Evolution and Mortality

[utunumsint]

Why hasn’t evolution created immortal beings? Why do mamals have such limited life spans? Wouldn’t evolution favour longer and longer life spans?

God bless,
Ut

 

[BlaineTog]

Why hasn’t evolution created immortal beings? Why do mamals have such limited life spans? Wouldn’t evolution favour longer and longer life spans?

Evolution favors having more children who have more children who have more children. If each individual lives for a long time, then they can’t do that because they take up resources that their great-grandchildren need. Growing old and dying is part of our genetic programing as a way of forcing us to step aside and let the new generation have their shot.

 

[JeannetteCML]

I don’t know. But I do think that if you take a look, in some cases, evolution does favor longer life spans. Maybe this is just the best evolution can do right now. Or maybe the process of evolution only favors keeping individuals alive long enough to reproduce and keep the species going. Or… perhaps longer lifespans would slow progress because newer mutations would occur less frequently. …Or perhaps, there is a cap to the amount of resources on earth that necessiates death in order for a species to continue.

 

[utunumsint]

Evolution favors having more children who have more children who have more children. If each individual lives for a long time, then they can’t do that because they take up resources that their great-grandchildren need. Growing old and dying is part of our genetic programing as a way of forcing us to step aside and let the new generation have their shot.

Do you know of any good books where this is explained in more detail? I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around the explanation. Just off the top of my head, wouldn’t this explanation favour shorter life span and higher fertility rates? For example, cats and dogs have far more descendants than human beings do.

By the way, I am not attacking evolution in anyway. I am just trying to understand.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I don’t know. But I do think that if you take a look, in some cases, evolution does favor longer life spans. Maybe this is just the best evolution can do right now. Or maybe the process of evolution only favors keeping individuals alive long enough to reproduce and keep the species going. Or… perhaps longer lifespans would slow progress because newer mutations would occur less frequently. …Or perhaps, there is a cap to the amount of resources on earth that necessiates death in order for a species to continue.

Thanks for responding Jeannette, and thanks for the PM. I dont know how much Ill be able to contribute to that thread except for pure speculation.

Still, I would like to know if there has been any specific research on the development of life spand duration since it seems so fixed, and arbitrary.

God bless,
Ut

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why hasn’t evolution created immortal beings? Why do mamals have such limited life spans? Wouldn’t evolution favour longer and longer life spans?

God bless,
Ut

Evolution is the process of genetic change over generations. If beings were immortal, there would be no generations, nor would the older, less-evolved members pass away.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thanks for responding Jeannette, and thanks for the PM. I dont know how much Ill be able to contribute to that thread except for pure speculation.

Still, I would like to know if there has been any specific research on the development of life spand duration since it seems so fixed, and arbitrary.

God bless,
Ut

First of all, long life isn’t necessarily good for the survival of the species. For the species to survive, it is only necessary for the offspring to mature, reproduce and raise the young to the point where they can take care of themselves.

Second, life span is hardly fixed and arbitrary – some animals (fruit flies, for example) have a life span measured in hours. Others, humans, for example, live for many decades.

 

[utunumsint]

Evolution is the process of genetic change over generations. If beings were immortal, there would be no generations, nor would the older, less-evolved members pass away.

Thanks Vern.

So death, and the natural life span of a species is predetermined in the genetic makup of the species in oder to insure that evolution occurs?

I’m wondering what evolutionary process built this genetic kill switch?

Thanks,
God bless,
UT

 

[utunumsint]

First of all, long life isn’t necessarily good for the survival of the species. For the species to survive, it is only necessary for the offspring to mature, reproduce and raise the young to the point where they can take care of themselves.

OK, so when this task is done, their evolutionary purpose is at an end. Right?

Second, life span is hardly fixed and arbitrary – some animals (fruit flies, for example) have a life span measured in hours. Others, humans, for example, live for many decades.

Based on what you said previously, the life span of a fly is so short because they reproduce so quickly. Human beings on the other hand, live longer because it takes us so much time to get kids to a point where they can take care of themselves, and I guess, raise their own kids in turn. Correct?

Flies live only days because they are not required to raise their young. They know all they need based on genetics and instict.

Human beings on the other hand, must teach their kids what they need to know in order to survive.

But what about those giant turtels who live hundreds of years? Why do they live so long? And what about the sequoia trees that live up to 2200 year? Why is their life span so long, when there is no correlation between lifespan and offspring training?

God bless,
Ut

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thanks Vern.

So death, and the natural life span of a species is predetermined in the genetic makup of the species in oder to insure that evolution occurs?

I’m wondering what evolutionary process built this genetic kill switch?

Thanks,
God bless,
UT

Probably the fact that long life did not favor the species.

Consider this – you have an old woman who lives to 120, but has one child in her 20s. In her 40s, that child becomes fully independent – and yet she lives anoter 70 + years (and may become a burden to her child and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.)

Now, we have another woman who has 10 children in her 20s, by her 40s they are all independent, and she dies in her 50s.

Which one will have more descendants?

 

[utunumsint]

Probably the fact that long life did not favor the species.

Consider this – you have an old woman who lives to 120, but has one child in her 20s. In her 40s, that child becomes fully independent – and yet she lives anoter 70 + years (and may become a burden to her child and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.)

Now, we have another woman who has 10 children in her 20s, by her 40s they are all independent, and she dies in her 50s.

Which one will have more descendants?

So the kill switch evolved because the grandparents were becoming a burden on their children?.. So the woman with a shorter lifespan, actually gives her kids a leg up in the reproductive cycle?

I’ll have to tell my mom that when she babysits my two kids so that I can go to work.

Thank you for your responses Vern. I appreciate them. As a classics major, I am far removed from the realm of science.

God bless,
Ut

 

[BlaineTog]

Do you know of any good books where this is explained in more detail?

No, but I’m an English/Philosophy major, and this is a Catholic Apologetics forum.

I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around the explanation. Just off the top of my head, wouldn’t this explanation favour shorter life span and higher fertility rates? For example, cats and dogs have far more descendants than human beings do.

Yes it does, which is why there aren’t many species which live for many decades as humans do. There are some benefits to living longer, which is why it hasn’t been completelly selected-out, particularly with humans where the old can offer wisdom and reminders of the past, but there is a limit to all that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, but I’m an English/Philosophy major, and this is a Catholic Apologetics forum.

Yes it does, which is why there aren’t many species which live for many decades as humans do. There are some benefits to living longer, which is why it hasn’t been completelly selected-out, particularly with humans where the old can offer wisdom and reminders of the past, but there is a limit to all that.

Yep. One of the primary human survival strategies is intelligence. Among the prices we pay for that is a loooooong infancy. A colt or calf, for example, can walk within an hour of birth, and can gallop alongside its mother within a day. Humans can’t walk for a year or more, and cannot survive on their own for a decade or more.

That explains two things about humans – why we live longer than other species (so we can care for our young), and why human females become infertile in mid-life (so they can care for the young they have, and not leave young children behind when they die.)

 

[utunumsint]

Yep. One of the primary human survival strategies is intelligence. Among the prices we pay for that is a loooooong infancy. A colt or calf, for example, can walk within an hour of birth, and can gallop alongside its mother within a day. Humans can’t walk for a year or more, and cannot survive on their own for a decade or more.

That explains two things about humans – why we live longer than other species (so we can care for our young), and why human females become infertile in mid-life (so they can care for the young they have, and not leave young children behind when they die.)

Makes sense.

THanks, and God bless,
Ut

 

[vern_humphrey]

Makes sense.

THanks, and God bless,
Ut

There are some other points – sex among humans is different from among most other mammals. Other animals go on heat – that is, the female becomes receptive at her fertile period, and the male is attracted to her. But during other times they do not mate.

Humans, however, can have sex at any time – there is no season or heat. This is because sex in humans is also unitive – it works to bond man and woman together for life, so children will have two parents. This is unusual in the animal world – most animal fathers don’t even know they have offspring and pay no attention to them.

 

[drafdog]

We don’t know that it hasn’t. We have only our experience of this particular planet in this particular area of a vast universe. Don’t sell the process short. It may very well be out there. We will probably never know one way or the other. In the final analysis it won’t make any difference anyway.

Matthew

 

[tonyl]

Most posters are ignoring one important point. The chemicals that are used to build living things are not infinitely stable. It takes energy to continuously repair the damage an organism sustains on a daily basis. Additionally, the genes have to regulate growth and repair so that things happen as necessary (from embryo through adulthood) without getting out of hand. Last I looked into it, the science of aging still had a lot to figure out. I’m not sure we yet know how the genes that determine lifespan are related to genes that control other aspects of growth, development, and general health. So basically, we don’t know how easy it is to create the genes for immortality without drastically altering growth, development, metabolism, or other regulatory functions.

 

[steveandersen]

Why hasn’t evolution created immortal beings? Why do mamals have such limited life spans? Wouldn’t evolution favour longer and longer life spans?

God bless,
Ut

From a gene’s point of view it is immortal
It lives on through children

An individual, no matter how long lived is still susceptible to accidental death (things that aren’t plants have to get their food from somewhere after all)

So the advantage is in reproduction.
rather than staying around a long time

 

[utunumsint]

Most posters are ignoring one important point. The chemicals that are used to build living things are not infinitely stable. It takes energy to continuously repair the damage an organism sustains on a daily basis. Additionally, the genes have to regulate growth and repair so that things happen as necessary (from embryo through adulthood) without getting out of hand. Last I looked into it, the science of aging still had a lot to figure out. I’m not sure we yet know how the genes that determine lifespan are related to genes that control other aspects of growth, development, and general health. So basically, we don’t know how easy it is to create the genes for immortality without drastically altering growth, development, metabolism, or other regulatory functions.

Thanks for this information.

My uncle (a doctor) mentioned that he believed that in the next hundred years or so, we should be able to extend human life span indefinetly, at least when it comes to deseases (he is an immunologist).

The moral, phylosophical, and theological implications of this seem hard to fathom. Then there is the question I asked here: How will this effect our evolutionary path?

God bless,
Ut

 

[The_Barbarian]

Accident rates suggests that even people who wouldn’t be affected by aging or disease, would live no more than a few hundred years, before something did them in.

Given that aging is built into our genes, I’m skeptical that much can be done to extend a normal life time beyond a few decades.