Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   What is the EVOLUTIONARY advantage of death?
phil
Guest


Message 24 of 32 (63163)
10-28-2003 6:09 PM


I understand evolution's explanation for death and aging, but I still have a question:
Evolution is all about natural selection and beneficial mutations and ADAPTING the environment, correct? Well, knowing this, I would think that SOME animal would be able to adapt to its environment to the point where it could survive a little longer than all animals today. Plants seem to have been somewhat successful (assuming evolution is true); some trees live to be close to a thousand years old. The oldest an animal can live, though, is about 150 years (the box turtle), and that is a bit of an anomaly. The vast majority of animals do not live longer than a year, and most mammals do not live past about thirty years. At least that's what I learned. Can somebody explain, please? I'm not attacking the ToE, I'm just curious. Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2003 7:05 PM You have not replied
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 7:08 PM You replied

     
phil
Guest


Message 28 of 32 (63188)
10-28-2003 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
10-28-2003 7:08 PM


quote:
And how can your question be, in any way at all, be taken as "attacking the ToE"?
I was simply asking a question and not making some weak attempt at trying to disprove something. I have encountered people before who took something like my post as such and suddenly became very angry and/or insulting when I was just trying to learn a little more.
quote:
Your question is why doesn't any animal live a little longer than any today? Why should they?
According to the ToE, animals adapt to their environment. It just seemed to me that some animal would adapt to the point where they would live a little longer than most do now. I understand that older, aged animals have a hard time surviving and can be burdensome to the rest of the species, but if a mutation allowed an animal to extend its "prime" by several years, I don't see why this feature would disappear (except for overpopulation). Whatever, maybe its just me. Choose to ignore my question if you wish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 7:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2003 10:01 PM You replied

     
phil
Guest


Message 30 of 32 (63192)
10-28-2003 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
10-28-2003 10:01 PM


Okay, that makes more sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain it a little more, crashfrog. I appreciate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2003 10:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2003 10:44 PM You have not replied
 Message 32 by Mammuthus, posted 10-29-2003 3:04 AM You have 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