AP's 214th book of Science// First Multicellular Organism on Earth was a cancer of a single cell 4k views
8k views

AP's 214th book of Science// First Multicellular Organism on Earth was a cancer of a single cell
4k views

AP's 214th book of Science// First Multicellular Organism on Earth was a cancer of a single cell.

We usually think of the first multicellular creature to evolve on Earth as coming from a colony of single cells. Where the single cells lend favorable behavior to the whole of the colony, a colony acting as one unit rather than the individual cells.

In this theory, the opposite is the truth, that no colony can become a single creature, no matter how beneficial each is to the others and as a sum total of cells.

In this theory, the evolution of the multicell does not come from a colony but comes from a cancer of a individual single cell.

We easily can see how a cancer can form a new organ. If I had lived with my liposarcoma and had not killed me, you could say that AP has a new organ, not seen in any other human. And in this manner, if the organ was beneficial and I reproduced and the offspring developed the same cancer organ, soon we have a new species.

But getting back to the first multicellular organism on Earth. It came from a single cell that went cancerous and instead of parting from the parent cell, remained and each division stayed in a growing mass of cells that now forms a multicellular new organism.

What I am tasked to do and research is what plant or animal still living that resembles this dynamics of cell division turned cancerous and staying with the parent cell. I am pretty sure there is some multicellular organism that resembles this dynamics.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 30, 2021, 7:16:21 PM (24 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 6:34:07 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> AP's 214th book of Science// First Multicellular Organism on Earth was a cancer of a single cell.
>
> We usually think of the first multicellular creature to evolve on Earth as coming from a colony of single cells. Where the single cells lend favorable behavior to the whole of the colony, a colony acting as one unit rather than the individual cells.
>
> In this theory, the opposite is the truth, that no colony can become a single creature, no matter how beneficial each is to the others and as a sum total of cells.
>
> In this theory, the evolution of the multicell does not come from a colony but comes from a cancer of a individual single cell.
>
> We easily can see how a cancer can form a new organ. If I had lived with my liposarcoma and had not killed me, you could say that AP has a new organ, not seen in any other human. And in this manner, if the organ was beneficial and I reproduced and the offspring developed the same cancer organ, soon we have a new species.
>
> But getting back to the first multicellular organism on Earth. It came from a single cell that went cancerous and instead of parting from the parent cell, remained and each division stayed in a growing mass of cells that now forms a multicellular new organism.
>

Now here is some good research. For we research a single cell in mitosis and where it splits off from the parent cell. In this splitting off, what if the splitting off never occurred. What if the splitting off that was supposed to be carried out never occurred. Then this would be the same as cancer itself.

So if we investigate in mitosis the splitting off process, we are getting a glimpse into cancer cells mechanism.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
2:00 AM (17 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, this is going to be one of my easiest proofs in biology science. For I just looked up in Google with search terms "mitochondria acts as a liver" and lo and behold, it not only likes like a liver but the liver is predominately constructed of mitochondria, in other words the mitochondria is a liver in single cells.

And this also proves where the mitochondria DNA found in animal cells is so much different from the regular DNA found in the animal.

Now at first glance, one would think because of two different DNA is proof of a Colony of 1 celled creatures forms a multicell creature. But AP says that a multicell creature comes from a single cell that has cancer and cannot stop its mitosis.

In other words, cancer is mitosis that cannot stop.

So here again we need to research how in mitosis one cell detaches from the parent cell. For then we see cancer in a whole new different light, as a problem of Detachement from the parent. So if the daughter cell cannot detach from the parent cell, both start another mitosis with no detachement.

So in this view we see cancer as a Detachement problem and focus our attention on how in normal mitosis, the detachement takes place.

Because if Cancer is a detachement problem we can find medicine to halt that detachement problem.

So I was saying that the First MultiCellular Organism was not formed by a colony of single cells that merrily find advantages from one another and working in unison. No, that is not what I see as the evolution of First MultiCellular Organism. But rather from cancers of single cells. Where they divide in mitosis, but fail to Detach, and keep dividing.

So that say given a million of single cell creatures, that perhaps 1 or 2 of those creatures in mitosis fails to detach and forms a mass of cells, a mass that is multicellular.

Now most of these will die quickly, but some have a newly formed mass that can function and grow and live long lives.

Now in one of these Multicellular Cancers is a organism that is well suited to its environment and needs to process the nutrients it eats in a liver. In the single cell it is the mitochrondria. And this newly formed multicellular organism starts to connect up many of the mitochondria for which these form a cancer in the connected mitochrondria and it grows into a cancer tumor which is the liver in animals. Its DNA is different from the DNA in regular cells of the new multicellular organism.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
3:20 AM (16 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
So in this relook, reevaluation of what is really going on in cancer, we come down to the idea that Detachment is the disease problem and not the reproduction out of control. Of course, well, the inability to Detach daughter cell from parent cell may trigger the two cells to mitosis some more and faster to mitosis.

The Detachement starts the cycle of Cancer. The replication out of control is just a back symptom of the detachment problem.

So a cell divides and to finish off the division in mitosis, it needs to Detach from the parent cell. But it unfortunately is blocked from detachement and that is the Start of Cancer. So now the new cell cannot detach from the Parent cell and we have cancer. So now the new cell and parent cell unable to detach do another Mitosis (the cells thinking that by another mitosis, they can free themselves of the attachment) and that also fails to detach and here we have full blown cancer.

So Old Medical Science looked at Cancer and said "aha, reproduction out of control". Which is true, but it misses and fails to see the earlier steps that caused the replication out of control--what caused the reproduction out of control.

What caused the reproduction out of control was a few steps earlier in the chain of events. Those steps of Detachement.

We had a Parent cell going through Mitosis and all was normal except then the parent cell needs to Detach from the new daughter cell. It cannot detach.. Unable to detach, and at that moment we have Cancer.

The failure to detach sends a chain signal in both the Parent and Daughter Cell to reproduce again, for this signal of reproduce again may get the undetached two cells, get them to split off from one another, but unfortunately the second reproduction piles on more undetached cells forming a tumor, a cancer mass of tumor.

Now in my extensive reading of science magazines I ran across articles that elephants rarely get cancer. And if my memory is correct, it was blamed on Long, very long Telomeres, the end caps on DNA. Saying that short telomeres cause cancer, and long telomeres are free of cancer.

So here we may have a link up, that telomeres are the Detachment mechanism of cells undergoing Mitosis. If the telomeres are short, there is no detachement and hence there is the start of cancer. Often the body itself in immune system attacks and cleans up these undetached two cells, or 4 cells, etc, but if not, then a tumor of cancer grows.

So, well the important message I am trying to convey is that throughout Medical History we looked at Cancer as Uncontrolled Replication. But what we really should have looked at was the steps leading up to uncontrolled replication. That step being the daughter cell is unable to detach from the parent cell, and then that causes the uncontrolled replication. So Cancer, really is a Problem of Detachment of daughter cell from parent cell.

This would make sense in the carcinogens of asbestos and of benzene, where they cause a halt to detachement for the asbestos fiber spears like a spear pinning two cells together, or like butane causing the parent cell to weld onto the daughter cell.

It is aptly named the last phase of mitosis is called Telophase. And it is telomeres that I am calling causes cancer, where the Cancer is defined not just replication out of control, but what causes replication out of control is that parent and daughter cell cannot detach from one another. They are stuck together in the telophase. And being stuck together initiates the signalling from another replication in hopes of getting unstuck.

So really, Cancer is not replication out of control. Cancer is a state of Stuck together, and trying to free two cells stuck together.

So as a attempt to free two cells stuck together, those cells initiate another replication.

Question, in the human fetus, I know the first organ to appear is the Liver, but now I have the question, what is the last organ to complete the fetus? Is it the SKIN? Does the skin slowly form around the fetus and all the other organs are set in place, but the Skin has not fulfilled its enclosing until the very last as the last organ? Is that the truth? Is that the full sequence-- skin is last?

Then of course, well, in mitosis, cell division, is the Envelope, the cell Envelope the last, very last to be fully developed? If so, well we can see that it is a delicate matter of that last fold where one cell departs from the other cell. And it is precisely at that moment, that cancer can arise.

And I should have realized this years ago. That it sounded very phony to think that cancer was a chemistry of replication error. No, cancer is where cells cannot break away from one another and in hopes of breaking away, they signal for another replication, only to be cancer and form a tumor.

Now none of these ideas would have come from me, if I had not seen a photograph of my own Liposarcoma tumor in March of 2016 after the resection. I saw my tumor laid out in a pan, and what struck me the most was that white glistening envelope of sack or skin of the tumor. It looked like a big organ, all encased in a white glistening skin.

If I had not seen that, this book and most of its ideas would not have come forth.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Scientists at UVM, Tufts, and Harvard discovered a new form
of biological reproduction—and created self-replicating living
robots. Made from frog cells, these computer-designed organisms
gather single cells inside a Pac-Man-shaped “mouth”—and release
Xenobot “babies” that look and move like themselves. Then the
offspring go and do the same—over and over.

Xenobots: Building the First-Ever Self-Replicating Living Robots
University of Vermont - 29.11.2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBYtBXaxsOw

Archimedes Plutonium schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 21:12:13 UTC+1:
> .. I am stupid and I know it

On 12/2/2021 2:13 PM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> Scientists at UVM, Tufts, and Harvard discovered a new form
> of biological reproduction—and created self-replicating living
> robots. Made from frog cells, these computer-designed organisms
> gather single cells inside a Pac-Man-shaped “mouth”—and release
> Xenobot “babies” that look and move like themselves. Then the
> offspring go and do the same—over and over.
>
> Xenobots: Building the First-Ever Self-Replicating Living Robots
> University of Vermont - 29.11.2021
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBYtBXaxsOw
[...]

Interesting. However, they have to use existing frog cells. I would be
amazed if they can design their own cells, from scratch. ;^o

How lucky for me, as I was reading New Scientist, 27Nov2021, has a article on "Cancer cells steal mitochondria from nearby immune cells. Showing a picture of "Two T-cells connected by a cancer cell nanotube.

So here I have to ask the question if a cancer cell nanotube is somehow or somewhat a cell envelope. The same envelope that went awry and went rogue to cause the cancer cell in the first place since the normal parent and daughter cell could not detach in normal mitosis replication. So what part of the cell makes nanotubes? Is it the envelope?

And now I have to research all various different types of cancer, lung, pancreas, kidney, stomach, colon, breast, brain and see if their differences are differences of envelopes adhering in mitosis, signalling for more mitosis replication.

I have to see if these various types are different solely because of envelope differences. Take for example the small cell lung cancer and the large cell lung cancer. They likely have different types of envelopes and thus one is more easy to glue the parent cell with the daughter and signal more mitosis to free the attached cells, only causing a cancer tumor, and not freeing the cells.

And perhaps in research we can see if some cases, signaling for more mitosis, does what was needed-- detach the two stuck cells.

And we have to research into this signaling. Is the telophase of mitosis connected closely to the initiation control of mitosis. So that if stuck, the first signal is to more mitosis. So here we have to research if the development of envelope is hard wired with the mitosis replication initiation?

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

What I am researching now is to see if there is a broad connection of attached envelopes during mitosis of parent cell with daughter cell that actually causes the cancer. And this attachment that does not allow the two cells to detach and become separate cells signals both cells to repeat start a new round of mitosis, in hopes of freeing the glued together two cells. So in cancer, there is a signalling error that signals for uncontrolled replication. So the true cause of cancer is not the replication but the inability for parent and daughter cell to detach in mitosis. So here I am looking at Lung cancer, a common deadly cancer to see if this "glued, attached envelopes is the prime cause of cancer, and then the uncontrolled replication is a secondary cause of cancer".
--- quoting from Wikipedia ---
Lung cancer, also known as lung carcinoma, since about 98–99% of all lung cancers are carcinomas, is a malignant lung tumor characterized by uncontrolled cell growth in tissues of the lung. Lung carcinomas derive from transformed, malignant cells that originate as epithelial cells, or from tissues composed of epithelial cells. Other lung cancers, such as the rare sarcomas of the lung, are generated by the malignant transformation of connective tissues (i.e. nerve, fat, muscle, bone), which arise from mesenchymal cells. Lymphomas and melanomas (from lymphoid and melanocyte cell lineages) can also rarely result in lung cancer.
In time, this uncontrolled growth can spread beyond the lung – either by direct extension, by entering the lymphatic circulation, or via the hematogenous, bloodborne spread – the process called metastasis – into nearby tissue or other, more distant parts of the body. Most cancers that start in the lung, known as primary lung cancers, are carcinomas.. The two main types are small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The most common symptoms are coughing (including coughing up blood), weight loss, shortness of breath, and chest pains.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

From reading that description of Lung cancer, I would say, very much so, of strong indicators that the primary cause of cancer is connective tissue that cannot free itself and then the mitosis signals for more mitosis to try to free the glued together parent and daughter cell. The above even mentions connective tissue in rare sarcomas. And I think that Epithelial cells, are cells that partake in much much mitosis. So that the most cancers are spots in the body that is undergoing much mitosis.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics