TOBS: Evolution in doubt by science yet again
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jabriol - 01 Oct 2004 23:43 GMT Is Aging an Altruistic Adaptation? Programmed death theory challenges Darwin By Liz Brown Betterhumans Staff 9/27/2004 4:29 PM
Credit: Scott Rothstein Killer countdown: Yeast findings support a theory that aging is programmed to help species survive
A new aging theory has challenged Charles Darwin by proposing that aging is an altruistic adaptation that helps groups of organisms survive.
Developed by molecular gerontologist Valter Longo of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, the theory hinges on natural selection through "group" selection.
In Darwinism, natural selection happens on the individual level. Organisms better suited to their environment survive and reproduce, and beneficial mutations lead species to change over time.
In Longo's theory, however, the majority of a population dies prematurely to provide nutrients for surviving members, who have genetic mutations that increase their chances of reproducing.
"We're not saying Darwin was wrong," says Longo. "We're just saying that there appear to be some big missing pieces in his theory."
Numbered days
Longo's theory is supported by observations of programmed aging in baker's yeast.
The programmed aging theory suggests that an organism's lifespan is determined even before it's born. The theory suggests that growing old and dying is caused by genes or the decline of organ systems, and is predetermined.
The theory has many critics. But while there are several theories on aging, most researchers agree that growing old and dying is somehow related to changes in gene expression that affect systems responsible for maintenance, repair and defense. These changes can be caused by internal or external factors.
In studies on yeast, Longo and colleagues have discovered that large portions of yeast populations die long before expected in order to provide nutrients for mutants within their own population. "Billions of organisms die early so that a few better-adapted individuals can grow," he says.
Dying too early
The findings could have important implications for human aging because the molecular pathways that regulate longevity in yeast are possibly similar to those in humans. "Basically, it is the first demonstration, to our knowledge, that aging is programmed and altruistic," says Longo.
Still, Longo admits that programmed human aging is just a possibility. "We don't know whether it's true yet or not," he says. "But if aging is programmed in yeast, and the pathway is very similar, then isn't it possible that humans also die earlier than they have to?"
Longo admits there are many unanswered questions in his theory and plans to look closer at aging in humans and mammals.
The research is reported in the journal Cell Biology (read abstract).
Chris Keller - 02 Oct 2004 00:18 GMT Organisms live a long life only if it is in the interest of the species that they do so.
So what else is new??
Chris Chris----MtLoweMan@aol.Com
Brett Aubrey - 02 Oct 2004 03:39 GMT Evolution in doubt? A suggestion: Try picking the Subject heading *after* reading the article. Regards, Brett.
> Is Aging an Altruistic Adaptation? > Programmed death theory challenges Darwin [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > The research is reported in the journal Cell Biology (read abstract). Jabriol - 02 Oct 2004 17:42 GMT I did.
thanks for playing.. try again later...
> Evolution in doubt? A suggestion: Try picking the Subject heading *after* > reading the article. Regards, Brett. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > > > The research is reported in the journal Cell Biology (read abstract). Brett Aubrey - 02 Oct 2004 20:52 GMT I suggest that you try to read it again, then. Or is it that you don't understand evolution? Best regards, Brett.
> I did. > thanks for playing.. try again later... > > > Evolution in doubt? A suggestion: Try picking the Subject > > heading *after* reading the article. Regards, Brett. <snip>
Jabriol - 03 Oct 2004 13:49 GMT I did, thanks for playing.
I guess evolution is like John Kerry.
> I suggest that you try to read it again, then. Or is it that you don't > understand evolution? Best regards, Brett. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > heading *after* reading the article. Regards, Brett. > <snip> Brett Aubrey - 03 Oct 2004 19:22 GMT You actually read it again and still missed it? So sorry to hear that. This is sounding like a simple attempt to mislead, or perhaps to troll. I notice another poster pointed out:
'"We're not saying Darwin was wrong," says Longo'
but there's also:
'the theory hinges on natural selection through "group" selection.'
The article clearly supports Darwin's descent with modification and there's nothing that casts any doubt on evolution in your original post, other than your misleading subject line. I hope this clears that up for you. Best regards, Brett Aubrey.
P.S. What was your 'TOBS' that I seem to have inadvertently deleted, please?
> I did, thanks for playing. > I guess evolution is like John Kerry. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > heading *after* reading the article. Regards, Brett. > > <snip> Jabriol - 04 Oct 2004 11:41 GMT did not miss it at all.
here is my point, in form of an analogy... "we invdae Iraq to stop terrorism and the construction of wmd"
> You actually read it again and still missed it? So sorry to hear that. > This is sounding like a simple attempt to mislead, or perhaps to troll. I [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > > > heading *after* reading the article. Regards, Brett. > > > <snip> Brett Aubrey - 04 Oct 2004 16:17 GMT Point of the analogy seems clear. Analogous relationship evades. Unless you're simply saying that you're being wrong-headed. Regards, Brett. .
> did not miss it at all. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > > > > heading *after* reading the article. Regards, Brett. > > > > <snip> Ghod - 11 Nov 2004 19:08 GMT Jabberwacky knows better, he just doesn't care. The moment that you begin to take his trollings seriously, you fall into his trap. He has no interest in science, to him, it's the enemy.
: Point of the analogy seems clear. Analogous relationship evades. Unless : you're simply saying that you're being wrong-headed. Regards, Brett. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] : > > > > > > heading *after* reading the article. Regards, Brett. : > > > > <snip> JaBrIoLeGit - 11 Nov 2004 23:16 GMT > Jabberwacky knows better, he just doesn't care. The moment that you > begin to take his trollings seriously, you fall into his trap. He has > no interest in science, to him, it's the enemy. You and me can go, one on one on any science subject you'd like.
Amphetamine Gobbler - 12 Nov 2004 04:10 GMT >> Jabberwacky knows better, he just doesn't care. The moment that you >> begin to take his trollings seriously, you fall into his trap. He has >> no interest in science, to him, it's the enemy. > >You and me can go, one on one on any science subject you'd like. OK, I pick metallurgy...
A woody surface on a piece of steel indicates what condition?
What does the process known as "pickling" do to steel?
What's the easiest way to cut stainless steel when you only have a gas and oxygen torch?
What it the purpose of argon gas in the steel manufacturing process?
What element makes up 95% of all steel? Name three or more elements that can make up the other 5%. What electronic device could you use to quickly determine the chemical make-up of a piece of steel?
Finally, what is "mag testing?" (or magnetic, or magnaglow testing, depending on the manufacturer)
Amphatamine Gobbler - 16 Nov 2004 03:46 GMT >>> Jabberwacky knows better, he just doesn't care. The moment that you >>> begin to take his trollings seriously, you fall into his trap. He has >>> no interest in science, to him, it's the enemy. >> >>You and me can go, one on one on any science subject you'd like. It looks like Jabbers doesn't know squat about the science subjects he brags about. He hasn't responded in four days. Just to show that I know I'm talking about, I shall post the answers to my own questions.
>OK, I pick metallurgy... > >A woody surface on a piece of steel indicates what condition? It indicates that the steel was overheated prior to being rolled in a mill.
>What does the process known as "pickling" do to steel? It is soaking the steel in nitric or sulfuric acid to remove scale.
>What's the easiest way to cut stainless steel when you only have a gas >and oxygen torch? By feeding a piece of iron into it as you cut it. The impurities break down the chemical bond, and make the stainless steel very easy to burn apart.
>What it the purpose of argon gas in the steel manufacturing process? Argon is injected into molten steel to mix the alloys.
>What element makes up 95% of all steel? Name three or more elements >that can make up the other 5%. What electronic device could you use to >quickly determine the chemical make-up of a piece of steel? Iron makes up most of steel. 95% is the average, but varies based on the alloys. Nickel, chromium, molybdenum, magnesium, and aluminum are among some of the alloys used in making various types of steel. A spectrometer is a device that can quickly determine the chemical make-up of a piece of steel.
>Finally, what is "mag testing?" (or magnetic, or magnaglow testing, >depending on the manufacturer) This process involves passing an electric current through a piece of steel to magnetize it, and coating it with a special water-based solution. The steel is examined under ultra violate light to find seams, cracks, and other surface defects.
Since Jabbers didn't know these answers, as he so bragged, I guess that makes him a liar and an idiot...
...but then, he probably thinks that metallurgy isn't a science.
VoiceOfReason - 02 Oct 2004 20:41 GMT <...>
Hey Einstein, did you happen to notice that your own article supports evolution? Or didn't you read it through?
> "We're not saying Darwin was wrong," says Longo. "We're just saying > that there appear to be some big missing pieces in his theory." As you're obviously not aware, this is a normal occurrence in science. New studies add to existing knowledge, adding detail to existing theories, filling in holes, making minor modifications as we lean more. That's one of the biggest strengths of science - we keep learning more and more every day.
Please read for comprehension next time.
Jabriol - 03 Oct 2004 13:55 GMT > <...> > > Hey Einstein, did you happen to notice that your own article supports > evolution? Or didn't you read it through? of course I've notice.
that is like a reuplican supporting John Kerry or Zel Miller supporting bush. the point I am making, is that the theory is not as constant.
take a look a the neanderthal.
knuckly dragging idiot.. to.. alive an well as known as the french.
VoiceOfReason - 03 Oct 2004 18:49 GMT > > <...> > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that is like a reuplican supporting John Kerry or Zel Miller supporting bush. > the point I am making, is that the theory is not as constant. Of course the theory isn't "constant," since theories are always being updated. Let's replace the part of my reply that you snipped out and try reading it again....
"As you're obviously not aware, this is a normal occurrence in science. New studies add to existing knowledge, adding detail to existing theories, filling in holes, making minor modifications as we lean more. That's one of the biggest strengths of science - we keep learning more and more every day."
Jabriol - 04 Oct 2004 11:45 GMT > > > <...> > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > updated. Let's replace the part of my reply that you snipped out and > try reading it again.... and yet, this particular theory is taught as bonafide fact. I like the term update. I guess nobody will come around in the science field and say: " I wonder if we were wrong about the whole thing"
nahhhhhhhhh.. too much to lose.
EarlCox - 04 Oct 2004 16:23 GMT I believe that evolution, relativity, and other physical systems, are taught as theories. But a Theory in the scientific world is not the same as the ordinary use of the word "theory" (such as "I have a theory why Marge broke up with Sam" or "I have a theory about who killed JFK"). It is this confusion of underlying semantics that causes a great deal of problems in discussing scientific issues.
Actually, many scientists spend lots and lots and lots of time wondering "if we wrong about the whole thing" That's how they win Nobel Prizes (or one of the ways). While it is true that long established scientific paradigms are difficult to overthrow (and rightfully so), it does happen. It happens because science is concerned with explaining phenomena not in establishing dogma. I suggest you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.
That's all I have time to contribute, Enjoy your own journey of discovery. Earl
> > > > <...> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > nahhhhhhhhh.. too much to lose. deowll - 14 Oct 2004 04:25 GMT > Is Aging an Altruistic Adaptation? > Programmed death theory challenges Darwin [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > The research is reported in the journal Cell Biology (read abstract). Has this guy heard of Pacific Salmon? Males moles of at least some kinds die after mating apparently to make more food available for their young. Some mother spiders feed their young themselves. You get more or less the same thing. You help your genes live on longer by dieing. This is very old news.
It is also a known fact that by delaying the age at which they are allowed to breed you can often double the live expectancy of a captive population in a few generations. If having genes to die young doen't reduce the number of desendants an organism has they won't get weeded out of a population and longevity won't be selected for.
Even with fully modern humans males were normally wrecks by the time they were in their early forties due to injuries if they were still alive. Women tended to die even younger in many populations. The mutation causing one form of dementia common in older members of my family is believed to have arisen something like 700,000 years ago and I doubt if anyone had the condition until 50,000 years ago.
lagavril@yahoo.com - 18 Dec 2004 23:17 GMT > Is Aging an Altruistic Adaptation? > Programmed death theory challenges Darwin > By Liz Brown > Betterhumans Staff > 9/27/2004 4:29 PM > .... The theory has many critics. But while there are several theories on
> aging, most researchers agree that growing old and dying is somehow > related to changes in gene expression that affect systems responsible > for maintenance, repair and defense. These changes can be caused by > internal or external factors. See also:
" Why We Fall Apart. Engineering's Reliability Theory Explains Human Aging" IEEE Spectrum, 2004, 41(9): 30-35 http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/sep04/0904age.html
|
|
|