Interestingly, if we didn't develop cancer, we wouldn't have the need for apaptosis.

That's not true at all. Apoptosis is required for all sorts of cellular problems, not just cancer. Similarly p53 has many more functions than just its role in apoptosis. Cell biology is a complicated thing. Nothing is really a simple "this applies to that" in any exclusive, or even primary sense.

There are a good number of creatures on Earth that have been observed to basically never get cancer naturally, however, they also live incredibly long lifespans.

All of these creatures have apoptosis as a fundamental part of their cellular processing.

Which could lead to population stagnation and limited cultural and biological growth/evolution

I assert that this is a fear without any evidential support.

Which makes me wonder if cancer an evolutionary benefit, as by killing a species earlier it might promote the species to reproduce more often and, in effect, create faster and faster generational evolutionary and epigenetic changes.

Cancer is probably caused mostly by diet. Therefore its probably less of an "evolutionary benefit" than it is a result of poison.

Any speculations on the fitness benefits are inappropriate as presented imo, because they assume the premise of fitness (in the genetic meaning) is a clearly positive thing. Not to say the concept has no merit, but it suggests that it is something good, something to be striven for, where that is not necessarily true, or is at the least very debatable.

Interestingly, if we didn't develop cancer, we wouldn't have the need for apaptosis.

That's not true at all. Apoptosis is required for all sorts of cellular problems, not just cancer. Similarly p53 has many more functions than just its role in apoptosis. Cell biology is a complicated thing. Nothing is really a simple "this applies to that" in any exclusive, or even primary sense.

There are a good number of creatures on Earth that have been observed to basically never get cancer naturally, however, they also live incredibly long lifespans.

All of these creatures have apoptosis as a fundamental part of their cellular processing.

Which could lead to population stagnation and limited cultural and biological growth/evolution

I assert that this is a fear without any evidential support.

Which makes me wonder if cancer an evolutionary benefit, as by killing a species earlier it might promote the species to reproduce more often and, in effect, create faster and faster generational evolutionary and epigenetic changes.

Cancer is probably caused mostly by diet. Therefore its probably less of an "evolutionary benefit" than it is a result of poison.

Any speculations on the fitness benefits are inappropriate as presented imo, because they assume the premise of fitness (in the genetic meaning) is a good thing. Not to say the concept has no merit, but it suggests that it is something good, something to be striven for, where that is not necessarily true, or is at the least very debatable.

Interestingly, if we didn't develop cancer, we wouldn't have the need for apaptosis.

That's not true at all. Apoptosis is required for all sorts of cellular problems, not just cancer. Similarly p53 has many more functions than just its role in apoptosis. Cell biology is a complicated thing. Nothing is really a simple "this applies to that" in any exclusive, or even primary sense.

There are a good number of creatures on Earth that have been observed to basically never get cancer naturally, however, they also live incredibly long lifespans.

All of these creatures have apoptosis as a fundamental part of their cellular processing.

Which could lead to population stagnation and limited cultural and biological growth/evolution

I assert that this is a fear without any evidential support.

Which makes me wonder if cancer an evolutionary benefit, as by killing a species earlier it might promote the species to reproduce more often and, in effect, create faster and faster generational evolutionary and epigenetic changes.

Cancer is probably caused mostly by diet. Therefore its probably less of an "evolutionary benefit" than it is a result of poison.

Any speculations on the fitness benefits are meaningless imo, because they assume the premise of fitness (in the genetic meaning). Not to say the concept has no merit, but it suggests that it is something good, something to be striven for, where that is not necessarily true, or is at the least very debatable.