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.   

Two Influential 19th Century Thinkers: Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

In the closing paragraph of the preface to my 1992 book Cancer Selection (1) I wrote the following:

The question of whether evolution took place–the argument between Darwinists and creationists–was settled in the last century. The Darwinists won.

One would hope that the victorious Darwinians and their professional descendants would have moved on to other puzzling evolutionary problems such as "How could the same mechanisms that produced mushrooms, pine trees, jellyfish and other relatively simple multicells have possibly produced all the infinitely more complex Bilaterian animals, including humans?"

One would expect that some evolutionists would have realized that the existence of the Bilaterian animals–the most complex objects known to exist in the universe–announce, implicitly but

Richard Dawkins Climbs Mount Impossible

As is clear from his website Dawkins has succeeded, as this quote from The Guardian shows, in turning his career in Biology into a formidable generator of revenue:

Dawkins regularly goes on fundraising lecture tours, where his fame comes in useful. Tickets for a tour of the US in June —“an evening with Richard Dawkins”, in theatres in Portland, Oregon, Rochester, Minnesota and Boston— are on sale on [Dawkins'] website for $35. Access to a VIP reception beforehand is $250. Membership of the “Dawkins circle” costs from $1,000 to $9,999 a year, winning you discounts to the foundation’s online store ... and, at its most expensive, two tickets for an “invitation-only” event with Dawkins himself.

Although annual membership in his "circle" costs up $10,000, Dawkins could be making "serious" money—millions, not thousands, per year—if he used his persuasive skills more fruitfully.