 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / October 2004Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story
If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do something about it, some researchers think. http://www.world-science.net/othernews/040927_ageprogramfrm.htm > If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do something > about it, some researchers think. > http://www.world-science.net/othernews/040927_ageprogramfrm.htm Some think the reverse, that mostly animals were killed before they could live out their entire life span and this led to diseases and intractable pain since these couldn't be selected out by natural selection if the animal didn't live long enough for the selection. But yes, genes are like a word processor with the wonderful editing tools called cut and paste so that the composition has a means to improvement if the sufficient method is applied either by nature or some other equivalency of agency. > > If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do something > > about it, some researchers think. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sufficient method is applied either by nature or some other equivalency of > agency. See what I mean smokee - what you've written here is nonsense. You said: "...mostly animals were killed before they could live out their entire life span and this led to diseases and intractable pain..." So, according to you, death of animals causes disease and pain; furthermore an animals life span is apparently different from an animals life span. Is this your idea of philosophy smokee? You also go on to compare genes to a word processor and let's not forget the accolades for c&p. This is telling smokeee; very, very telling. I know I dis you allot but I promise if you don't write anything of your own in the future (I know you haven't done too much in the past) and all you do is C&P I'll leave you alone. The c&p is much easier to take. > > > If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do > something [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > an animals life span is apparently different from an animals life span. Is > this your idea of philosophy smokee? You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you step in with us dude. Since the animals are not living out their full life spans in exceptionally hazardous environments, any mutations that could lead to diseases, if they lived out their entire life span in order for them to be expressed, may not be selected out. Therefore when the environment changes and the animals live out their entire lifespans then these disease may happen more often than in species that live out their entire lifspans without predation. > You also go on to compare genes to a word processor and let's not forget the > accolades for c&p. This is telling smokeee; very, very telling. Well in evolutionary theory we talk about mutations. These are similar to cut and paste in that some genes can be either added or subtracted. In the future when we talk about evolution I'l try to talk on a more basic level for you, sorry. > I know I dis you allot but I promise if you don't write anything of your own > in the future (I know you haven't done too much in the past) and all you do > is C&P I'll leave you alone. The c&p is much easier to take. Actually if we tally up what has been said over the last week I have said much more than you, I don't know what your talking about. Can you show any evidence for that claim? Here are your comments http://tinyurl.com/5ms5c http://www.cygnal.ca/english/ and here are mine http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=d1e1c4e27aefddb 7&seekm=104pkdkq75t7855%40corp.supernews.com#link1 now subtract all pastes from my comments and then set the remainder next to yours and you really will look like you havn't said much. > > > > If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do > > something [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > and here are mine http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_ugroup=alt.philosophy.*& as_uauthors=reanimater_2000%40yahoo.com%20&lr=&hl=en http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=d1e1c4e27aefddb 7&seekm=104pkdkq75t7855%40corp.supernews.com#link1 > now subtract all pastes from my comments and then set the remainder next to yours > and you really will look like you havn't said much. > > > > If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do > > something [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > more than you, I don't know what your talking about. Can you show any evidence > for that claim? Ahh yes if only quantity equalled quality. > Here are your comments > > http://tinyurl.com/5ms5c > http://www.cygnal.ca/english/ > > and here are mine http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=d1e1c4e27aefddb 7&seekm=104pkdkq75t7855%40corp.supernews.com#link1 > now subtract all pastes from my comments and then set the remainder next to yours > and you really will look like you havn't said much. Then subtract the literate stuff from the illiterate (you'll have to do it in that order or you'll end up with a negative number). >> > > If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do >> something [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >lifespans then these disease may happen more often than in species that live out >their entire lifspans without predation. Once an organism has reproduced, it is no longer included in evolution. What happens to one who has already bred usually doesn't matter. In some cases where offspring are few, the continued life of parents (and grandmothers) until young are adult can be an evolutionary advantage. The long youth of humans compared to other mammals may require a longer life in their parents if progeny are to succeed in breeding. Sexual reproduction shuffles the evolutionary deck with each generation. Some think this is a defense against parasitism, since resistence in hosts proceeds faster than virulence in parasites. It could account for the great success of almost universal sexual reproduction in plants and animals. Cells do seem to be made to wear out. The evolutionary advantage in this is to give space to the multiplication of novel more adaptive generations. But a cell is just the continuation of an immortal process that converts miscellaneous food into discrete living things. The process began with the first replicator which has never died, but is the very substance of all living things. Individually they fall, but their collective is the one immortal cell that will live as long as there is any life at all. >> You also go on to compare genes to a word processor and let's not forget the >> accolades for c&p. This is telling smokeee; very, very telling. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >now subtract all pastes from my comments and then set the remainder next to yours >and you really will look like you havn't said much. > >> > > If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do > >> something [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Once an organism has reproduced, it is no longer included in evolution. This may be true sometimes but if the post-reproductive individual provides an advantage to the reproductively active individuals then there could be a selective pressure which could mold particular traits. Beside most men can reproduce well into their 90s but in most of history only lived as long as 25 to 40 years. Plenty of room for the "genetic dust bin theory" to be true. If most died in that short of a time and various mutations were pasted into the genomes, and then the environment changed in a way to let them live out their 90 years, then it would take many generations to get the mutations back out of the genomes. > What happens to one who has already bred usually doesn't matter. > In some cases where offspring are few, the continued life of parents [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > all living things. Individually they fall, but their collective is the one > immortal cell that will live as long as there is any life at all. Pretty good description. But the focus is vague. > >> You also go on to compare genes to a word processor and let's not forget the > >> accolades for c&p. This is telling smokeee; very, very telling. > > > >Well in evolutionary theory we talk about mutations. These are similar to cut and > >paste in that some genes can be either added or subtracted. > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you step in > with us dude. You should rent a clue. > Since the animals are not living out their full life spans in exceptionally > hazardous environments, any mutations that could lead to diseases, if they lived > out their entire life span in order for them to be expressed, may not be selected > out. Therefore when the environment changes and the animals live out their entire > lifespans then these disease may happen more often than in species that live out > their entire lifspans without predation. The idea that "their full life span" is infinite is ridiculous. Longer than their current average life span, sure. But evenutally complex organic systems break down, due to factors like cancer, even without the telomeric limitations of DNA being replicated. > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you step > in > > with us dude. > > You should rent a clue. Do you understand the person's position that I said that to? And of course you thought I was talking to you? Who are you and why get aroused about what I said to him? > > Since the animals are not living out their full life spans in > exceptionally [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The idea that "their full life span" is infinite is ridiculous. Which part of the statement did you take as meaning "infinite" or what do you mean by this? > Longer than > their current average life span, sure. But evenutally complex organic > systems break down, due to factors like cancer, even without the telomeric > limitations of DNA being replicated. When I asserted that, if the individuals are killed by predation before they would have normally died then mutations, that would influence or be expressed during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no selective pressure against or for those mutations. By saying that I did not necessarily eliminate or promote the possibility that factors like cancer could still happen or not. There is no contradiction here because it is based upon a contingency which asserts neither possibility to propose the thesis that mutations can creep in because of predation shortening lifespans. This theory of senilicidical traits is 30 years old anyways. > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you > > > step [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > When I asserted that, if the individuals are killed by predation before they > would have normally died then mutations, Predation? I'm noticing that there is a particular leaning towards paranoia in several threads. Which humans are being preyed upon and by whom? I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely victims of such predation. > that would influence or be expressed > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > traits > is 30 years old anyways. > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you > > > > step [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > paranoia in several threads. Which humans are being preyed upon and by > whom? During the ancient past, particularly in the Pleistocene period the homo group (Australopithecus) was preyed upon by predators in Africa. But during much of civilization the actual life span was about 25 to 45 years but the biological life span was much longer. So not only predators but barbaric cultural realities sustained the influx of senilicidical traits. > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely > victims of such predation. Rational people would generally believe it highly unlikely that most people could be forced back into such barbarism but they are not ignorant enough to insist that they couldn't be as your propositions seems to indicate you believe to be the case. > > that would influence or be expressed > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > traits > > is 30 years old anyways. > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you > > > > > step [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > realities > sustained the influx of senilicidical traits. There is nothing that I can find in the post that you responded to above that concened itself with earlier hominid species. In fact, the statement above was "longer than their current life span". My question was and which went unanswered (and I'll be more time specific) which humans of today are being preyed upon and by what or whom? > > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and > > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be > the case. And I'm asking that we test the rationality of this premise. What do you consider is the degree to which it "could" be this way? > > > that would influence or be expressed > > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > traits > > > is 30 years old anyways. > > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you > > > > > > step [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > specific) which humans of today are being preyed upon and by what or > whom? I would ask you to try making another thread if you want to change the topic that much. I was responding to the "traits that can creep into the genome" theory and explained my position on that. > > > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and > > > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And I'm asking that we test the rationality of this premise. What do you > consider is the degree to which it "could" be this way? Well the degree noticed between rich and poor countries? > > > > that would influence or be expressed > > > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > traits > > > > is 30 years old anyways. > > > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before > > > > > > > you [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > and > explained my position on that. It isn't another topic. It is a question based on an assertion in the premise above. > > > > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and > > > > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Well the degree noticed between rich and poor countries? That's vague. Again, I must ask to what degree (a scale of 1 to 100 seems fair and reasonable) and by whom (an individual or a particular group or other species)? > > > > > that would influence or be expressed > > > > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > > traits > > > > > is 30 years old anyways. > > > > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before > > > > > > > > you [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > It isn't another topic. It is a question based on an assertion in the > premise above. When you entered me and Tim's conversation the subject was already shifted to the effects of ancient enviroments upon trait creep into the genome. You tried to change the subject to the present. We could change to the present if I can see the relevence to the "genetic dust bin theory" we were debating. > > > > > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and > > > > > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > seems fair and reasonable) and by whom (an individual or a particular > group or other species)? The degree currently would be higher or lower depending on the criterion or standard of judgement. We haven't agreed to one yet. If you are asking me to post a specific number what is the standard for judgeing such things; The Problem of the Criterion A general argument against the invocation of any standard for knowledge has come to be known as "the problem of the criterion." As we have just seen, there have been disputes about standards of knowledge. Some are about particular kinds of arguments that provide evidence for knowledge claims. As we will see shortly, others are about the degree of evidential support or reliability required for knowledge. The Pyrrhonian skeptics used an argument designed to instill doubt that any such standard can be established. Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge. If the dispute is to be settled rationally, there must be some means for settling it. It would do no good of each side simply to assert its position without argument. So how would a standard of knowledge (or "criterion of truth," in the language of the Stoics) be defended? It could only be defended by reference to some standard or other. If the standard under dispute is invoked, then the question has been begged. If another standard is appealed to, the question arises again, to be answered either by circular reasoning or by appeal to yet another standard. So either the process of invoking standards does not terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning, and in neither case would the dispute be settled rationally. Lehrer takes on the problem of criterion in the guise of the question whether he can justify his acceptance of his own theory of justification. He rejects the appeal to a higher-order theory of justification as well as dogmatic acceptance of the theory (p. 228). This leaves only circularity, or a "loop" of justification. Lehrer defends the loop of justification as being virtuous. http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch9.htm http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm > > > > > > that would influence or be expressed > > > > > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > > > traits > > > > > > is 30 years old anyways. > > > > > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about > > > > > > > > > before [quoted text clipped - 195 lines] > > > > > > > traits > > > > > > > is 30 years old anyways. If I wanted Lehrer's opinions then, I would read them. I am having a discussion with you however. Referring me to what other people say about this is rather pointless. (PS. This reminds me of talking to theists who frequent quote biblical passages rather stating an opinion.) I asked a simple question about a scenario that was proposed. I don't thing that my requestion was unreasonable. In the example of an individual reading about a serial killer in a newspaper, in YOUR opinion, what would be the reasonableness (logical or rational) of that assumption when hearing a clunking at the window. I suggested a scale of 1 to 100 as a means to measure the likely, probable, possible or unlikely event of this being true. > If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do something > about it, some researchers think. > http://www.world-science.net/othernews/040927_ageprogramfrm.htm That article is wrong for two reasons, first genetically programmed death doesn't rest on the notion of group selectionism, second death genes won't be that easy to clean out of our genome. Fatal genes can litter our genetic code and won't be cleaned out unless the have a fatal effect that occurs before the gene's have a change to reproduce. For example in humans, if a fatal gene doesn't cause death until after puberty, then the genes could be passed on to the next generation. Thus by random chance the majority of fatal genes that accumlate in our genetic code don't act until about 70 to 90 years of age. Like a parabolic curve with a peak at 80 years, starting at puberty. This doesn't mean that fatal genes occur because it benefits the group, just that it doesn't disadvantage the individual enough to be eliminated by evolution. Kinda like the genes of our appendix. As for being able to filter out the fatal genes from our genome. This is a problem because there is probably a lot a genes that cause death, we only notice the one the acts first. Any attempt in this area, while possible, is more complicated then the articale is suggesting. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.