---

Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Keynes on 09-28-04 13:36

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:13:40 -0700, "Immortalist"
wrote:

>
>"Tim" wrote in message
>news:r4-dnXSJrboL58TcRVn-og@edaptivity.com...
>>
>> "Immortalist" wrote in message
>> news:oKydnRY8D_c8qsXcRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "andromeda" wrote in message
>> > news:cWU5d.146880$4h7.24760078@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 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 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.
>

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.
>>
>
>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=d1e1c4e27aefddb7&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.
>
>>
>

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Immortalist on 09-28-04 19:32

"Keynes" wrote in message
news:11hjl0t2uurtimks09hr8rg18fvsmtv14t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:13:40 -0700, "Immortalist"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tim" wrote in message
> >news:r4-dnXSJrboL58TcRVn-og@edaptivity.com...
> >>
> >> "Immortalist" wrote in message
> >> news:oKydnRY8D_c8qsXcRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "andromeda" wrote in message
> >> > news:cWU5d.146880$4h7.24760078@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >> > > 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.
> >> >
> >> 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 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.
> >
>
> 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
> (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.
>

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.
> >

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Nico Kadel-Garcia on 09-29-04 18:58

"Immortalist" wrote in message
news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...

> 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.

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Immortalist on 09-29-04 21:55

"Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
news:gqqdnYiQjILQ9cbcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
>
> "Immortalist" wrote in message
> news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
>
> > 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
> > 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.

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.
>

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Bob's Boyfriend on 09-29-04 23:00

In article <8qCdnYWM5ufcD8bcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
"Immortalist" wrote:

> "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
> news:gqqdnYiQjILQ9cbcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Immortalist" wrote in message
> > news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > > 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
> > > 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.
>
> 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,

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
> 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.
> >
>
>

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Immortalist on 09-30-04 10:48

"Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
news:together-0D3218.02005230092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <8qCdnYWM5ufcD8bcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
> "Immortalist" wrote:
>
> > "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
> > news:gqqdnYiQjILQ9cbcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Immortalist" wrote in message
> > > news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > 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.
> >
> > 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,
>
> Predation? I'm noticing that there is a particular leaning towards
> 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
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> >

Start

« Previous 1 2 3 Next »

Related Discussion:

Holistic Drug and Alcohol Rehabiltation Program that Works! (1 posts)
by Jerry - Last post on: 06-12-04 08:34
Holistic drug and alcohol rehabilitation program designed by recovering addicts with over 17 years of experience. They specialize in chronic relapse and dual diagnosis. Call anytime 24/7 for a free consultation at 800-559-9503. You can find out more information at their websites located at: http://... (Read More)

New Neuropathy Treatment To Regenerate Nerve Function (1 posts)
by Gumbo - Last post on: 02-02-05 19:01
New Neuropathy Treatment To Regenerate Nerve Function A novel therapeutic designed to protect and stimulate the regeneration of peripheral nerve function in diabetics suffering from peripheral neuropathy Sangamo BioSciences Files New Drug Application for ZFP Therapeutic to Treat Diabe... (Read More)

rather than be fat (9 posts)
by tigerlilly@privacy.net.org.com - Last post on: 07-26-05 15:49
In a survey of elementary school students, girls commented that they would prefer to live through a nuclear holocaust, lose both of their parents or get sick with cancer rather than be fat. ... (Read More)

New Group Invitation (4 posts)
by mandare - Last post on: 09-18-05 17:24
http://groups.google.com/group/Osteo-Arthritis-Treatment-Reviews?lnk=la Go share your experences with the latest treatment options available for Osteo Arthritis. What worked for you? What didnt work for you? ... (Read More)

Top Discussions From Our Archives

diabetes and arthritis

AFFORDABLE DRUGS Huge web site to by you medications online

Omega-3 and Gout ??

Other Discussion Categories

Diabetes Symptoms
Health Care Policy

Home | Discussion Archives |