Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,810 Year: 4,067/9,624 Month: 938/974 Week: 265/286 Day: 26/46 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing Evolutionary Theories that Explain Aging
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 6 of 24 (692071)
02-27-2013 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by CoolBeans
02-27-2013 3:19 PM


The thing is that aging doesnt bring any benefits so its paradoxical to natural selection, or at least it seems to be the case.
I'm fairly well-versed in the biology of aging, and so, with all due respect, I have to ask you this: did you actually read and understand what you posted with regards to antagonistic pleiotropy? Antagonistic pleiotropy and the hyperfunction theory of aging provide an elegant and simple model for understanding the biology of aging. There is nothing really paradoxical about it.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by CoolBeans, posted 02-27-2013 3:19 PM CoolBeans has seen this message but not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 12 of 24 (692134)
02-27-2013 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Adequate
02-27-2013 6:58 PM


Well, the point is that everything's going to die anyway.
I think the question that CoolBeans is posing here is why we age biologically. The issue isn't really why we die; it's why we undergo senescence, and how this can be reconciled with natural selection.
Aging (i.e., the gradual decay of the organism's components) makes an organism more prone to death by non-biological means (e.g., predators). So, at first sight, it might seem like a real challenge to natural selection/evolutionary theory: wouldn't populations that possess more mechanisms in place to halt aging be more likely to survive than populations that do not? This question is answered by antagonistic pleiotropy and the hyperfunction theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2013 6:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2013 1:09 PM Genomicus has replied
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2013 9:28 PM Genomicus has seen this message but not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 17 of 24 (692309)
03-01-2013 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
02-28-2013 1:09 PM


Allowing old critters to hang around indefinitely and to continue having offspring actually slows down the development of new types. The result would be species with less adaptability. We get all of the benefit we need by having a reasonably long siring/birthing period in a finite lifetime.
I suggest you read the article CoolBeans cited in depth. Biological aging might seem like an evolutionary paradox precisely because "natural selection designs organisms for optimal survival and reproductive success (Darwinian fitness), so why does evolution not prevent aging in the first place?"
Here's a relevant quote:
For centuries, beginning with Aristotle, scientists and philosophers have struggled to resolve this enigma. The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius, for example, argued in his De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) that aging and death are beneficial because they make room for the next generation (Bailey 1947), a view that persisted among biologists well into the 20th century. The famous 19th century German biologist, August Weissmann, for instance, suggested — similar to Lucretius — that selection might favor the evolution of a death mechanism that ensures species survival by making space for more youthful, reproductively prolific individuals (Weissmann 1891). But this explanation turns out to be wrong. Since the cost of death to individuals likely exceeds the benefit to the group or species, and because long-lived individuals leave more offspring than short-lived individuals (given equivalent reproductive output), selection would not favor such a death mechanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2013 1:09 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by CoolBeans, posted 03-01-2013 8:44 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 19 of 24 (692328)
03-01-2013 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by CoolBeans
03-01-2013 8:44 PM


Hi CoolBeans,
No, it is not a problem for natural selection/evolutionary theory precisely because of antagonistic pleiotropy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by CoolBeans, posted 03-01-2013 8:44 PM CoolBeans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by CoolBeans, posted 03-01-2013 9:11 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1968 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 24 of 24 (692447)
03-03-2013 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by CoolBeans
03-01-2013 9:11 PM


Oh, thanks. Wait arent you an ID supporter?
Yes, I am, but that's not particularly relevant to the biology of aging

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by CoolBeans, posted 03-01-2013 9:11 PM CoolBeans 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