Book Available

For residents of the USA.

For an autographed copy of his book with free shipping (to the USA) mail a check (on a US bank) for thirty-five US Dollars ($35.00) payable to James Graham and mail it to him at:

5550 Cardinal Pl, Apt. 414 

Alexandria, VA 22304

For people living elsewhere, email the author for terms. Be sure to include your shipping address.

jamesg1103--at-- earthlink.net

Book Reviews

The following are quotations from published reviews of Cancer Selection. 

"Mr. Graham, an avowed amateur ... , 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.

" ... 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.

All-Time Page Views by Country

Pageviews
United States	37039
Russia	1187
China	1175
France	975
Germany	771
Ukraine	713
United Kingdom	416
Canada	355
Poland	324
Brazil	248

Commentary on Cancer Selection

Gert Kortof has posted on his Evolutie Blog some brief comments on my book.

Here's a link.

His comments are in Dutch but Gert provides an English summary.

Starfish Secrets: Did Echinoderms Cure Cancer? [New Material Added]

Since my theory does say that all Bilaterians accumulated defenses against cancer is it possible that other animals have defenses that might be adaptable to treating or preventing human cancers? Interestingly, researchers at the University of Rochester recently identified a chemical in naked mole rats that seems to make them “cancer-proof.” Although Dr. Vera Gorbunova, one of the lead investigators, had access to my book and cited it in some of her earlier papers, I am certain that neither she nor her colleagues needed guidance from me or from  any evolution theorist to prompt their interest in naked mole rats. After all, researchers have established that other rodents not only experience cancer but may be especially susceptible to it: as mentioned on p134 of Cancer Selection two National Cancer Institute investigators [Anderwont and Dunn] found tumors in more than 40 percent of randomly gathered wild mice. Considering the widely known facts about cancer in rodents, the Rochester investigators did not need any evolutionist to suggest that it might be worthwhile examining the rare rodent species that seems not to experience any cancer. Nor would they need much thought to suspect that those cancer-free rodents may even have acquired, over evolutionary time, an efficient anti-cancer mechanism.  

However, I think there may be other animals that might warrant investigation as possible possessors of potentially useful cancer defenses: the echinoderms. These Bilaterians (1) exhibit a characteristic which, according to my theory, complex animals ought not to possess: they regenerate damaged parts with spectacular efficiency. In my book (pp 79, 83 and 144) I argue that the reason most Bilaterians (and especially the more complex ones) do not regenerate as routinely and as competently as, for example, Hydra, is that regeneration involves increased production of somatic cells, each possessing cancer-triggering mechanisms embedded in oncogenes. (My theory asserts that only Bilaterians can die of cancer.)  To prevent death from cancer natural selection would have favored strict limits over regeneration despite its obvious survival benefit. Although I did note (on p79) that starfish can regenerate an entire animal complete with internal organs from one amputated arm, I may have underestimated the significance of that fact.