4 ms·
"Aging" might have evolved in part because of cancer, but that does not mean that aging is the best solution to cancer. It's just a method of dealing with it, w
by emerongi 10y ago
"Aging" might have evolved in part because of cancer, but that does not mean that aging is the best solution to cancer. It's just a method of dealing with it, which might be totally subpar. Evolution never leads to best-case scenario, it leads to good-enough scenario. Saying "either you age or get cancer" is just... not correct.
If we find a way to not age and not get cancer, then we have (presumably) evolved.
- lqdc13 10y ago> It's just a method of dealing with [cancer], which might be totally subpar I agree. > "Evolution never leads to best-case scenario" That is not true. It could lead to the most optimal solution. > Saying "either you age or get cancer" is just... not correct It is correct until we develop an alternative way that replaces the aging mechanism in cells. Sure, it is better to neither age nor get cancer.
- astazangasta 10y ago>That is not true. It could lead to the most optimal solution. There is no such thing as "the most optimal solution". Optimality is a human imposition on the world. Fitness functions do not actually exist, they are merely a way for us to conceive of the operation of selection. Evolution is not performing gradient descent.