3 ms·
> Biology has never selected genes to maximize longevity, only to maximize healthy breeding. That is assumption which is hard to validate. There is a case for
by majkinetor 5y ago
> Biology has never selected genes to maximize longevity, only to maximize healthy breeding.
That is assumption which is hard to validate. There is a case for longevity as children with longer living dedicated parents in the context of abundant resources will out survive those that are ditched by their parents.
> Delete the notable gene or just make a point mutation to disable it.
The article say that effect is the same with deletion and drug in mice. Why would you delete the gene when you can temporally prevent its function ?
> Delete the notable gene or just make a point mutation to disable it. Treat/wait the cancer into remission.
Yet nobody did nothing remotely close in humans, even for stuff that looks like highly beneficial in all contexts such as GULO gene.
- koheripbal 5y agoI agree with your sentiment, but this condition... > in the context of abundant resources ...has only been true for a tiny number of generations and so likely has not had a large evolutionary influence.
- majkinetor 5y agoAbundant is probably too strong word. Obviously the system can't work to the extreme due to the limited resources, but there is lot of possible contexts that can last for a long time.