There is a new book on evolution theory: The Evolution of Aging (2nd ed), ISBN 0978870905, by Theodore Goldsmith that discusses digital information aspects of inheritance and their implications for evolution theory.

Darwin tells us that selective breeding and the corresponding evolutionary mechanism of natural selection both depend on the natural variation of characteristics between different individuals. Variation creates differences for selection to select.

According to the book, natural variation in more complex species is not actually "natural" in the sense of being a fundamental characteristic of all living things. Instead, because of the digital nature of the genetic code, the "natural" intrinsic situation is that members of a species should nominally tend toward being genetically identical. "Natural" variation in complex organisms is actually created and maintained primarily by the action of a long list of complex evolved mechanisms that process mutations including sexual reproduction, genetic recombination, certain behaviors, etc. The degree of variation produced by these mechanisms is described to be much greater than that produced by the occasional propagatable mutation.

This brings up the issue of how all these variation-producing traits evolved. It seems to be a somewhat circular situation: organisms are evolving the means for evolving.

Further, variation considered as an evolved design feature is itself incompatible with Darwinian evolution as generally understood. If organisms are striving to propagate their personal designs, then variation is adverse because it acts to reduce the ability of an organism to do that. A Darwinian organism would rather clone itself and therefore propagate ALL of its design characteristics than dilute its design via sexual reproduction and other evolved variation-producing characteristics. Cloning is the "natural", easier, route given digital genetics.

So how did these characteristics evolve? Wouldn't an organism that had the variation-producing characteristics be at a disadvantage relative to one that did not (such as one that reproduced by cloning) and therefore "select out?" An organism that happened to possess an advantageous design would certainly seem to be less able to propagate that design. Its descendents would likely be less able to survive, breed, etc. than would a clone. Somehow variation-producing characteristics were able to evolve despite fitness disadvantage, apparently because they convey an evolutionary advantage, an improvement in the capacity for evolution.

The question: Is this a plausible idea? If not, where is the fatal logical flaw?

If you accept these arguments, Goldsmith then goes on to suggest that aging, seen as a design feature that deliberately limits life span, also enhances the evolution process in several different ways. If variation can evolve, then aging can evolve even though both are fitness-adverse. This is counter to traditional theories of aging that say that aging is an adverse "side effect" linked to some beneficial and therefore evolvable trait such that there is a net Darwinian benefit. ("Beneficial" means a trait that helps in survival or reproduction as in "survival of the fittest.")

I realize these concepts might seem radical, but they are nonetheless interesting.

his brings up the issue of how all these variation-producing traits evolved. It seems to be a somewhat circular situation: organisms are evolving the means for evolving.

Further, variation considered as an evolved design feature is itself incompatible with Darwinian evolution as generally understood. If organisms are striving to propagate their personal designs, then variation is adverse because it acts to reduce the ability of an organism to do that. A Darwinian organism would rather clone itself and therefore propagate ALL of its design characteristics than dilute its design via sexual reproduction and other evolved variation-producing characteristics. Cloning is the "natural", easier, route given digital genetics.

I see at least two flaws here. The first is the assumption that the means for genetic variability had to be evolved. The introduction of mutation is inherent in the way DNA is duplicated. Even proof reading polymerases introduce errors every now and then. Moreover many mutations are introduced by mutagens, some of witch are produced by the cells themselves during normal metabolism.

Other than that, a lot of organisms clone themselves (e.g. prokaryotes and haploids). Yet apparently a kind of genetic shuffle appears to be beneficial given the fact that a lot of organisms developed polyploidy. And this is the second flaw. Evolutionary theories do not work on individuals. As such it is not necessarily beneficial to pour all of ones genes into the next generation. It is better to maximize the genes that are being retained in following generations. And the ability to shuffle genes might increases the overall fitness of the following generations to allow them to be better adapted and thus creating even more offspring.

However these arguments are not necessary perequisites to accept that aging might have positive effects on evolution. In fact he points several out in his papers...

Yes, but the book describes all the mechanisms in genetics that accomplish the variation in complex organisms including multiple chromosomes, unequal crossover during meiosis, sexual reproduction, digital issues, even behaviors. These things are different in more complex organisms, have short-term disadvantages, and certainly seem too complicated to have occurred by accident so therefore have apparently evolved. The issue is not that mutations occur but what happens to them after they occur and how complicated and long-term this process is.

I think classical "Darwin" evolution theory leads to the idea that individuals are key. Individuals have those elusive beneficial mutations. This leads to a short-term view of the evolution process.

Current thinking seems to be that evolution is somewhat longer-term and population oriented as you suggest. The selfish gene theory is an example. The book is taking an even longer-term view such that any feature that improves an organism's ability to evolve might itself evolve. This evolvability argument agrees with your comment below. Most of the arguments that aging is an evolved design feature as opposed to a defect seem to be based on long-term evolvability benefits.

And the ability to shuffle genes might increases the overall fitness of the following generations to allow them to be better adapted and thus creating even more offspring.

These things are different in more complex organisms, have short-term disadvantages, and certainly seem too complicated to have occurred by accident so therefore have apparently evolved.

Don't fall into this trap. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it has to due to a reason. It's very complicated. that could be due to a driving force, or due to secondary effects of other driving forces. Or (though unlikely) a reall accident.. Most likely, it's a mixture of all three.

So how did these characteristics evolve? Wouldn't an organism that had the variation-producing characteristics be at a disadvantage relative to one that did not (such as one that reproduced by cloning) and therefore "select out?"
No; the logic here is too short sighted. If an individual has a trait that is positive such that it has a .05% higher chance of reproducing than others that don't, but at the same time, the speed of successful* genetic variation allowed for by sexual reproduction is such that offspring gain a 1% chance of reproducing successfully**, then the individual's trait may be subsumed by the population's drive toward sexual reproduction.

*successful here meaning a trait with a net positive effect on survival and reproduction
**successful here meaning a trait with a net positive effect on survival and reproduction of the overall population for the next few generations


amazon link (I've added this book to my wishlist, thanks for the tip!):
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Aging-Theodore-C-Goldsmith/dp/0978870905/ref=sr_1_1/002-8744389-9848834?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173211939&sr=8-1

And a link to my personal theory on why we die:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/28609695/m/400001223831?r=219008823831#219008823831
I think aging follows: it forces the parent out of the way in a gradual fashion; perfect in particular for social species like ours, where the old have a time where they *have* to teach the young, because they can no longer do things themselves.

River-Wind: It seems to me again that all the theories mainly hinge on whether evolution is a short-term or long-term process. Aging as part of a design has no intrinsic short-term benefit but does have several plausible longer-term benefits. You seem to have a "medium-term" view, similar to selfish gene theory or kin selection. Strict Darwinists have a short-term view. The book is advancing a long-term view and is essentially a compilation of evidence and arguments supporting that view.

The main way for determining which "term" is most plausible appears to be to look for characteristics that appear to be design characteristics (as opposed to accidental or side-effects) and assess if they could be the result of a short-term or long-term process. The book also describes long-term processes involved in inheritance that seem to directly suggest a long-term evolutionary process. Empirical proof appears to be impossible.

Sciborg I found your post very interesting. Goldsmitth's take on aging seems a new one, but his suggestion that natural selection is somewhat unnatural is not a new one. I believe Gould, in his classic The Structure of Evolutionary Thoery talks at length about the evolution of evolution.
There are still many biologists who resist the notion of evolution working on anything above the level of the species. This is short sighted and, as you suggest, short term. I suspect when biologists review Darwin's theory on the second centennial of its publication they will find precious little of the original concept left. That will not mean science does not owe Darwin a huge debt, but by then the debt will have been fully paid off. We shall have a much clearer perception of the complexity, elegance and mechanisms of the evolutionary process. Goldsmith's work is a step towards that point.

I'd agree that I'm medium-term; both the short-term (local population level) and long-term (trends in life-forms on a longer scale) seem to place a role, and balance off of each other.

Of particular interest to me at the moment is the evolution of society; as a species moves toward becoming a social species, what behaviors become standardized through instinct to that end? As time moves one, at what point (if ever), does society become more that those innate behaviors defined by bio-chemical drives; when does it take on a life of it's own and start forming rules and accepted behaviors that are not strictly driven by instinct, but must be taught to each new generation.



Back to the OP; how would you describe the term "digital genetics"? I'm having a hard time applying the word digital to the jobs that DNA plays in the cell.

Back to the OP; how would you describe the term "digital genetics"? I'm having a hard time applying the word digital to the jobs that DNA plays in the cell.


A digital information scheme is one in which information is carried in a sequence of symbols as opposed to one in which information is represented by the magnitude of something (analog scheme). In the digital scheme known as English, "cat" is different from "tac" and different from "cot." Watson and Crick discovered that information defining the design of an organism is handled by a digital scheme in which the sequence of the symbols A, G, C, and T in the DNA molecule carries the information. As with English, CAT is not the same as TAC. The genetic scheme therefore shares a long list of properties that are common to any digital information scheme. This turns out to have some fairly profound impact for evolution theory.

Further, since Watson and Crick we have developed a great deal of detail as to the exact nature of the genetic digital scheme including data on how the digital data varies between individuals and between closely related species. This also has implications for evolution theory. See Chapter 5 in the book (ISBN: 0978870905) for a detailed treatment of these issues.

Ophiolite: Yes, I think evolvability (the "evolution of evolution" or the evolution of the capacity for evolution) is a major key. All of the apparent discrepancies between empirical evidence and classical evolution theory seem to have evolvability explanations.

Further, variation considered as an evolved design feature is itself incompatible with Darwinian evolution as generally understood. If organisms are striving to propagate their personal designs, then variation is adverse because it acts to reduce the ability of an organism to do that. A Darwinian organism would rather clone itself and therefore propagate ALL of its design characteristics than dilute its design via sexual reproduction and other evolved variation-producing characteristics. Cloning is the "natural", easier, route given digital genetics. Most of this apparent difficulty disappears once the the unit of actual survival is identified as a stretch of DNA. Or the "Selfish Gene".

A stretch of DNA might find much better odds of survival acquiring new (properly screened) neighbors on the genome occasionally - variability in entire genomes within the "gene pool" might easily act to secure the fortunes of each of the various shuffled genes individually. And so forth.

Organisms do not evolve.They live and die. They are not necessarily striving to propagate their personal designs, unless that is what would be best for the genetics that have organized them.

Watson and Crick discovered that information defining the design of an organism is handled by a digital scheme in which the sequence of the symbols A, G, C, and T in the DNA molecule carries the information....Further, since Watson and Crick we have developed a great deal of detail as to the exact nature of the genetic digital scheme including data on how the digital data varies between individuals and between closely related species.


Umm, no. You’re ascribing discoveries to W&C that were achieved by others. IIRC, the polymer nature of nucleic acid (ribose-phosphate backbone with nitrogenous bases) was discovered prior to W&C. The triplet codon, semi-conservative replication and sequence similarity between organisms was discovered after W&C.

Hercules: OK I stand corrected re historical background.

Iceaura: I think a lot of people share my difficulty with Dawkins' selfish gene theory. It makes sense that it would be that way and genes are conserved between species which suggests that it is that way but when you get down to the nitty gritty of A begat B who begat C it still is not clear to me how an individually adverse design property can propagate. Genes don't reproduce themselves, organisms reproduce themselves.

Evolvability seems to me to have two advantages over selfish gene: It explains aging and biological suicide as a selected design characteristic and I think also explains some other observed characteristics that are not explained by standard Darwinism or selfish gene. And evolvability (to me) seems to have fewer problems regarding propagation.

but when you get down to the nitty gritty of A begat B who begat C it still is not clear to me how an individually adverse design property can propagate. Genes don't reproduce themselves, organisms reproduce themselves. Few multicellular organisms reproduce themselves by preference or under normal circumstances, and the closer they get to doing that the more problems with the approach show up - Google "inbreeding depression".

All kinds of individually adverse properties have been shown to be theoretically immediate consequences of frequency boosting in the relevant genes - consider the social insects, as obvious examples. Worker bees don't reproduce themselves, by genetically coded prohibition, driven by their nature to work themselves to death instead, yet their genes do, on average - just using them and discarding them, in the process.

Genes don't reproduce themselves, organisms reproduce themselves.


Yes, but it’s the action of genes that creates an organism’s reproductive drive in the first place! To a very large extent (if not to a complete extent for a large proportion of organisms on Earth), "selfish genes" dictate the behaviour of an organism – behaviour that enables the selfish genes to reproduce themselves. The idea of the "selfish gene", as far as I understand it, is that they are in control by acting through the organism.

I always thought that evolution allowed aging because evolution does not care if you live past reproduction, any trait that is a detriment only after you reproduce cannot be removed by evolution.

...it’s the action of genes that creates an organism’s reproductive drive in the first placeI have to ask: how does a gene "act"?

I have to ask: how does a gene "act"?

Transcription?

Transcription?Transcription - from DNA to RNA? Or RNA to protein?

A gene transcribes itself?

Transcription - from DNA to RNA? Or RNA to protein?

A gene transcribes itself?

Protein encoding or RNA only... I get the feeling you have something to say on how a gene "acts", just say it already.

I'm waiting to see an explanation of "gene activity".

Is there one?

I'm waiting to see an explanation of "gene activity".

Is there one?
What kind of detail are you looking for?

When someone says: "gene activity", and I then ask them: "how does a gene act?"; is that not enough of a hint, that I'm asking: "what do genes do"?

Yes, in what level of detail would you like to know, so someone can decide how much time they want to spend explaining it?

Just a single example of "a" gene doing something (i.e acting), will do it.

P.S. If I get another question instead of an answer, can I assume that there's no such thing?

Just a single example of "a" gene doing something (i.e acting), will do it.

P.S. If I get another question instead of an answer, can I assume that there's no such thing?

The way your asking the question positions you at a point to strike down another person argument, no one wants to answer it, because no one wants to be your b!tch. If instead you would like to state how gene activity and the evolution of aging are connected and apply your self to this thread by staying on topic and presenting your self on a equal level with us that would be recommended.

Hey, all I did was ask a simple question.

If the person it was aimed at, the same who posted something that led to my asking it the first time, gets to go this far without any view of an answer of any kind in sight, what the hell am I meant to do about it?

Just for the record here: what's "gene activity", since I can clearly see this phrase in your last post (presumably along with anyone else who can read English)?

And if you're expecting a statement about it from me, here it is: genes don't do anything.
If you put some DNA in a test-tube, pretty much nothing interesting will happen.

DNA is a mostly inert structure, a polymer that is maintained and transcribed by enzymes in a cell. If you put some enzymes and some water in with the DNA in the tt, something will happen - it might even be interesting (although it won't look like much). It depends on the enzymes.

Vkothii,

I think the problem here is the rest of us have agreed upon definitions for words and phrase, you on the other hand either have very different definitions or have a desired to argue about those definitions no matter how off-topic it leads us.

A gene is a region of an organism's genome that is transcribed into RNA and Proteins that have functional uses for that organism, how a gene functions (or doesn't) in vitro is irrelevant, this is thread about evolution not biochemistry.

I always thought that evolution allowed aging because evolution does not care if you live past reproduction, any trait that is a detriment only after you reproduce cannot be removed by evolution.

Yes If you assume that an animal has a fixed limited reproductive life, then there is no evolutionary point in living beyond that reproductive period. However, there is no obvious reason why there would be any fundamental limitation on reproduction and if the animal is designed to have a limited reproductive life then that is against Darwin's theory. If it could, why wouldn't the animal evolve a longer reproductive life in order to produce more descendents? A design limit on reproductive life has the same problems with Darwin as a design limit on total life span. Most biologists consider reductions of reproductive capability to be a symptom of aging.

Yes, but it’s the action of genes that creates an organism’s reproductive drive in the first place! To a very large extent (if not to a complete extent for a large proportion of organisms on Earth), "selfish genes" dictate the behaviour of an organism – behaviour that enables the selfish genes to reproduce themselves. The idea of the "selfish gene", as far as I understand it, is that they are in control by acting through the organism.

I think it is clear that genes dictate the design of an organism including its behaviors. It's clear that genes can vary causing the organism to vary in its design. But if a particular variation of a gene caused an organism to have a shorter life, shorter reproductive life, or other individually adverse design (altruism) then how would that variation spread? The animals that have the variation would appear to have to live longer and breed more to spread the variation. I don't see where Dawkins and selfish gene have actually answered this fundamental question, which has been bothering people for 150 years. To me evolvability provides a better explanation.

Yes If you assume that an animal has a fixed limited reproductive life, then there is no evolutionary point in living beyond that reproductive period. However, there is no obvious reason why there would be any fundamental limitation on reproduction and if the animal is designed to have a limited reproductive life then that is against Darwin's theory. If it could, why wouldn't the animal evolve a longer reproductive life in order to produce more descendents? A design limit on reproductive life has the same problems with Darwin as a design limit on total life span. Most biologists consider reductions of reproductive capability to be a symptom of aging.

True, but predators and disease usually get you at a certain point, also it is noted that populations of animals without predators tend to have evolved longer lifespans to take advantage of unlimited reproductive cycling. There was a scientific American article on it a couple of years back that showed mathematically that if you produce a certain number of offspring it does not matter how many more you produce afterwards, evolution no longer effects you, it was a matter of the offspring reproducing and spring their gene at a rate near equal to those that lived longer.

Hey, all I did was ask a simple question.

If the person it was aimed at, the same who posted something that led to my asking it the first time, gets to go this far without any view of an answer of any kind in sight, what the hell am I meant to do about it?

You had better not have aimed that at me you pompous jerk. If all you did is ask simple questions then that would be okay. But you (and everyone else here) know perfectly well that’s not what you do.

…I'm waiting to see an explanation of "gene activity"…
…is that not enough of a hint…
…If I get another question instead of an answer…
…Just a single example of "a" gene doing something (i.e acting), will do it.


And that’s just your condescending tripe from this thread alone. You’ve done the same in other threads as well.

We’re not your pupils, you are not our teacher and we’re not here to answer your condescending questions. It’s so pathetic when a wannabe science guru like you tries to exert their illusionary authority and assumed superior knowledge over the rest of the forum.

We can plainly see that you are just a sophist troll who is desperate to appear as the new all-knowledgeable Biology & Genetics guru. We can also plainly see what we are really dealing with. All the signs are there that we are dealing with nothing more than a know-it-all undergraduate – confusing endoplasmic reticulum with the cytoskeleton, referring to RNA-->protein as transcription rather than translation, being unaware of the existence of RNA viruses, trying to apply scientific rigour to non-specific non-scientific terms, and more. These are all the simple mistakes that undergraduates make. I know, I’ve taught many university undergraduates over the years. If you think I am going to participate in your attempts to prop up your own ego then you are mistaken.

Hercules Rockefeller,

Burn! :cool:

we’re not here to answer your condescending questions.Then what are you here for? Are you "here" to answer any questions, or just be a jerk?

And I don't give much attention to other people's character assessments, based on whatever they might think they know or understand about what some dickhead has had to say.

The action of genetic material is restricted to what genetic material, all by itself, can do.

Like I think you're some kind of teacher. What a load. Get over your own narrow little judgement-call workup, my man. Get with it, OK?

You're a shining example of someone who thinks they know enough about other people to pronounce a summary judgement, but ends up looking like the sort of prick they think they need to pillory or traduce.

What an idiot.
...how a gene functions (or doesn't) in vitro is irrelevantNot to geneticists, it isn't. Not to anyone who wants to study DNA or RNA it certainly isn't.
This is due largely to the impossibility of tracking enzyme reactions in vivo.
That's why there are thousands of labs with all that equipment, and assay methods (even labs on a chip). That's biochemistry, and why it's used in genetic studies.

...members of a species should nominally tend toward being genetically identical.
"Natural" variation in complex organisms is actually created and maintained primarily by the action of a long list of complex evolved mechanisms that process mutations including sexual reproduction, genetic recombination, certain behaviors, etc. The degree of variation produced by these mechanisms is described to be much greater than that produced by the occasional propagatable mutation.

This brings up the issue of how all these variation-producing traits evolved.

The code itself has evolved.
The DNA code has variants, or different codon "meanings".
Mitochondrial codons have other assignments than the host cell, for example

The DNA triplet code is redundant, and the redundancy is symmetrical, indicating it has evolved from an earlier duplet encoding. The "evolution of evolvability" is actually part of the modern synthesis.

I think it's come a ways since the idea of an accidental, or chance configuration of the DNA or RNA polymer, into a stable and fundamental form.
If we know it evolves, then presumably it has evolved.

Not to geneticists, it isn't. Not to anyone who wants to study DNA or RNA it certainly isn't.
This is due largely to the impossibility of tracking enzyme reactions in vivo.
That's why there are thousands of labs with all that equipment, and assay methods (even labs on a chip). That's biochemistry, and why it's used in genetic studies.

This thread is not about genetics, or the study of DNA or RNA, this thread is about evolutionary theory, where a gene is spoken of in the definition I provided.

this thread is about evolutionary theory,Sure it is.
And evolutionary theory isn't about genetics or any labs.

And your definition is the standard description: genes "doing things".

I rest my case. Now you can talk about evolutionary theory (just don't mention genes again, ok? This thread isn't about genes or genetics, it's about something else).

Sure it is.
And evolutionary theory isn't about genetics or any labs.

And your definition is the standard description: genes "doing things".

I rest my case. Now you can talk about evolutionary theory (just don't mention genes again, ok? This thread isn't about genes or genetics, it's about something else).

Oh so I can't say selfish gene theory either then? Evolution does not need DNA, it operates on the same basic principles be it emulated digitally on a computer or the strength of neuronal connections. A gene is a element of value to any one of those cases (organism, computer, neural networks), something to mutate, something to replicate, be it physical, virtual or informatic. When speaking of genes in evolution they speak of the philosophical nature of genes ("what do gene what?") of course genes don't actually want anything, they are not conscious, in life they are just hunks of DNA, but you for some reason have to state the obvious like that while completely missing the actually meaning of what we are talking about.

Oh so I can't say selfish gene theory either then? Evolution does not need DNA, it operates on the same basic principles be it emulated digitally on a computer or the strength of neuronal connections. A gene is a element of value to any one of those cases (organism, computer, neural networks), something to mutate, something to replicate, be it physical, virtual or informatic. When speaking of genes in evolution they speak of the philosophical nature of genes ("what do gene what?") of course genes don't actually want anything, they are not conscious, in life they are just hunks of DNA, but you for some reason have to state the obvious like that while completely missing the actually meaning of what we are talking about.

Pardon to intrude, but I think you're wasting your time with him.

Pardon to intrude, but I think you're wasting your time with him.

I rather like to keep debating with him and make him feel like he is not the complete loser that well know he his.

Are you "here" to answer any questions, or just be a jerk?

Oh my, the irony. http://hfboards.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif


..based on whatever they might think they know or understand about what some dickhead has had to say.

Hang on, did you just call yourself a dickhead? http://hfboards.com/images/smilies/huh.gif


The action of genetic material is restricted to what genetic material, all by itself, can do.

Whatever. I’m not going to be drawn into meaningless sophist arguments that centre on your individual interpretations of non-scientific terms like “action”.


Like I think you're some kind of teacher. What a load.

I didn’t say I was a teacher. I’m just a research scientist. I won’t say any more as appeals to authority is not good argument. I’ll just say that I actually perform many of experiments you vaguely waffle about. That’s why I can spot your partial understanding and textbook/classroom generated over-extrapolations. And I’m not alone….


I rest my case.

Yes, I’m sure you think your case needs no further argument.

Seeing as you’ve rested your case this seems like a good time to put you on ignore and circumvent further exasperation at your arrogance.

Bye bye. http://hfboards.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif

http://teamliquid.net/mirror//smilies/nooo.gif Biologists should like each other.

Hercules, you seem easily upset if you think something like
…I'm waiting to see an explanation of "gene activity"…
is "condescending tripe".

http://teamliquid.net/mirror//smilies/nooo.gif Biologists should like each other.

Hercules, you seem easily upset if you think something like

is "condescending tripe".

Vkothii has said and done a lot of things to anger us. His attitude on any biology thread is to question the semantics being used, then claim a state of all-knowing in which we must answer his questions to later be told that we are wrong and provided with his "correct" answer. This is a classic setup done by those that want to feel important by controlling arguments and dictating what they believe to be true. Me, Hercules Rockefeller and others here have pointed this out to Vkothii (although Hercules Rockefeller has done so in the most virile manner) and Vkothii simply insults us back or screams for the moderator. We would rather like a more peer-to-peer causal relationship here, we don't want anyone playing professor and we must be his tarts, most of us get enough of that in real life be it from our PIs or higher ups in academic or industrial research (there not top to the peking order!). I could be wrong though: last time I fought a know-it-all here it cost me my moderatorship, but that was 4 years ago and now I'm a graduate student, NOW I'M THE KNOW IT ALL! HAHAHAHA, just kinding, I know nothing.

Biologists should like each other.
Since when has this ever been the case ;).

If you're angry, I doubt that it's my doing.

If you don't understand what your'e saying because of some sort of language-learning "problem", that's hardly my fault.
This is a classic setup done by those that want to feel important by controlling arguments and dictating what they believe to be true.Is that what you and the other goons think they're doing?
Well, that's delusion for ya.

If you want me to insult you, I assure you that's no problem - I can be as insulting as anything.

Right now I'd say you could probably use a few insults - especially to your somewhat warped sense of importance - don't you know paranoia is a delusion of grandeur? So is a "complex" about persecution.

But peck away, (don't mind me) if that's what you think you should be doing.

Since when has this ever been the case ;).

I find it hard to dislike a biologist, comparatively speaking. There are 2 requirements for being a good person. 1. Be nice. 2. Be a biologist. And I find the biology wing of school to be the most harmonious place I've known. I assumed this was the case everywhere. ;)

If you're angry, I doubt that it's my doing.

If you don't understand what your'e saying because of some sort of language-learning "problem", that's hardly my fault.
Is that what you and the other goons think they're doing?
Well, that's delusion for ya.

If you want me to insult you, I assure you that's no problem - I can be as insulting as anything.

Right now I'd say you could probably use a few insults - especially to your somewhat warped sense of importance - don't you know paranoia is a delusion of grandeur? So is a "complex" about persecution.

But peck away, (don't mind me) if that's what you think you should be doing.

I wouldn't call it paranoia, look at this thread for example, what happened here?, we were talking about evolution and aging then you demanded a definition on "gene activity" we gave you one, you rejected it and supplanted it with your own, then we explain to you that definition has no meaning in evolution, and that your ruining yet another thread, stop doing that!, You respond by calling us names, and here we are talking about you, another thread completely off-topic. I would say this thread has be complete fucked at this point, if you want to respond to me do so over PM or on "About the Members" forum.

Exhumed:

Ha, well let's put it like this (this goes for most scientists, though). Friendship ends when funding starts. From the viewpoint of a scientist there are only three types of scientists:
- collaborators: they got things you want, be nice to them until you got what you want. A certain subgroup of these are big-shots. They are like suns towards everything on congresses gravitate to. In that case continue to be nice to them. They are bigger than you.

-competition: don't tell them anything. lie through gritted teeth if possible. Identify their grant proposals and shoot them down if possible. Make it look like it was someone else. Usage of other's signature phrase in that process is encouraged.

-all the others: essentially postdoc and students. Use them. Get new ones once the old ones are worn out.

Successful scientists are not nice. They only got good people's skills.
I think I am only half joking here, actually.
K, enough of the thread jacking.

I would say this thread has be complete fucked at this pointCan I quote you on that?
If this thread is (completely) fucked, that's because "I fucked it".

So who the fuck am "I"?
I'm the king of thread-fuckers, that's who.

P.S. Thankyuh. Thankyuh vurramuch.

Yes If you assume that an animal has a fixed limited reproductive life, then there is no evolutionary point in living beyond that reproductive period. However, there is no obvious reason why there would be any fundamental limitation on reproduction and if the animal is designed to have a limited reproductive life then that is against Darwin's theory. It is not at all inconsistent with Darwinian theory, once you see that it 's not the individual multicellular organism that is reproduced (normally) but the genes, the strings of DNA and so forth. Allowing the failure of, or even getting rid of, an aging carrier organism, to make room for more effective, younger, differently immune, even just smaller or differently colored etc, carrier organisms is almost always to a gene's advantage, on average - at least, by not being much of a disadvantage compared with some overwhelming benefit of a feature that is suicidal for the organism in the long run (increasing size in a palm tree, say).

In organisms that do clone in normal reproduction - mostly unicellular ones - we do often find no fixed reproductive span or lifespan. It's possible - not very likely, and definition of "identity" dependent, but possible - that there is a bacterium or two on the planet that is three billion years old, and still reproducing
But if a particular variation of a gene caused an organism to have a shorter life, shorter reproductive life, or other individually adverse design (altruism) then how would that variation spread? Any of several possible ways. By overwhelming its competitors with the extra reproduction available due to diverting resources from repair, somatic growth, and disease resistance, is a common one. Remember that reproduction compounds, like money at interest. What's better for your bank account in a hundred years: a dollar a week for 5200 weeks, or 2000 dollars in week one and then nothing for 99 years of compounding interest ? Depends on the interest rate. Likewise with reproduction - depends on the circumstances.

True, but predators and disease usually get you at a certain point, also it is noted that populations of animals without predators tend to have evolved longer lifespans to take advantage of unlimited reproductive cycling. There was a scientific American article on it a couple of years back that showed mathematically that if you produce a certain number of offspring it does not matter how many more you produce afterwards, evolution no longer effects you, it was a matter of the offspring reproducing and spring their gene at a rate near equal to those that lived longer.

Yes I think it is obvious that something that killed you before you had any offspring would be more serious than something that killed you after you had (or had an opportunity to have) at least some offspring. Medawar popularized this idea in 1952. However at what point does it not matter at all as in zero or zip? This has been a point of argument ever since then. Keep in mind that most people think of evolution as extremely incremental. Some tiny change results in a tiny advantage. Somehow this tiny change propagates and adds to all the other tiny changes producing tiny advantages. It seems unlikely that the advantage of being able to produce more descendents would ever go to zero. Medawar made a lot of assumptions that subsequently turned out to be dubious. The book cited earlier discusses this as does various other literature on the subject.

One of the issues cited by others is that aging obviously has other adverse symptoms besides "death" (weakness, loss of agility, loss of sensory acuity). These symptoms cut in at what appear to be very young ages, increasing the implausibility of the idea the impact could be zero.

The code itself has evolved.
The DNA code has variants, or different codon "meanings".
Mitochondrial codons have other assignments than the host cell, for example

The DNA triplet code is redundant, and the redundancy is symmetrical, indicating it has evolved from an earlier duplet encoding. The "evolution of evolvability" is actually part of the modern synthesis.

I think it's come a ways since the idea of an accidental, or chance configuration of the DNA or RNA polymer, into a stable and fundamental form.
If we know it evolves, then presumably it has evolved.

Yes, this is part of the mystery. Darwin says evolution proceeds because of expressed differences between organisms, that is, differences that could affect survival or reproduction. All those complex aspects of the genetic system don't affect the actual fitness design of an organism. An ape would be exactly the same if its genes were organized in a different way, or if different codons were involved, or if its genes were on different chromosomes, etc. So how did the design of the genetic system evolve? I agree evolvability is the key.

To me the nice thing is that evolvability ALSO explains deliberate limitation of life span by organism design, altruism, sexual reproduction, and other troubling issues with Darwinian theory.