Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is death a product of evolution
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 1 of 46 (361016)
11-03-2006 12:08 AM


Much focus in evolution concerns the genesis of life. The evolution or branching of one specie into another or many others. I have begun to wonder how it is that death might be explained by evolution.
The chemical reactions that compose what we call biology....They are all relatively short lived. There are some notable exceptions in the plant world but this chemical process has built in limits for every species. How might death be explained by evolution? Is death an integral part of evolution {in other words, evolution not being possible without death} or, is it an adaptation of biological things?
I am of course referring to a natural death where the body simply breaks down or wears out. How does evolution account for the winding down of the process after the big wind up? I have searched the net several times and have not come up with anything notable.
Edited by AdminPhat, : spellcheck

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 11-11-2006 7:13 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-11-2006 10:19 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2006 7:45 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 23 of 46 (365354)
11-22-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hyroglyphx
11-11-2006 10:19 PM


Re: The Law of death
Death would certainly be an integral part of evolution simply by the virtue that death is an important part of life. If nothing ever died but reproduction rates remained, there would be an overabundance of organisms. Is it critical in the aspect of whether or not evolution would be possible, not really. The only aspect is competition. But if something cannot die then competition for food is pointless. Food would be pointless for the immortal.
Let us consider the chemical process we associate with life. It is a process that evolved according to the theory of evo. This process requires energy input to sustain itself.
Are you suggesting that available resources shape the life span of a species or dna strand in the case of our base beginnings?
How is it that predation did not evolve solely as the means of balancing the equation? How did the ending of a process become an integral part of a process evo dictates fights so hard to maintain itself? How does "survival of the fittest" require death?" The ability to outdo the competition makes sense. The ablity to die does not. I am inclined to think that death is a more fundamental "law" than an evolved part of the process.
I think it behooves us to look at the life spans of individual species. How is it the chemical process of each species has a limit to it's ability to maintain itself? I find this interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-11-2006 10:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 24 of 46 (365360)
11-22-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by GVGS58
11-15-2006 8:11 AM


Re: Immortality exists
Fungi, for example, are modular organisms. That basically means you can split an individual in two, and both will grow on. The opposite are unitary organisms, such as vertebrates. If you give a fungus enough resources, it will grow on and on. Most fungi are in fact immortal. Only external factors (lack of resources, disease, etc) can cause a fungus to die.
Some fungi are mortal however. They usually live in an environment that is not very sustainable and exists only for a short period of time (dung, for example). When grown in lab conditions with enough resources and such, growth will stop after a few weeks. Podospora anserina is one such fungus
The above examples give me food for thought. In the beginning the life process must have been imortal barring lack of physical limitations.
Death does not make a process continue or give one process an advantage over another. I am leaning towards evolution not having a role in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GVGS58, posted 11-15-2006 8:11 AM GVGS58 has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 27 of 46 (366262)
11-27-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
11-14-2006 8:39 PM


It could be that the length of life of sexual organisms is also a reflection of the base rate of mutation needed in a population over a long term natural selection cycle.
You have a good thought here. This might explain the variation. I am still qustioning How death became a factor in the first place. Why not predation? The typical boom and bust cycle in nature. I am thinking of us as the chemical reaction we are. All other chemical reactions we know will go on until the energy supply is used up. A star...a fire....ice melt on the sidewalk. This chemical reaction is different in that it will seek out ways to sustain itself.
Therfore it should continue on as long as it can supply itself or until it sustains irreparable physical damage. Now if one changes ones perspective....no individuals...the chemical reaction is the species as a whole or, the entire biomass. In either case the reaction continues through recycling. In this sense it can be indefinately self sustaining excluding outside intervention.
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2006 8:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2006 7:38 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 29 of 46 (366680)
11-28-2006 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
11-28-2006 7:38 AM


Re: growing versus spreading
Perhaps the question is in why we\organisms stop growing, why we\organisms change from using chemical reactions to {make more us} to using chemical reactions to {make more organisms} - procreate, make new packets of living cell matter from mixing disposable parts of the us\organism with those of another\organism.
Yes. The life cycle must tell a tale. Although the disposable perception is imposed. The parts "are". Thier nature in that venue is unknowable scientifically.
I am exploring how the life span limit we identify with "natural" death equates. Is it dictated by a physical law? Is it a product of evolution? Is it part of evolution? All things evolve. All things come to pass. Perhaps evolution is part of a larger process that includes death. Why lifespans are what they are.
Selection for survival....but slection for death? Again...how death and not predation? Even if predation still had not occured organisms would have died en mass as the food source dwindled...scavanging came first. I am currious...in terms of basic DNA/RNA how might the buildong block supply/scavanging/predation thing apply? Might "death have been a factor then or did it even apply? Does DNA/RNA have a "lifespan"? Where/how did lifespan/death enter the picture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2006 7:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hawks, posted 11-29-2006 5:31 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2006 9:15 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 33 of 46 (366998)
11-29-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hawks
11-29-2006 5:31 PM


Re: growing versus spreading
Anything has a lifespan. Unless there is some input of energy to maintain an equilibrium (e.g. maintain the integrity of DNA) things will tend towards disorder (according to the second law of theromdynamics). I guess you could say that death will result when there is not enough input of energy to maintain the integrity of the metabolic functions in an organism. This could happen when, for instance, not enough food is available or when energy is used to produce offspring instead (See my message #18 for link to an article that talks about the disposable some theory).
DNA/RNA simply replicate themselves correct? How is death a factor here? Multi cellular organisms seek to maintian their reaction. This is not a factor in the case of DNA/RNA. At some point the individual organism began to exist for itself beyond replication. What was the advantage of this and was this when death as we understand it became a factor?
(The following piece will only deal with multucellular organisms)
You asked earlier in message #23 "How does "survival of the fittest" require death?". It doesn't. You can always think of it this way: While "the purpose of a multicellular organism might seem to be to make more multicellular organisms", instead think of it as "the role of gametes (i.e. egg and sperm) is to make more gametes through the vehicle of a multicellular organism". In this sense, multicellular organisms are just as immortal as prokaryotes are (although even they seem to age to an extent).
This is an interesting view. If you are to think in these terms then you should expand this to the entire biomass as a whole. Immortality does not scientifically apply. Neither does implying a specific "purpose" to any multicellular organisms existence. Death is a fact though. Again.....countless living things seek to maintain themselves as individuals far beyond replication. I ask again...the big wind up but how came about the consistent wind down? Was it natures way of balancing an equation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hawks, posted 11-29-2006 5:31 PM Hawks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2006 10:27 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 35 by Hawks, posted 12-04-2006 4:07 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024