I think you gota ask yourself, perhaps on a evolutionary or philosophical level, why all lifeforms die? Why does that always seem to be the one thing we share in common more so than anything? Why is it that when we break our bones when we are a kid, we can heal completely and quicky and that we are unable to that as well or at all even, after we have lived 70 years. A lot of insects have very short lifespans. Some of these insects, their entire life evolves around finding a mate and reproducing before they die and they have days and some hours to do so. How come some live for so long? Personally I think aging in evolutionary terms ensures passing of the best genes and naturally removing the old, surposedly less superior, genes.
again: There are plenty of organisms that do not age, such as fungi, protists, and plants. and how do you suppose that came about? and why do some organisms age faster than others? if it was only about removing the less inferior genes, they would be outcompeted by the newer genes. It's not. Evolution doesn't think ahead. Aging so that in the future they may evolve is not something that could have happened through evolution, as there is nothing to select against.
Yes you are right some lifeforms can technically live forever. However that doesn disprove anything. I think you are too concreted on the idea that evolution is a broad thing that applies similarly the same rules to everything. It doesnt have to. The point is that, the lifeforms that do die, evolved this aging gene, that has helped them and their species out. Because this aging mechanism, helps to ensure passing of the genes and upkeeping the best genes only. This mechanism proves to be useful as they evolve much much more efficiently and faster than the non dying lifeforms like some bacteria and fungus. Those non aging lifeforms are probably waiting for some random radiation to mutate their DNA to hopefully evolve through those means. However evolution is much more efficient witht he implementation of the aging process. And I would like to know your idea of why the aging process exists in the first place, if it wasnt an evolutionary mechanism.
You're the one saying "Why does that always seem to be the one thing we share in common more so than anything?" read my first post. I would like to know YOUR idea of how that mechanism evolved. Bottom line is, it's impossible because evolution doesn't think ahead. If, in a population of immortal organisms, an organism that ages is born, it is not selected for. In fact it's selected against because it would die before the others, who would have innumerable more offspring than the aging organism.
I am no specialist in the field of evolution. I cannot explain how this mechanism came to be, but I am merely explaining its purpose of what I believe is the reason why aging exists. I also dont believe that any scientist can explain how evolution began, much like they cannot explain the root cause of everything. Your explaination of why aging mechanism would not have evolved is simply futile. However given it is your personal explaination and not a scientific one then thats fine. Reall though, what do you think aging is and why does it happen, if not a programmed response.
You can't because it's impossible for it to have arisen. I already explained the main hypothesis of aging, which IS plausible. Why is it futile? It is a scientific one. Yours is the opinion. Evolution began when differences in self-reproducing things arose.
No. I cannot explain it because there are no studies done to suggest anything therefore I wont give one. Any answer I give will be scientiically opinion based and not based scientific fact. Thats all i was saying. How am I surposed to tell you exactly what happpened so many tens of thousands or millions of years ago that triggered the development of aging into the genome of so many lifeforms. I simply cannot and noone can either. The science community can only provide plausable explaination. The best we can do. Not giving an explaination is because there cant be a factual one and not because I cannot explain the possible routes of this cause. If you want opinion I can give you opinion. It is possible that some random radiation or free radical that mutated a primitive lifeform's genes, and based on pure fluke of chance, it developed an aging gene and every since then a lot of the lifeforms age. Could have been anything. Your explaination is NOT proof. It is merely a hypothesis at best. I personally consider hypothesis opinions because thats all they are. I like facts to support hypothesis. I dont just throw hypothesis' around just because I can because that would be pointless. You need FACT in science, without it you are merely a philosopher.
I think it was stated earlier that nature does not evolve in similar fashion across the board. This is true. There are organisms that essentially do not age nor die. There is a microscopic organism that cannot be destroyed with extreme heat, cold, or starvation. It miraculously shuts down or goes into suspended animation until the environment is right once more and this process repeats itself. This proves that nature is conceptual to only a degree. Death 'technically' does not exist in the context of evolution or nature. All lifeforms break down into component parts. These component parts cannot be destroyed. New life begins. The aging gene is unfortunate but nature does not care. We are able to procreate and therefore produce offspring and whether we age and die is irrevelant, because our 'job' is accomplished so to speak. Interestingly, we do have the ability to be 'conceptual' much more than evolution does. It can only build onto, it can't backtrack. We can conceptualize a faster, more powerful computer and build it. Not take a 1960's model and add on and on and on etc. Maybe biomedical technology and genetic engineering will be the key to controlling nature and shaping our eventual evolution.
I just want to know how what you said is possible. HOW could it have evolved? And I'm telling you that that organism would have died out because there is no evolutionary advantage to aging. It wouldn't have been selected for, but selected against. did I say it was? blah, blah, blah. Where's yours? here's mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence#Evolutionary_theories In short, what I said. Sure it does, both technically and... not technically. Organisms cease to live, aka they die. What you're thinking of is the conservation of matter, which has nothing to do with life or death.
I'm not talking about our definiton of death. Evolution sees matter as alive. Because it is. Whether we pass from one stage to another is irrevelant because as long as nature ensures we are able to procreate and continue, evolution and nature does not define that as death, hence offspring.
You really arnt grasping the point. Im going to keep it short and simple. The genetic mutation that lead to the aging gene may have occured from random genetic mutations a long time ago in primitive ancestrial lifeforms. With this understanding, use your imagination about how it has evolved because there is a world of possibilites, none that science can prove at the moment. Certainly my explaination or my opinion on the matter is not important because it is not fact. And dont be so shallow and pin pointed on the ideas and theories of evolution. I suggest you reevaluate your understanding of the subject. Let me give you a plausable hypothesis why the organism that aquired the aging mutation may not be at an evolutionary disadvantage as you happily and insistingly insinuate. It is possible, that apart from aquiring this aging gene, the primitive life also had far more important evolutionary mutations to it, whos' advantage completely shadows the disadvantage of the aging mutation. Perhaps the aging mutation isnt even a evolutionary disadvantage at all in terms of reproduction because it does not affect the immediate well being of the life form because it is a long term problem. Perhaps having this aging mutation forced the lifeform to reproduce more due to certain death which furthur speeds up the evolution of the lifeform. I mean I can go on and go and on about possibilites. But thats bullshit as ive been saying all along. Hypothesiss' are stupid to argue with because you can keep throwing them out whereever imagination can take you. I would much rather concentrate on factual science, which is what Ive been on about all along.
Ok, I'm going to make this as short as possible because the (BEEEEEEEEEEEP) computer messed up... (BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's not plausible. one, there is no "aging gene". There are probably hundreds of genes that contribute to aging. Two, the probability of one organism getting both mutations (good and the aging one) is fairly slim. Three, even if both did happen, crossing over would make some offspring having only the good mutations, not the aging ones... that would make them immortal and in the long run the aging genes would be weeded out. fourth, the chance of both mutations happening in one organism and being so close they NEVER cross over is incredibly small. immortal organisms would be having offspring all the time, aging organisms have to wait until they mature in order to have offspring, and since the immortal organisms would never die, their immortal genes would be passed on over and over again. In the long run, the aging genes would disappear. yet MORE mutations in one organism? holy shit. If you hadn't noticed, organisms don't just have offspring with a million beneficial mutations at once. The odds of that happening are so small as to be considered impossible. No they're not. You can disprove hypotheses. Sometimes all you can do is disprove all the other hypotheses, so you only have one. My points were supported by facts, yours weren't. My points are not only possible but plausible, yours aren't.
Arguing on the internet is seriously pointless. My last point im gonna make is, your points are not FACT. They are neither scientific either because they are simply your personal belief based on your personal understanding of what evolution is. My point is, this random mutation would not have affected the evolutionary competitiveness of the organism with the aging mutation, hense your idea that the mutation would be a disadvantage, is futile.
YOUR points are neither facts nor based on facts. They're not scientific either. They're just your personal beliefs based on who-knows-what. You said it yourself, evolution is not one of your strenghts. And there is no "this random mutation", or "the aging mutation" as aging is NOT in a single gene. My points ARE based on facts, and they ARE scientific. They're not just my personal beliefs, as I have already proved to you. I don't get your last sentence. What do you mean by "this random mutation"? I thought you said it was beneficial? is it the aging mutation? huh?
I probably should not enter AlphaWolf/ SquishySponge's discusion, but do recall some research, vagely as follows: Subject, in several cultures, were asked how much of their wealth would they give to help out their brother's (or sister's) child go to school, eat, etc. Also asked same questions about their first cousin, their second cousin, their unrelated neighbor's child, etc. The amazing result was that the willingness to help others had a very high and accurate correllation with the extent to which the helped individual carried (or probably so) the giver's same genes. Many conclusions were drawn from these facts. Typically that evolution had programed the extended family type of social structure we find in most societies. That is a reasonable conclusion, at least to me, so I will assume it is true. This means that one is not just concerned with your own children in passing your genes down to the next generation. Another conclusion drawn from this research was that there is a genetic basis for alturism, at least within your extended family and perhaps within your social group. Fact that people do give up their own lives to save others is very hard to explain genetically, without this conclusion also. Why, from a genetic POV, has alturism surived in societies in competion with societies that do not encourage it? For me, alturisum is just an extention of the first conclusion, especially in a small tribal society (Our modern large ones are populated by the genes developed in tribal groups.) That is, sometimes you had to give up your life so that at least some of your genes survive, via your brother's child even if you are currently childless as the probable alternative was that your whole tribe would be killed if you did not stay and cut the grapevine bridge to drop most of the attacking tribe into the river, etc. Individuals have accidents, even if there were no aging process. For example I have scar tissue in me. More important is that the process of replicating my cells is not perfect. At my advanced age, I am not as strong as I was when 20, and this would be true even if there were no biological clocks acting to age me. Just as there comes a time when it no longer makes economic sense to repair your old car, there comes a time when it is best for my genes to build a new vehicle to live in and get ride of the old one to make room and resources available to the more fit vehicles. Thus it seems very reasonalble (not from my personal POV) that evolution has set upper limits on individual life spans. Contrary to AlphWolf, I think there is advantage to the genes in creatures that program for death. I.e. they will win the competion in contest with those that do not. I do not, however, see much reason why I need to get weak, sick, lose my teeth, etc. to acomplish this getting out of the way for the newer models. I guess that evolution does not care much about me or my becoming frail, so did not need to make me more like a radioactive atom - fully equal to all others of my kind until I suddenly die.
Well, dying after a while IS good, but it couldn't have evolved. Like I said, evolution does NOT THINK AHEAD. There has to be an immediate benefit for a certain characteristic in order for it to be passed down and for the percentage of that characteristic to increase in that population. Some good things just can't evolve. The natural processes by which evolution works would not prefer aging genes.
Aging is the cause of apoptosis...or programmed cell death...meaning all cells are programmed to die. Furthermore aging occurs because of innacurate body care, that is specific proteins that the individual needs he/she does not get, vitamins, minerals, nutrients...and etc. Aging is done by nature for the human good, otherwise people will see zombies crawling, using the last of the energy they have in their body to move forward.
Well Billy T, Have you tried maintaining a motion that is faster than the moons motion, something like 53 miles per day. I say this as it seems to me that the moon plays a key role in life as well as the physical earth. In my look into the matter i found several points that suggested that the chnage in the moon resulted in certain copy faults, that decrease the various acvcuracy of transcirpt of amino acids. protiens ect... making new ones nessacary for function, the inabltiy of the the cell to make the new boyant chemicals in transcript resulted in breakdown of the cells. in young people it becomes the actually response of the cell adapting to this new pattern of production. Old people can make the same adaption but his required physical hard work, in order to chnage the old order of the cells normal to the former production of old moon supported protiens. It goes some thing like that, unfortunalty my computer crashed with 150 page of numerical order and information and i can no long make a direct refference. But what i was able to come up with in the issue, was a possible means to help the human race through a disruption of the earth moon system by say a asteroid or magnetic pole reversal or other such catastrophy, this required that humans under such condtions which would result in large scale genetic mutation, could decrease thge rate of genetic mutation ot our species of humans by maintaining a physical motion faster than that of the moons. So to decrease aging it might be a good idea to maintain a motion faster than the moons. DwayneD.L.Rabon
lol...DwayneD.L.Rabon...motion of the moon affecting aging...lol... I need prove dammit. please find it Dwayne, I will be delighted...please...
