few of them have experience in diagnostics. Few of them can distinguish, under the microscope, a small cell carcinoma of thyroid origin from certain lymphomas. They don't have a surgical pathologist's broad perspective. Therefore they don't talk to diagnostic pathologists and the pathologists don't talk to them. This is precisely the reason for the glacial advance of cancer theory and therapies.

Cancer therapy is basically the same as it has been since the 1950s. Cancers are treated with cellular poinsons that interfere with mitoses. In that cancer cells tend to 'mitose' at a high rate, the aim is to kill more cancer cells than normal cells. In the best of all possible worlds, ALL the cancer cells die and the host survives without serious injury.

The only thing that has changed is the increased number of anti-neoplastics [cellular poisons] and our ability to apply them in the most intelligent way possible. Basically, however, it's the same thing.

I'm presently working on my 'Magnum Opus' in which I posit that cancers are ordinarily the product of multiple 'fortuitous' genetic accidents i.e. mutations. Carcinogens [cancer producing agents] may play a role in some cancers but the most potent 'carcinogen' is trillions of mitoses during the time of the organism's life. Although there are risk factors, virtually all cancers are the product of pure chance.

Ron Braithwaite, author of novels--'Skull Rack' and 'Hummingbird God'--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico and 'Origins of Cancer' on multimutational theories of cancer.