Thursday, January 1, 2015

One Reason Why Cancer is So Hard to Treat


A few years ago, I saw a local news story about a "cure" for cancer that a man had developed in his garage using a modified microwave and small metal orbs. The idea was that the metal orbs could be placed inside biological material, the microwave device could be turned on, and the tissue around the metal balls would be killed. To prove the concept, the man put some orbs into a hotdog, turned on the machine, and sure enough, the area around the metal orbs "died".

Seems like with careful calibration, one could simply put some metal orbs inside of tumors and zap them away once and for all, right?

Obviously this technique has not cured cancer (for multiple reasons). In this post, I will point out one of the fundamental reasons why cancer is so difficult to cure in hopes that the public will be better educated about this condition. For all you science people out there, I am way oversimplifying things. I know it is way more complicated than what I am about to describe. :)

I will start by explaining why bacterial and fungal infections (unlike cancer), and generally simple to treat.

If, lets say, a prokaryotic organism infects a person (eukaryotic), how do we get rid of the prokaryotic organism? If our only goal was to kill the prokaryotes (the bacteria that are taking up residence inside the body), and we didn't care whether or not the host died, we could submerge the host in a vat of extremely concentrated acid. This would kill the prokaryotes. Unfortunately, there would also be some inconvenient side effects for the host (death).

So, instead of using a giant vat of acid, we find other ways to kill the prokaryotes that don't involve serious side effects for the host (such as death). We do this by finding a poison that hurts prokaryotes, but doesn't hurt humans (made of eukaryotic cells).

This is usually pretty easy to do. I will illustrate why using pictures.



These are standard infectious prokaryotic warriors.


This is a human eukaryotic cell.


The point of this? Even if you don't understand cell biology very well, you can see that the prokaryote and the eukaryote are VERY different. This means that they function in very different ways. Because of that, it is relatively simple to find a poison that will kill prokaryotes, and not kill eukaryotes. We call these poisons "antibiotics".



The same is true for fungal infections.

Here is a fungal ambusher. They are fierce in combat.


Note: While my other drawings were at least somewhat accurate, my fungus drawing is not accurate on the cellular level, at all. But hey, I wanted to draw a mushroom.

Point stays the same--fungal cells are very different than eukaryotic cells, so they are relatively easy to kill without hurting the host!

And now we return to cancer. Why is it so difficult to treat?

Once again I will use pictures to demonstrate.

Here is a human eukaryotic cell:

And here, is a human eukaryotic cell.

The only difference is that the second one is cancerous. No, wait... The first one is cancerous... No... Um...

You see, cancer cells are tough to distinguish from human eukaryotic cells, because, well, they are human eukaryotic cells (with a few modifications that happen to make them very, very lethal). They multiply quickly, they ignore signals from other cells, they force blood vessels to provide them with supplies, they leave their normal homes and create colonies in other parts of the body. They are human cells that have "gone rogue".

Cancer cells are you.

Because of this, it is VERY hard to find a poison that will hurt the cancer cells and not hurt the human "host". The differences are so small, that treatment for cancer often turns into an arms race. The poisons that hurt cancer also hurt the human--and in order to fully kill the cancer, it almost takes killing the human.

In addition, just like human cells, cancer cells can adapt to toxins, pumping "anti-cancer" drugs out of their cytoplasms before they can take effect. Cancer cells are also diverse--there isn't just one kind.

This means that we need to find poisons that will distinguish each individual kind of cancer from nearly identical human cells.

This is why funding is needed for further research in the fight against cancer. We CAN identify the differences between human cells and cancer cells, and we CAN develop drugs that will take advantage. Tremendous progress has already been made. But due to the wide array of cancer types and the ability of cancer cells to change, especially in response to treatments, there is still a long way to go.

The more we invest in cancer research, the better we will be able to provide patients with medications that have fewer side effects and better outcomes.

If you want to help, You can always donate to a research institute or participate in events like Race For The Cure.

Much more important than that is to vote for officials that support research and education. Government funding for research far exceeds the support that can be raised in other ways. 

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Only Miracles can be Evidence for the Existence of a God


Here is the conclusion I will demonstrate in this post:

All arguments for God's existence must be based on miracles in order for them to be valid and believable arguments for God's existence.

My definition of "miracle": Doing something that either changes or ignores the laws of physics.

Here is my support for this conclusion:

Imagine you create a video game, one similar to SimLife. Let's just go right ahead and make it 'SimUniverse'. The game looks very much like our universe, there is at least one habitable planet, there is a population of sentient beings on this planet, and it boasts a robust physics engine. The graphics are so good that the sentient beings still aren't sure if they have found a pixel yet (strings?). This pretty much makes you the 'God' of the video game you just created.

You made the 'people' in the game quite intelligent, capable of observing their environment, and able to use logic. Basically, they can do both science and philosophy.

Now, if some of them were curious about whether or not God (in this case you) exists, how could they go about establishing that?

Well, let's say you decided to have some fun and make an avatar for yourself and go and talk to the people you made! You could just walk up to them and tell them that you exist, right? Well, that would actually be difficult because they would probably (and rightly) be skeptical about your claims.

But what if you were like "Hey, I'm God!" and then you screwed with the physics engine (you did a miracle). Then you would be displaying an attribute that only God could possess (the ability to change physics--like creating matter or energy from neither matter nor energy). Then the people might start to believe you (and rightly so).

But maybe that miracle was a fluke? Or a clever ruse, perhaps? Well, you could just keep on doing miracles of various kinds until it was more probable that you actually are God rather than just a really good magician.

Ok, so that is one way for you to reveal yourself to the people. Are there others?

You could also just program them to know about you. That would work as well.

Any other ways?

Could the people just 'discover' you?

I do not think that this could happen. If they were to find something that is a part of the physics engine, then it would just be part of the physics engine. They would say that it is part of nature and describe it using science.

If they were to discover something outside of the physics engine--wait, they can't do that. It is impossible for them to 'go outside' of their physics. They are limited to the game.

What if they were to break the laws of physics themselves? Again, they can't do that. It is impossible for a character in a computer program to do something it is not programmed to have the ability to do.

So, the only way for the people to reliably know that you exist is for you to communicate it to them, either by performing miracles, or by programming them to know about you. Keep in mind that if you do program some people to 'just know' that you exist and program others to not have that special knowledge, that the privileged 'just-knowers' cannot convince 'non just-knowers' without miracles (they can't say "you are also a 'just-knower'). Also, simply programming someone to believe something is itself exerting your ability to manipulate physics, so it is also a 'miracle'.

But the miracles are not limited to just turning water into wine--certainly not! It could be all different kinds of miracles.

A few potential examples have been talked about by philosophers for thousands of years:

1. The cosmological argument: Calling creation a miracle and pointing out that there must be a creator.
--http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/09/guest-post-further-discussion-of.html
2. The fine-tuning argument: Calling the environmental coincidences in our universe a miracle and saying 'God is the best explanation'.
--http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2014/07/my-honors-thesis-on-fine-tuning.html
3. Miracles of foreknowledge: Calling many of the teachings found in, say, the Qur'an, to be beyond human wisdom, and therefore miraculous, and therefore attributable to God.
3b. Divine foreknowledge: Making a prediction that would be impossible to make unless you were God (or given power from God).
4. Good old standard miracles: Parting an ocean, bringing a dead person back to life, doing anything useful with Windows 8. You know, things that can only be possible for God (Steve Jobs).

And so, if any of the people in your video game are going to be able to figure out that you exist using logic and reason (as opposed to raw programming), there need to be observable miracles for them to examine. You can do them, you could have a messenger do them, they can be big, they can be small, they can be clear, they can be cryptic--the physics engine has to be observably manipulated--the rules have to be changed.

All arguments for God's existence based on logic and reason must ultimately be based on miracles. Everything else is just physics.

http://joyreactor.com/tag/miracle

Caveats:

1. I realize that multiple Gods could exist in this scenario. My scenario applies for multiple Gods as well.

2. I'm not making an argument for any God in particular here. I know what all you New Atheists are thinking. I'm not ruling anyone or anything out in this post.

Comments:

A. On a more philosophical note, you may note that I am assuming that it is possible for God to exist. I you are a big David Hume fan, just leave a comment below and we can talk about whether or not miracles are even possible.


B. If you are a Bart Ehrman fan, and you want to talk specifics on the historical knowability of miracles in the past, I feel you. Again, leave a commnote

Monday, August 4, 2014

Our Universe Aint Nothing But a Case Study

This post is a quick thought about the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA).

Any time we are treating the entire universe as our test subject, which is the case with the FTA, we have a sample size of 1. This makes it impossible to run stats on the results of our inquiry. Because of this, the FTA ain't nothing but a case study. N=1.