cuhes at csv.warwick.ac.uk
Thu Jun 2 04:53:17 EST 1994
In article <68388 at sdcc12.ucsd.edu>,
wsun at jeeves.ucsd.edu (Fiberman) writes:
>In article <2s2c6h$hj1 at crocus.csv.warwick.ac.uk> cuhes at csv.warwick.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>>The death clock argument is the first suggested mechanism of aging that
>>has ever made sense to me because it explains why there are no imortal
>>mutants - they die of cancer before we notice they are immortal.
>But using the same argument as above. There must be a way to
>prevent cancer in old age. A single cell can develop into an
>organism without any problems, why would an adult organism
>eventually develop cancer?
The death clock _is_ such a protective mechanism. It presents a second
hurdle that a mutation must overcome to be a "successful" cancer. This is
because a cancer that does no overcome the death clock will quickly use up
its alloted number of divisions. A single cell does not always make it to
an adult organism. I think that, approximately, any given cell has a
certain chance of becoming cancerous in a given time regardless of age etc.
If you take the rough approximation that, with the ageing clock, the mutation
has to overcome two successive obstacles to become a maligancy: the ordinary
controls and the death clock and guess that the chances of overcoming each
are about the same then, were the death clock stopped, the odds against
you getting a malignancy in any time period would presumably be reduced
to the square root. Supposing (another guesstimate) the chances of contracting
a malignancy in any year are 200 to 1 against then removing the death clock
would make them 14 to 1. If this is even approximately true it's no wonder
we don't see imortal mutants.
More information about the Ageing