Aging theories
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Free radicals are reactive chemical species which damage biological cells. They are very true and all theories of ageing have the free radical sub-theory of ageing built into them.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
just type it into google or even better, if ur scientifically minded, type it into Medline.
We age because evolution did not design us the live forever. As soon as you have children and can live long enough to raise them evolution did not give a dam about you. Basically we like cars we are only warranted for so long. This is way we age from things like free-radicals, arterial sclerosis, telomere lose, ect.
We age because of an evolutionary need for the existence of Matlock.
Have U ever heard of unisexual or asexual animals that reproduce without genes from another partner. If they can maintain their there genetic correctness from generations to generations then it quite possible that by studying thoes animals we may be able to engineer a repair system that uses this technique to maintain our genetic health and hence never age ?
even asexual animals mutate.
Perhaps it would be better to dispose of the tempory vehicle.
I.e. Copy one's neural net onto a more stable medium. Obviously, that person would not be you (just someone who acts like they are) but perhaps some kind of intermediate state could be used to give the sensation of 'transfer'.
Before any of you flame me, yes I'm aware that todays tech does not even remotely 'live' up to the standard.
I.e. Copy one's neural net onto a more stable medium. Obviously, that person would not be you (just someone who acts like they are) but perhaps some kind of intermediate state could be used to give the sensation of 'transfer'.
Before any of you flame me, yes I'm aware that todays tech does not even remotely 'live' up to the standard.
As any fan of "The Twilight Zone" would know, "never aging" might be more of a course than a blessing. 
ha! Eternal cybernetic heaven a curse? your telling me being in perpetual orgasm mode long after the stars burn out is a curse?
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
A more comprehensive ultimate theory of aging from an evolutionary perspective (as opposed to more proximate causes like free radicals) cannot be discussed without mentioning Peter Medawar.
from; http://longevity-science.org/Evolution.htm
Mutation Accumulation Theory of Aging
This evolutionary theory, suggested by Peter Medawar (Medawar, P.B. 1946. Old age and natural death. Modern Q. 1, 30–56; and 1952 An Unsolved Problem of Biology. H.K. Lewis, London.), considers aging as a byproduct of natural selection. According to this theory, aging is a nonadaptive trait because natural selection is negligent of events that occur in a few long-lived animals that provide little additional contribution to offspring numbers. This explanation of aging is similar to the evolutionary explanation of vision deterioration and ultimate blindness of cave animals: if some function cannot be used to provide reproductive advantage, it will not be supported by selection pressure and maintained in future generations.
The probability of an individual reproducing depends on age. It is zero at birth and reaches a peak in young adults. Then it decreases due to the increased probability of death linked to various external (predators, illnesses, accidents) and internal (senescence) causes. In such conditions, deleterious mutations expressed at a young age are severely selected against due to their high negative impact on fitness (number of offspring produced). On the other hand, deleterious mutations expressed only later in life are relatively neutral to selection because their bearers have already transmitted their genes to the next generation.
and from Charlesworth, 2000. Fisher, Medawar, Hamilton and the Evolution of Aging. Genetics 156: 927–931.
Modern evolutionary theory has demonstrated that,
in species with a clearcut distinction between parent
and offspring, senescence is a virtually inevitable result
of the fact that genes that affect survival or fecundity
only early in life have a greater selective impact than
genes whose effects are manifest only late in life.
from; http://longevity-science.org/Evolution.htm
Mutation Accumulation Theory of Aging
This evolutionary theory, suggested by Peter Medawar (Medawar, P.B. 1946. Old age and natural death. Modern Q. 1, 30–56; and 1952 An Unsolved Problem of Biology. H.K. Lewis, London.), considers aging as a byproduct of natural selection. According to this theory, aging is a nonadaptive trait because natural selection is negligent of events that occur in a few long-lived animals that provide little additional contribution to offspring numbers. This explanation of aging is similar to the evolutionary explanation of vision deterioration and ultimate blindness of cave animals: if some function cannot be used to provide reproductive advantage, it will not be supported by selection pressure and maintained in future generations.
The probability of an individual reproducing depends on age. It is zero at birth and reaches a peak in young adults. Then it decreases due to the increased probability of death linked to various external (predators, illnesses, accidents) and internal (senescence) causes. In such conditions, deleterious mutations expressed at a young age are severely selected against due to their high negative impact on fitness (number of offspring produced). On the other hand, deleterious mutations expressed only later in life are relatively neutral to selection because their bearers have already transmitted their genes to the next generation.
and from Charlesworth, 2000. Fisher, Medawar, Hamilton and the Evolution of Aging. Genetics 156: 927–931.
Modern evolutionary theory has demonstrated that,
in species with a clearcut distinction between parent
and offspring, senescence is a virtually inevitable result
of the fact that genes that affect survival or fecundity
only early in life have a greater selective impact than
genes whose effects are manifest only late in life.
well i was tought in Scince class (you guys are more than likley way over my head) that cancer cells dont age it has to do with when the cell is duplicating.. a pice of something drops off the end of the cromosone .. its real foggy....any oone know what itm talken about ?
Look up telomeres and aging on google
thanks, very intersting here is a link for ne one http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Telomeres.html
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
paulsamuel said:
Paul: why wouldn't individuals which have a very long reproductive life be selected for? Lets say u have mutant people in the population who can give birth at 60/70 years of age. They should be selected for right?
Try to link pH GIT & internal with ageing. It somewhat indicate low stomach acid with ageing>>so low digestion of protien,minerals, B vitamins etc>> so low absorption of these>> opposite may be high fat/fat soluble absorption>>may be cause or a cause of ageing???
Last edited:
longer life spans are rarely selected for because predators and disease get you first even if you would have lived longer, usually having children quickly is more selective pressure then living longer to have more children.
Kumar,
Its also possible the pH imbalance is the result of aging not just the cause.
Kumar,
Its also possible the pH imbalance is the result of aging not just the cause.