MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

This seems pretty much on par with a chapter I recently came back to from the book called "Reason: Book I & II: A Critical Thinking- Reason-and Science-based Approach to Issues That Matter (Dr Bos Critical Thinking Series). 

Without potentially infringing too much on copyright, I will say that there is a bit in this section where the Author says that even if a trait is a certain percentage, that doesn't necessarily mean that when forced upon by environmental factors, the result will be the same percentage of an expression of those genes. 

@MayCaesar

This is why I am not a biologist... While in most disciplines there are rules and rare exceptions, in biology exceptions are the rule!

Okay, we know that cells of this type are associated with lung cancer, and we know how to kill those cells off without dealing much damage to the rest of the organism - so, problem solved, right? Oops, those cells are smarter than that, see the treatment coming and diversify, leaving a viable offspring that keeps the tumor developing. No problem, we know pretty well how they diversify, so we can adjust the treatment... Oops, they adjust to the adjustment. Okay, whatever, let us just go full chemo and slaughter them all. What, you say that now the entire angiogenesis mechanism is out of whack? Okay, we can adjust the chemical treatment to make sure it does not happen. Wait, the cancer cells are back? Nooooooooo!

I have deep respect for people who can make any progress with this stuff. If everyone was like me, we would still treat everything with hot herbal teas.