[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Yes, because most mutations knock out genes essential for daily living. I’m talking about knocking out a gene for aging. You won’t notice anything odd until you get to your forties and everyone else your age looks much worse. [/quote]
That would also be a mutation, then. If you’re talking about doing it in an artificial, controlled manner, that’s not what you said above.
[quote]
We’re the complete opposite. We’re constantly exchanging molecules with our environment, whether through breathing, eating, shitting or just shedding skin flakes. If we were static then we would wear out very quickly, because we couldn’t replace any lost/damaged bits.
Since there’s a regular supply of new molecules coming in through food we can change and adapt. Bodybuilders know this better than anyone.[/quote]
You took my “static bag of flesh and bone” comment way too literally. I meant that we don’t have the ability to evolve as single organisms, so we need to compensate by procreating. Basically, death is like an obsolete model being taken off the production line.
I’ve been knocking down 1,500 mg. of vitamin C for the past 25 years against my doctor’s recommendations. And what have I gotten for it? Less colds, good skin and I can still knock out 30 Chin-ups. Who knows if it will help me live longer? But it hasn’t hurt me. How much vitamin C does everyone else take?
They weren’t designed to do any such thing. In fact having longer lives invented the concept of grandparents to help out with child-rearing, increasing overall survival rates. [/quote]
The “concept of grandparents” was only invented in the sense that my great-grandparents invented my grandparents and someone coined the word “grandparents”. They certainly didn’t come about to help with child-rearing. That is hard-wired into our species.[/quote]
Animals don’t have grandparents, so child-rearing is solely up to the parent. If a female lion gets sick or injured and can’t hunt, her cubs will die.
If a human mother gets sick or injured, chances are her parents can get the food in instead. Alternatively, the grandparents can babysit while the mother is off gathering food. As soon as human lifespan extended enough to have more than two generations alive at once, the chances of survival and reproduction of the young would have shot up.
[/quote]
I wasn’t talking about lions. Our social structure has nothing in common with theirs’ (which is why I didn’t mention them).[/quote]
Social structure has nothing to do with aging, which is why I wasn’t talking about it.
Plenty of kings through history have had a harem.
Professional carers have nothing to do with aging or lifespan, which is what this thread is about. Grandparents have everything to do with human lifespan.
They weren’t designed to do any such thing. In fact having longer lives invented the concept of grandparents to help out with child-rearing, increasing overall survival rates. [/quote]
The “concept of grandparents” was only invented in the sense that my great-grandparents invented my grandparents and someone coined the word “grandparents”. They certainly didn’t come about to help with child-rearing. That is hard-wired into our species.[/quote]
Animals don’t have grandparents, so child-rearing is solely up to the parent. If a female lion gets sick or injured and can’t hunt, her cubs will die.
If a human mother gets sick or injured, chances are her parents can get the food in instead. Alternatively, the grandparents can babysit while the mother is off gathering food. As soon as human lifespan extended enough to have more than two generations alive at once, the chances of survival and reproduction of the young would have shot up.
[/quote]
I wasn’t talking about lions. Our social structure has nothing in common with theirs’ (which is why I didn’t mention them).[/quote]
Social structure has nothing to do with aging, which is why I wasn’t talking about it.
Plenty of kings through history have had a harem.
Professional carers have nothing to do with aging or lifespan, which is what this thread is about. Grandparents have everything to do with human lifespan.
[/quote]
You haven’t even attempted to read or comprehend anything I’ve written, have you? If you make statements like the one above, you don’t get to dictate what is and what isn’t relevant. That’s either just a weak attempt to shut me down by censoring my replies, or you have a very blinkered view of things and you genuinely don’t understand or won’t understand what I’m saying here.
Your harem argument is null and void. Alpha Male primates also have their pick of females.
It’s a matter of common sense that grandparental lifespans do not have a direct effect on survival rates. That’s like saying grandparents are the only people who ever look after children other than the parents. There are examples in nature that prove this isn’t true. Most tellingly, in the social structure of our primate ancestors. So social structure is very relevant.
And it’s no use saying that primates don’t have “grandparents”. They don’t recognise the concept because it’s one that we made up. What humans and primates have in common is the ability to share child rearing duties beyond parents and grandparents.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Yes, because most mutations knock out genes essential for daily living. I’m talking about knocking out a gene for aging. You won’t notice anything odd until you get to your forties and everyone else your age looks much worse. [/quote]
That would also be a mutation, then.[/quote]
Yes. That’s what I originally said. If aging was genetically programmed then a mutation in he gene would stop aging. Just as there are people around with genetic diseases, there should be people around with genetic immortality - if aging is genetic.
[quote]
If you’re talking about doing it in an artificial, controlled manner, that’s not what you said above. [/quote]
No, because I’m saying there isn’t a gene for aging, so there’s nothing to knock out artificially or otherwise. There are genes for efficient use of resources and genes for being good at repairing DNA damage (leading to slower aging), but not (in my opinion) ones which enforce decrepitude.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Yes, because most mutations knock out genes essential for daily living. I’m talking about knocking out a gene for aging. You won’t notice anything odd until you get to your forties and everyone else your age looks much worse. [/quote]
That would also be a mutation, then.[/quote]
Yes. That’s what I originally said. If aging was genetically programmed then a mutation in he gene would stop aging. Just as there are people around with genetic diseases, there should be people around with genetic immortality - if aging is genetic.
See above vid of a progeria sufferer. It’s the one you didn’t watch the first time you made those points.
[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
Technology is in development to allow us to become 100+ years easily, maintaining a relatively youthful body too.
Wether it’s a good thing, is another topic of discussion.[/quote]
Nonsense. There is no technology under development that will allow us to become 100+ years. If you actually believe that I’d like to sell you some property in Florida, unseen of course.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Yes, because most mutations knock out genes essential for daily living. I’m talking about knocking out a gene for aging. You won’t notice anything odd until you get to your forties and everyone else your age looks much worse. [/quote]
That would also be a mutation, then.[/quote]
Yes. That’s what I originally said. If aging was genetically programmed then a mutation in he gene would stop aging. Just as there are people around with genetic diseases, there should be people around with genetic immortality - if aging is genetic.
See above vid of a progeria sufferer. It’s the one you didn’t watch the first time you made those points. [/quote]
Progeria doesn’t prove there’s a normal gene that causes aging - it proves the OPPOSITE i.e. if you mutate a normal gene you can show the signs of aging much sooner. That goes along with aging being down to something going wrong, not that it’s supposed to happen by design.
And yes, of course it’s my opinion that there isn’t a gene enforcing aging. Until all the genes in the genome have been found and characterised it can’t be ruled out completely.
[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
Yes, because most mutations knock out genes essential for daily living. I’m talking about knocking out a gene for aging. You won’t notice anything odd until you get to your forties and everyone else your age looks much worse. [/quote]
That would also be a mutation, then.[/quote]
Yes. That’s what I originally said. If aging was genetically programmed then a mutation in he gene would stop aging. Just as there are people around with genetic diseases, there should be people around with genetic immortality - if aging is genetic.
See above vid of a progeria sufferer. It’s the one you didn’t watch the first time you made those points. [/quote]
Progeria doesn’t prove there’s a normal gene that causes aging - it proves the OPPOSITE i.e. if you mutate a normal gene you can show the signs of aging much sooner. That goes along with aging being down to something going wrong, not that it’s supposed to happen by design.
And yes, of course it’s my opinion that there isn’t a gene enforcing aging. Until all the genes in the genome have been found and characterised it can’t be ruled out completely.[/quote]
You don’t know when to quit do you? You just said, in your last post (underlined for clarity):
[quote]
No, because I’m saying there isn’t a gene for aging, so there’s nothing to knock out artificially or otherwise. There are genes for efficient use of resources and genes for being good at repairing DNA damage (leading to slower aging), but not (in my opinion) ones which enforce decrepitude. [/quote]
Of course there’s a gene for aging. Otherwise we wouldn’t age. It’s not a mutation either. Why? Because life spans for healthy individuals vary from person to person but rates of aging do not. Progeria is an exception because it is a mutation.
Anyway, think what you want. Unless you’re a professional geneticist, it’s not going to affect anybody. If you are a professional, consider me officially scared. I’m done.
[quote]roybot wrote:
You don’t know when to quit do you?
[/quote]
When you’re clearly still not getting it, why quit? Ignorance isn’t a badge of honour.
You’ve underlined two separate clauses, are you trying to imply they’re one? Just to be clear: genes for being good at repairing DNA are genes that will slow aging. If these are mutated so they don’t function, aging will be quicker (if indeed you don’t die of cancer first - look up xeroderma pigmentosum as an example).
Normal genes becoming defective and causing more rapid aging is not the same as there being a normal gene for aging. I’m saying there’s not normal gene that deliberately causes aging.
Ah, well I see where your blind spot is then. Genes don’t determine everything. Again, going back to bodybuilding: big muscles aren’t produced by genes (unless you’re a cow with myostatin mutations) they’re produced in response to lifting weights. A physiological response to a stimulus.
I didn’t say it was. I didn’t offer a theory for aging, I just said it’s not a deliberate genetic program.
I don’t know how on Earth you can think rates of aging don’t vary. What determines lifespan then?
I just scanned over this thread and didn’t see resveratrol mentioned. Resveratrol has had similar results to calorie restriction in the lab with rats, fish, fruit flies, some other creatures too. With mice, by its self resveratrol failed to extend life because mice die of a blood cancer which res doesn’t protect against. However, in conjunction with calorie restriction, resveratrol mice live even longer than with CR alone. Apparently CR protects against the blood cancer and res is able to kick in and extend life in other ways. My guess is resveratrol will probably prove to be effective in extending the lives of humans. The correct dosage is the big question mark.
I saw some comments on Progeria and didn’t catch exactly what you guys were saying, but if it wasn’t stated, I’d like to state that people with progeria DO age. They just don’t progress. There’s a big difference.
If telomerase therapies are developed the quality and length of human life will be greatly improved. Telomerase is an enzyme that keeps the ends of our DNA from fraying. You literally lose DNA as you age due to this fraying.
Stem cell therapies have the potential to lengthen human life.
[quote]on edge wrote:
I just scanned over this thread and didn’t see resveratrol mentioned.[/quote]
Well, it is quite difficult to say…
There’s at least one researcher (of resveratol) who routine takes it as a supplement, so he’s convinced himself of the benefits.
[quote]
If telomerase therapies are developed the quality and length of human life will be greatly improved. Telomerase is an enzyme that keeps the ends of our DNA from fraying. You literally lose DNA as you age due to this fraying.[/quote]
It might be more accurate to say once you’ve lost enough telomeric DNA you start to age, but regardless, the concern is that cancer would be far more common if you could switch on telomerase in your cells. It’s a hallmark and requirement of cancer cell replication that they have active telomerase and more cells could replicate unchecked if they had telomerase active to begin with.
[quote]biglifter wrote:
I will accept 98 of these years to be with unaided mobility, no chronic illnesses present and higher than average cognitive function for a ninety-something. The final two, it’s okay if everything goes to hell just to cross the finish line.
[/quote]
