5 ms·

The genetic basis of longevity is highly debatable. But anyways, just sequence her kids. Not that it matters so much, since even if we had that information we w

The genetic basis of longevity is highly debatable. But anyways, just sequence her kids. Not that it matters so much, since even if we had that information we wouldn't know what to do with it. Longevity is a highly polygenic trait, and as it stands we barely understand the genetic architecture of even much simpler ones like height.

darawk 10y ago
No it isn't. Lobsters have no known biological senescence. The difference between a lobster and a person is genetics.
- goatlover 10y ago
  Does that difference preclude senescence in humans being polygenic?
- brianwawok 10y ago
  The difference between a person and a lobster, is a lobster is delicious.
  - overcast 10y ago
    So you know with absolute certainty that a human isn't?
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    But so are humans, so I'm failing to see your point.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Assuming humans taste somewhat like pigs, humans are every bit as delicious as lobsters.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The difference between a lobster and a person is genetics. A difference. There are others.
  - darawk 10y ago
    The only other differences are environmental. Since other animals that do exhibit senescence share the environment of the lobster, we can conclude that the lobster's environment does not confer this property.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The only other differences are environmental. That's true. > Since other animals that do exhibit senescence share the environment of the lobster Not entirely -- the environment through the whole lifecycle, including at the microscopic level, matters, and things that aren't lobsters differ in the environment in which the genes are embedded from a microscopic level from lobsters as well (there is, of course, a complex two-way cause-and-effect interaction between this environment and genetics, but that doesn't change that it is a different thing than genetics.) > we can conclude that the lobster's environment does not confer this property. It may, perhaps, be a reasonable conclusion that the environment (at any level) alone does not confer the property, but it is certainly less reasonable to conclude that the environment is not relevant to the property and it results from genetics alone.
      - darawk 10y ago
        >It may, perhaps, be a reasonable conclusion that the environment (at any level) alone does not confer the property, but it is certainly less reasonable to conclude that the environment is not relevant to the property and it results from genetics alone. We can, however, rule out the environment as a sole causal factor. Since the only other possible factor is genetics, we must conclude that genetics plays some role in longevity. Hence, > The genetic basis of longevity is highly debatable is false. Its basis is not debatable.
        10y ago
- djsumdog 10y ago
  I've heard this a lot and looked it up. There are some other sources I found, but most seem to be referenced in this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organis... Looks like they're not immortal. Eventually they run out of energy to regenerate their shell or their shell stops moulting and it rots.
agumonkey 10y ago
Consider she saw two world wars in an ever changing century, I'd be surprised if her age record was contextual. Asian elders I can understand (climate; food; social structures; philosophy) .. but here.

darawk 10y ago

No it isn't. Lobsters have no known biological senescence. The difference between a lobster and a person is genetics.

goatlover 10y ago
Does that difference preclude senescence in humans being polygenic?
brianwawok 10y ago
The difference between a person and a lobster, is a lobster is delicious.
- overcast 10y ago
  So you know with absolute certainty that a human isn't?
- yellowapple 10y ago
  But so are humans, so I'm failing to see your point.
- hx87 10y ago
  Assuming humans taste somewhat like pigs, humans are every bit as delicious as lobsters.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The difference between a lobster and a person is genetics. A difference. There are others.
- darawk 10y ago
  The only other differences are environmental. Since other animals that do exhibit senescence share the environment of the lobster, we can conclude that the lobster's environment does not confer this property.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The only other differences are environmental. That's true. > Since other animals that do exhibit senescence share the environment of the lobster Not entirely -- the environment through the whole lifecycle, including at the microscopic level, matters, and things that aren't lobsters differ in the environment in which the genes are embedded from a microscopic level from lobsters as well (there is, of course, a complex two-way cause-and-effect interaction between this environment and genetics, but that doesn't change that it is a different thing than genetics.) > we can conclude that the lobster's environment does not confer this property. It may, perhaps, be a reasonable conclusion that the environment (at any level) alone does not confer the property, but it is certainly less reasonable to conclude that the environment is not relevant to the property and it results from genetics alone.
    - darawk 10y ago
      >It may, perhaps, be a reasonable conclusion that the environment (at any level) alone does not confer the property, but it is certainly less reasonable to conclude that the environment is not relevant to the property and it results from genetics alone. We can, however, rule out the environment as a sole causal factor. Since the only other possible factor is genetics, we must conclude that genetics plays some role in longevity. Hence, > The genetic basis of longevity is highly debatable is false. Its basis is not debatable.
      - 10y ago
djsumdog 10y ago
I've heard this a lot and looked it up. There are some other sources I found, but most seem to be referenced in this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organis... Looks like they're not immortal. Eventually they run out of energy to regenerate their shell or their shell stops moulting and it rots.

agumonkey 10y ago

Consider she saw two world wars in an ever changing century, I'd be surprised if her age record was contextual. Asian elders I can understand (climate; food; social structures; philosophy) .. but here.