Evolutionary reason for aging?

Nothing makes sense, when you really think about it. So don't think about it too much.

If people lived forever it would get too crowded and there would be no need for new generations and evolution.

physics defiant wrote:

If people lived forever it would get too crowded and there would be no need for new generations and evolution.

You type faster than you think.

fatalist wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

If people lived forever it would get too crowded and there would be no need for new generations and evolution.

You type faster than you think.

It's not what you think if you think what I think you are thinking. Because thinking the thoughts is thoughtless thinking, therefore you shouldn't think that you thought.

Why can a Lizard grow a new arm, but if my penis gets cut off I can't grow a new penis ? Evolution should have protected my junk.

There is a balance between longevity and cancer. Basically anything that allows your cells to live longer or undergo more replications will also increase the chances of mutation and uncontrolled growth. If some group of people evolved to not undergo aging at the cellular level, that population would probably also have really high incidence of neoplasm.

1. Harder to keep the existing machinery in good condition (not aging) than to produce a new copy from the blueprint.

2. Scientist Max Planck once said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Ok ok so maybe number 2 speaks more to human society and not evolution haha

I'm Late again wrote:

Why can a Lizard grow a new arm, but if my penis gets cut off I can't grow a new penis ? Evolution should have protected my junk.

Be patient. Evolution takes time. Soon enough you will be growing more penises than you know what to do with.

deep thoughts wrote:

It doesnt make sense.

Yes it does

It seems to be artifact of diminished natural selection late in life:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-evolution-of-aging-23651151/

deep thoughts wrote:

It doesnt make sense.

All creatures have a life span. It's up to you to make sense of yours.

What would be interesting is if we could evolve people to have longer lifespans. If only older people were allowed to have kids, only genes that allowed people to live up to that age would be passed down.

That age would gradually increase, and after many, many generations, it might be something like 70 for men and 50 for women. It would be extremely unlikely for anyone to die in their 60s, because if there was a condition that killed you at that age, it would not be passed down to you since your parents would not have lived long enough to give you those genes.

There is already some evidence of this working for both men and women:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/uou-lmb050109.php

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-18392873

I'm Late again wrote:

Why can a Lizard grow a new arm, but if my penis gets cut off I can't grow a new penis ? Evolution should have protected my junk.

Are you certain of that?

Maybe you should cut off your penis and see if it grows back.

I heard it grows back bigger.

Try it and get back to us.

Sub 12 dreamer wrote:

What would be interesting is if we could evolve people to have longer lifespans. If only older people were allowed to have kids, only genes that allowed people to live up to that age would be passed down.

We would have to be willing to let the many children born with birth defects due to an older mother to die. Eugenics has many pitfalls for a civilized society.

Sub 12 dreamer wrote:

What would be interesting is if we could evolve people to have longer lifespans. If only older people were allowed to have kids, only genes that allowed people to live up to that age would be passed down.

That age would gradually increase, and after many, many generations, it might be something like 70 for men and 50 for women. It would be extremely unlikely for anyone to die in their 60s, because if there was a condition that killed you at that age, it would not be passed down to you since your parents would not have lived long enough to give you those genes.

There is already some evidence of this working for both men and women:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/uou-lmb050109.phphttps://www.bbc.com/news/health-18392873

This is happening in some sub populations of developed nations.

Did the people of Okinawa by chance reproduce later in life? I don't think so, diet and low stress are probably still your best bets.

This may be the dumbest thing ever posted here.

deep thoughts wrote:

It doesnt make sense.

It doesn't make sense because you're looking at the question through distorted, fogged lenses. Your assumed world view is faulty....therefore, you're assessment of reality doesn't make sense. Wrong assumptions = can't make sense of reality

"A significant association for later maternal age was found whereby women who had their last child beyond the age of 33 years had twice the odds of survival to the top 5th percentile of survival of their birth cohorts compared to women who had their last child by age 29"

It gets better for even older ages:

"Women who gave birth to a child after the age of 40 had four times greater odds of being a centenarian compared to women from the same birth cohort who had their last child at younger ages"