yes...the cells in your body have guns...all of them...except the bullets travel a lifetime...but when they strike...they strike for good...(I am talking of Apoptosis here)
Well in addition to breaking the moon barrier,( 53 miles a day or 1.1 miles per 30 minutes) a person could try eating the same food source for a life time, such a beans and rice for every meal for 50 years. Then of course there is the food density issue which would require a person to eat 0.03 pounds of food per 1 pound body weight,(as based on the hydrogen atom). And of course ther is the issue of celluar garbage, If I remeber this coreectly the body is quite toixc, or full of material that it can no longer use at about age 40? as a reslut of the changes in lunar influence. Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Influenced by the thinking (but not evidence) of evolutionary biologists, that was the way we thought a few decades ago. Many evolutionary biologists would deny that aging is part of the genetic repertoire of an animal. Rather, they would consider aging to be the default state occurring after the animal has fulfilled the requirements of natural selection. After its offspring are born and raised, the animal can die. Indeed, in many organisms, from moths to salmon, this is exactly what happens. As soon as the eggs are fertilized and laid, the adults die. However, the molecular biology and genetics of aging has become a whole new field in the past decade or so. We now know that there are specific genetic components to senescence, and that maximum life span is genetically determined. Where there are genes that specifically regulate senescence long past reproductive age, there must have been a selective advantage for the aquisition of such a complex genetic mechanism. But clearly they must because the genetic control of senescence has arisen from ancestors that did not have such a trait. <P>
When did I say that? I said the contrary actually. Read before and you'll see I said there are genes that influence aging. What they're saying is that aging is good and it evolved because it gave organisms an active ADVANTAGE. What I'm saying is that that's not possible because evolution doesn't think ahead, and that (see below) You haven't been following this thread have you? Read my posts: and: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50671&page=2&pp=20 the 4th post in that page
Well let me add this to the thoughts of our thinkers, the human body as well every other creatures/ life forms body on our planet is independant of genetics. Shapes of life forms are predetermined, genetics are the responsive chemical to solar forces/ planetary forces that allow the body to reach a certain form. Example you could have the gentics of a mosquito but still have the shape of a human, if the base sequences are responsive enough. what is found is that life forms in our solar system have a distinct signture, hence we find many animals with four legs. Aliens from another solar system would look different and have different physical signtures based on their solar system. It would seem that aging is a break down of this responsive chemical to our solar system, a change in the compression of our solar system that might be a change in a few simple chemicals or bases in sequences and use. DwayneD.L.Rabon
Dwayne D L Rabon: Your ideas belong in some occult forum. Even if your ideas had merit your arithmetic is lousy. The moon orbits the Earth at about 240,000 miles and travels around the sun with the Earth about 94,000,000 miles from the sun. Considering its motion around the Earth, It does about 480,000Pi miles in 29.5 days. Considering its motion around the sun, it does about 188,000,000Pi miles in 365.242 days. You got 53 miles per day? What calculations arrived at that number?
Latitude, but please correct me if thats not the case. Hard to fit into rational thought, yes I know. But the fact of such circumstance relative to human form is more than merited, And undoubtly cast the boasting of some theorys about human form and genetics into the unknown, something like oopps, i can see it under the micoscope but i don't know what i am doing. a milestone that will have to be accepted by the those proffessing vice of knoweldge regarding humans and there genetics. DwayneD.L.Rabon
This is what im quoting from you: --"Bottom line is, it's impossible because evolution doesn't think ahead. If, in a population of immortal organisms, an organism that ages is born, it is not selected for. In fact it's selected against because it would die before the others, who would have innumerable more offspring than the aging organism. " followed by the following defence: --"My points ARE based on facts, and they ARE scientific. They're not just my personal beliefs, as I have already proved to you. " This is my beef all along. Once again, and Im going to say it _again_: your point is not based on scientific fact. It is your personal belief. I have yet to see you bring out and quote a source stating specically what you said. (i.e aging could not have occured from natual selection). With my points, Ive never claimed them to be facts. I've only proposed ideas for you, under your request, as to show how it would have been possible for natural selection of this aging mutation to have occured. And Im going to say on the record again, that I dont believe there is one gene that governs aging; when I refer to aging gene I am merely refering to whatever combination of genes that goven whatever physiological/biological/etc effect on the species, that leads to what we know as aging. My point was: whatever mutation caused this aging gene, it would _not_ have acted against (quoting myself here again) "the evolutionary competitiveness of the organism with the aging mutation". Why? simply because aging wouldnt really affect mating, which is how genes are passed on. I find sources sharing similar views: --" the force of selection against such late-acting deleterious mutations was correspondingly small" - J. B. S. Haldane,'senescence', Wikipedia (not really a concrete source but w/e lazy..) --"If a genetic disaster... happens late enough in individual life, its consequences may be completely unimportant" - Peter Medawar ,wiki again You really have to stop saying that evolution 'doesnt think ahead'. Evolution is a theory of how species pass on traits to the next generation. There are no guidelines and regulatory rules governing what can and cannot happen; because very simply, thats life and life is very random. And on those notes its also important to note that nothing is ever really 'fact'. Scientific fact is very simply just an update view/understanding/agreement of what we commonly believe to be true. It could very easily change/be wrong or proven wrong with the progression of time.
Well so i guess your saying that as long as mating occurs before the age of 40, it does not effect the evoultionary proccess. That instead of the individual reaching a point of evoultion where there is no aging, the offspring can reach the point of evoultion where there is no aging. The best gene producers are from age 29 to 40 "Normally", but as a result of behavior in most society that group is now in the 18 to 25 age group. it is the youngest group that add would provide the most random adaptions of genes to the population or proccess of evoultion. The 29 to 40 group provide what is stable and effective to surival for the population. DwayneD.L.Rabon
replying to squishysponge: Well then ASK for them. Specifically! I can't read your mind. I provided info on what I thought you were talking about, but how the freaking hell am I supposed to know you wanted evidence for something as obvious as "natural selection doesn't think ahead"???!!! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IBladder.shtml http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IEneeds.shtml There. Evolution doesn't think ahead. It has no goal. Not progressive. And I already told you about crossing over, which is a well known fact, I pointed out that the chances of all your mutations happening so close to a good one has all the odds against it, which is common sense since mutations (especially beneficial ones) are uncommon, let alone a bunch of mutations that just happened to be in the perfect arrangement. That's my WHOLE POINT!! You're the one saying that aging is something that was SELECTED FOR. Let me quote what you said on your first post: "If you think in terms of evolution, why shouldnt it be? It ensures evolution of the species. It ensures constant improvements through natural selection, blah blah. Ideally, in evolutionary terms, the next generation should be better than the previous, and hense with aging and later death, it ensures that whats left is the better genes and that the weaker is gone. Evolution ensures this with aging. " That is clearly saying evolution selects aging. That it actively prefers aging organisms over immortal ones. Evolution does NOT think ahead. It's a fact. Evolution is not a being if you hadn't noticed, it is a natural process in the present. Here and now. It's not about the future, it doesn't think, it doesn't think ahead and make things better for the future. For all intents and purposes it is a fact. Ok, so it's not a fact that the world exists. So what? I am so sick and tired of people bringing up idiotic points that are totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Why are you quoting and referencing irrelavent topics about natural selection. When I stated the point that evolution could have evolved into those lifeforms, and you refute this possibility - then what you should be doing is proving to me with sources, stating """exactly why aging could not have evolved""". You arnt doing this even though I have asked for the sources that can prove what you so adamently claim to be factual science. You are quoting sources irrelavent to the topic at hand, and then jump right into your personal opinions, followed by a conclusion that it is factual proof: that aging could not have evolved. Stop doing that. And when I said that aging ensures the evolution of a species, I meant exactly that. This is the EFFECT it has. It most certainly, in my opinion, ensure that genes has to be passed on, because the weak would not be able to pass on their genes, hence it is likely that those genes are not as good. Aging: a wonderful mechanism that helps and speeds up evolution of the species. When did I ever mention, as you accusingly claim, that aging is a process that is selected for (during the very beginning when lifeforms pass the gap from immortal lifeforms to mortal lifeforms). I have never said that. My comment, and your quote of it, is a comment on the effect aging has on evolution. However, rather than saying it was selected for, I pointed out that aging could have evolved into lifeforms through random occurances and mutations. You refuted this claim saying evolution isnt a thinker and hence would not be possible because aging is a disadvantage (your opinion, possibly right in some logical sort of way. Just too bad nature seems to have proven you wrong with the existance of aging in species). Why? Because I pointed out it was likely this mutation was able to be passed on, because aging was a long term sentence and would not affect the immediate competitiveness of the species. The quotes I gave, support that same view. Those quotes that I gave, however, do not support your claim. They support mine. They claim as I do, that aging is not a factor in those species because it is late acting, and hence would not affect the competitiveness of that species. You have been refuting this all along by saying 'evolution doesnt think' over and over again. The reason why I would say what I said in that last paragraph, is to show to you that whatever scientists write. Whatever you or I quote; dont take it to heart so much. Let me just say 3 words: "science evolves too".
The following was posted by me early in this thread. It seems pertienent to the current discussion. I bolded one remark. There was an article on aging several weeks ago in the NY Times Science section, which is a standard feature on Tuesdays. A researcher showed that natural selection could be used to evolve fruit flies with extended life spans. He prevented fruit flies from reproducing early in their normal life spans. Subsequent generations of flies maintained thier ability to reproduce later than normal and had extended life spans. I think he managed to double or triple the life span. He claimed that his research strongly suggested that long life tends to be selected against under normal circumstances. He further claimed that there is no reason to suppose that the life span of a species could not be extended to extremes not imagined at present. Unfortunately for us, it would probably take thousands of generations to double or triple the life span of human beings. Note, however, it seems as though the increased life span would include a lot of extra years (perhaps decades) of mental and physical vigor not associated with people currently living to be 80 plus.
aging at the cellular level is unaviodable. Unless you live in a bubble your whole life. It seems to me that we can reverse the tide of aging with embryonic stem cells, but perhaps we humans are supposed to die off in 80-100 years...
You asked me to cite my sources about when I said evolution doesn't think ahead. You also said all that about life being random or something, and told me to stop saying evolution doesn't think ahead. No, you said evolution FAVORED aging organisms: "If you think in terms of evolution, why shouldnt it be? It ensures evolution of the species. It ensures constant improvements through natural selection, blah blah. Ideally, in evolutionary terms, the next generation should be better than the previous, and hense with aging and later death, it ensures that whats left is the better genes and that the weaker is gone. Evolution ensures this with aging. " What I did was told you why evolution wouldn't favor aging: it doesn't think ahead, and I gave you the theories about how aging evolved. I never said aging couldn't evolve. You're totally misinterpreting what I've been saying. again, I didn't say aging couldn't have evolved. I said aging couldn't have evolved LIKE YOU SAID. And I told you why, because evolution doesn't think ahead. I also cited that. For what you said to be true, evolution MUST think ahead. It doesn't, period. your quote in context: You're telling me that doesn't sound exactly like you meant evolution doesn't favor aging? "<b>Evolution ensures this with aging.</B>" I haven't been saying that aging couldn't have evolved. Look at my previous posts, I was telling you how some scientists and I feel aging evolved. Those two posts show that one, I think aging is partly genetic and two, that I gave a mechanism of how aging evolved. And I have been saying evolution doesn't think ahead because it DOESN'T. Ok, I disagree with what HE CLAIMED. His experiment only showed that evolution DOESN'T favor early aging and late reproduction (the combination of both). It shows evolution favors early reproduction. Tell me how it suggests "that long life tends to be selected against under normal circumstances"???
Well if we look at the cycles of the moon we see that they are very consistant, making a completion as supposed every 18,000 years or so, within this cycle and its change is the cause of aging, so aging is predetermined relevant to the cycles of the moon. The moon and its motion in some calculations suggest that it defines thought,or is the seed of thought proccess,(much simular to a heart beat, the heart beat of the mind to say). As the moon has a consistant pattern/cycle the assumtion can be made that thought or a certain percentage of it are as well predetermined. The overall suggestion is that evoultion does think, or have a set predetermined motion, a plan predefined. Humans have to realize that they are not seperate from the planet and our solar system but are a part of it. "Being within it and attached to it", like a forearm connected to the bicept of the arm, when one moves the other moves also. If we look at the cycle of the moon making a completion every 18,000 years or so, then a human life span of say 80 would define that their are 225 life spans in one cycle of the moon at 18,000 years a cycle. Since the moon is assumed to be the cause of aging, or the change resulting in aging it would appear that humans need to learn how to work with that cycle to prolong aging, this may be as simple as walking 53 miles a day,(1.1 mile per 30 minutes). This is not so unfamiular with life most humans recongize that animals migrate seasonally. It may even be as simple as, a system wherein humans must move/migrate say every 15 years a distance of 30 miles to prolong life by resetting to the pattern of the moons cycle. DwayneD.L.Rabon
eflex, "aging at the cellular level is unaviodable." Not if the cells are manipulated or replaced. Lots of work being done at the cellular level. Here is something recent: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/uom-nti012006.php Technology will soon radically change the aging landscape. Time to start planning. Dwayne, Life span and aging are a result of lunar cycles? Far out man.
Well thats the general idea. As the moon has the most gravitional influence on the earth and human life forms as a reslut of proxcimity to earth, vrs the effect of the sun. The idea stems from looking at means to prevent genetic mutation during a magnetic pole reversal, or major asteroid collison effecting the moon,earth system. DwayneD.L.Rabon
Dwayne D L Rabon: Your concepts are utter nonsense. Furthermore, your knowledge of gravitational effects is erroneous. Sol's gravitational pull on the Earth is about 180 times as strong as Luna's pull on earth. Contrary to your post claiming that Luna has the most gravitational influence on Earth. BTW: Sol's pull on luna is about 2.22 times the Earth's pull on Luna.
well, tides are most affected by the moon (since it's closer), so I would say the moon has a greater gravitational pull on the earth. Otherwise why are the tides drawn to the moon and not to the sun?
TheAlphaWolf: My estimate of relative gravitational forces are easy to calculate (see below). I do not remember the formulae relating to tidal effects, so I cannot provide much of an explanation for the tidal effects. My not always reliable memory tells me that tidal effects are related to the gravitational gradient or the difference in gravitational pull on opposite sides of the Earth. If that memory is correct, the following analysis is pertinent. Luna is about 240,000 miles (386,000 km) from the Earth, while Sol is about 93,000,000 miles 150,000,000 km) away. The Earth's diameter is about 8,000 miles (12,900 km). Consider Sol's pull on opposite sides and Luna's pull on opposite sides. The ratios are as follows. Sol: (93,000,000 + 4000)<sup>2</sup> / 93,000,000 - 4000)<sup>2</sup> = 1.000 172 Luna: (240,000 + 4000)<sup>2</sup> / (240,000 - 4000)<sup>2</sup> = 1.068 946 In Earth masses, Sol's mass is about 332,950, while Luna's mass is about .0123. The distances and relative masses are approximations using figures from a World Almanac. Google should provide verification of this data. Using the above, following are ratios of graitational effects. Sol/Luna on Earth: (332,950/93,000,000<sup>2</sup>) /(0.0123/240,000<sup>2</sup>) = 180 Sol/Earth on Luna: (332,950/93,000,000<sup>2</sup>) /(1.00/240,000<sup>2</sup>) = 2.22 The calculations for ratios of gravitational pulls are standard classical formulae.
