4 ms·

Counterpoints: - The accuracy of current epigenetic clocks suggests it might not be a dead-end with average error of 2-3 years, across multiple tissues (and ev

Counterpoints: - The accuracy of current epigenetic clocks suggests it might not be a dead-end with average error of 2-3 years, across multiple tissues (and even Chimpanzees). - The variability of an aging phenotype is not that high. We all loose bone density, loose teeth, hair turns white, memory degrades, wrinkles appear, etc. In other words - aging follows a pattern. - The car analogy assumes that aging is caused by damage over time. But there is an alternative explanation: aging provides and evolutionary advantage for a species and hence is predetermined.

echelon 5y ago
> The variability of an aging phenotype is not that high. We all loose bone density, loose teeth, hair turns white, memory degrades, wrinkles appear, etc. People age at different rates depending on a wide variety of factors. Progeria, over consumption of alcohol, too much stress, too much radiation from sunlight, etc. The things you point to are measures of a biological age, not a wall clock age. While they do correlate, they're not 1:1. Some people age faster. > But there is an alternative explanation: aging provides and evolutionary advantage for a species and hence is predetermined. I don't buy this. We don't have a pre-programmed death. It's rather that we haven't had any genetic pressure to live beyond our current lifespan as it doesn't increase our offspring's chances of success. There's little pressure from competing with children for resources. Look at how many people there are in the world today - the world supports billions of humans. There are far greater pressures being exerted in other ways.
- kkoncevicius 5y ago
  I think we do have a pre-programmed death. Almost all creatures die when they get older so in order to look for evolutionary pressures we have to look across a long time period and far back. For one - if organisms wouldn't die evolution would not happen. Or at least the non-dying ones would stay behind and be left living in environments they are no longer suited for. For ancient creatures food and resources might have been scarce and so it was advantageous for non-evolving old members to die-off sooner. Also, whatever we think about these epigenetic clocks, there are few things to come to terms with: 1) they work across pretty much all individuals (and people with progeria do exhibit older epigenetic age [1]) 2) they work across pretty much all tissues. I don't see how this could be explained through "damage over time". The way I see it damage should be random and not lead to something so predictable that we could use it to guess a persons chronological age with 2.5 year accuracy. [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30048243/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30048243/
  - ddingus 5y ago
    I do too. Look at the tortoise. We know some that have lived two centuries. They have their niche, do what they do, and live a very long time. During their evolutionary journey to their current local maxima, I wonder whether they lived shorter lives?
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > if organisms wouldn't die evolution would not happen. Huh? The only requirement of evolution is that organisms sometimes reproduce.
    - kkoncevicius 5y ago
      So this is my view. The immortal organism would not evolve. Imagine you and I lived 100K years from now. Other humans would evolve somewhat during that time but we would be fixed. Climate change might happen, new humans would adapt to the changing environment via evolution, but we would be stuck suffering the new environment. The humanity example takes a long time to be noticeable. But for early multi-cellular organisms this would kick in much faster. Thing about micro organism fighting against toxins. The ones that do not evolve and adapt would die off sooner. And while they are still alive they are competing for resources with the newer versions of themselves. So for the colony it is advantageous for the older ones to die quicker since we already know they will be unnecessary sooner or later. Now we evolved from these primitive creatures. And the mechanisms for things like aging, circadian rhythm, sexual reproduction, etc - we inherited from the early creatures. So regardless if the advantage of dying sooner is beneficial or not to the humanity now - the mechanism itself is far more ancient than humanity or even mammals.
- ridgeguy 5y ago
  From an evolutionary perspective, I think we can at least say that absence of death doesn't confer a selective advantage, else it would have appeared and radiated in several billion years of biological evolution. It might even be that death provides selective advantage(s), which would account for its being a nearly universal feature of known life. A "pre-programmed death" mechanism would be consistent with this.
  - echelon 5y ago
    > A "pre-programmed death" mechanism would be consistent with this. We haven't found this mechanism in humans. Cancer and heart disease simply don't impact child rearing. It requires a great deal of optimization to rejuvenate cells after injury and simultaneously tamp down on uncontrolled proliferation (cancer). It's an extremely complex system. The evolutionary gradient to optimize this is probably steep, and we haven't climbed it since our form is more than good enough. (There are billions of us.) People cite tortoises, but these animals have a slow metabolism. They don't eat a wide variety of things. They don't have many enemies. They're not burning very fast. We're not comparable.
    - ridgeguy 5y ago
      >Cancer and heart disease simply don't impact child rearing. I'm not sure of that. There's data-supported discussion of possible contribution to offspring survival by grandparents [1]. If true, that would disclose a fitness benefit of familial long lifespan. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-much-did-grandmothers-influence-human-evolution-180976665/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-much-did-g... [not a peer-reviewed primary source, but a reasonable commentary on the matter.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        Yes, but "in the wild", length of a human generation was much shorter than today. It still is in some developing countries. People would start reproducing around 17, so around 40-45, you already would be a grandparent with multiple grandkids. This is still early for cancer or heart disease, unless you inherited some unlucky genes.
ikrenji 5y ago
aging mostly happens after an organism reproduces, so there is no evolutionary pressure to maintain fitness. there is no pressure to develop maintenance mechanisms...
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  There would be plenty of pressure to keep reproducing indefinitely, just that then there might be too much competition between ancestors and descendants for the same resources.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > just that then there might be too much competition between ancestors and descendants for the same resources. Why is that supposed to be a problem? Plenty of species will happily eat their own young.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      Because changing conditions could necessitate the species adjusting to the new conditions as they change, if the young have to outcompete both the old and the new landscape there's a higher chance of an extinction event.
- m0llusk 5y ago
  This reasoning has been invalidated by the proof that living ancestors can contribute to successful procreation and rearing.
  - odyssey7 5y ago
    Sugar is great because it quickly converts to energy, but its benefit doesn’t always increase with the amount consumed.
- Beldin 5y ago
  Only if aging is separate from growing. I'd be somewhat shocked if there is absolutely no relation between them. Note: This is completely outside my expertise, so make of that what you will.
inglor_cz 5y ago
Epigenetic clocks have been built for many mammal species, not just chimpanzees, and they seem to work reasonably well for them. But for chimpanzees some human clocks can be used directly, without adjustments - indicating how close relatives we in fact are.

echelon 5y ago

> The variability of an aging phenotype is not that high. We all loose bone density, loose teeth, hair turns white, memory degrades, wrinkles appear, etc. People age at different rates depending on a wide variety of factors. Progeria, over consumption of alcohol, too much stress, too much radiation from sunlight, etc. The things you point to are measures of a biological age, not a wall clock age. While they do correlate, they're not 1:1. Some people age faster. > But there is an alternative explanation: aging provides and evolutionary advantage for a species and hence is predetermined. I don't buy this. We don't have a pre-programmed death. It's rather that we haven't had any genetic pressure to live beyond our current lifespan as it doesn't increase our offspring's chances of success. There's little pressure from competing with children for resources. Look at how many people there are in the world today - the world supports billions of humans. There are far greater pressures being exerted in other ways.

kkoncevicius 5y ago
I think we do have a pre-programmed death. Almost all creatures die when they get older so in order to look for evolutionary pressures we have to look across a long time period and far back. For one - if organisms wouldn't die evolution would not happen. Or at least the non-dying ones would stay behind and be left living in environments they are no longer suited for. For ancient creatures food and resources might have been scarce and so it was advantageous for non-evolving old members to die-off sooner. Also, whatever we think about these epigenetic clocks, there are few things to come to terms with: 1) they work across pretty much all individuals (and people with progeria do exhibit older epigenetic age [1]) 2) they work across pretty much all tissues. I don't see how this could be explained through "damage over time". The way I see it damage should be random and not lead to something so predictable that we could use it to guess a persons chronological age with 2.5 year accuracy. [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30048243/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30048243/
- ddingus 5y ago
  I do too. Look at the tortoise. We know some that have lived two centuries. They have their niche, do what they do, and live a very long time. During their evolutionary journey to their current local maxima, I wonder whether they lived shorter lives?
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > if organisms wouldn't die evolution would not happen. Huh? The only requirement of evolution is that organisms sometimes reproduce.
  - kkoncevicius 5y ago
    So this is my view. The immortal organism would not evolve. Imagine you and I lived 100K years from now. Other humans would evolve somewhat during that time but we would be fixed. Climate change might happen, new humans would adapt to the changing environment via evolution, but we would be stuck suffering the new environment. The humanity example takes a long time to be noticeable. But for early multi-cellular organisms this would kick in much faster. Thing about micro organism fighting against toxins. The ones that do not evolve and adapt would die off sooner. And while they are still alive they are competing for resources with the newer versions of themselves. So for the colony it is advantageous for the older ones to die quicker since we already know they will be unnecessary sooner or later. Now we evolved from these primitive creatures. And the mechanisms for things like aging, circadian rhythm, sexual reproduction, etc - we inherited from the early creatures. So regardless if the advantage of dying sooner is beneficial or not to the humanity now - the mechanism itself is far more ancient than humanity or even mammals.
ridgeguy 5y ago
From an evolutionary perspective, I think we can at least say that absence of death doesn't confer a selective advantage, else it would have appeared and radiated in several billion years of biological evolution. It might even be that death provides selective advantage(s), which would account for its being a nearly universal feature of known life. A "pre-programmed death" mechanism would be consistent with this.
- echelon 5y ago
  > A "pre-programmed death" mechanism would be consistent with this. We haven't found this mechanism in humans. Cancer and heart disease simply don't impact child rearing. It requires a great deal of optimization to rejuvenate cells after injury and simultaneously tamp down on uncontrolled proliferation (cancer). It's an extremely complex system. The evolutionary gradient to optimize this is probably steep, and we haven't climbed it since our form is more than good enough. (There are billions of us.) People cite tortoises, but these animals have a slow metabolism. They don't eat a wide variety of things. They don't have many enemies. They're not burning very fast. We're not comparable.
  - ridgeguy 5y ago
    >Cancer and heart disease simply don't impact child rearing. I'm not sure of that. There's data-supported discussion of possible contribution to offspring survival by grandparents [1]. If true, that would disclose a fitness benefit of familial long lifespan. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-much-did-grandmothers-influence-human-evolution-180976665/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-much-did-g... [not a peer-reviewed primary source, but a reasonable commentary on the matter.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      Yes, but "in the wild", length of a human generation was much shorter than today. It still is in some developing countries. People would start reproducing around 17, so around 40-45, you already would be a grandparent with multiple grandkids. This is still early for cancer or heart disease, unless you inherited some unlucky genes.

ikrenji 5y ago

aging mostly happens after an organism reproduces, so there is no evolutionary pressure to maintain fitness. there is no pressure to develop maintenance mechanisms...

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
There would be plenty of pressure to keep reproducing indefinitely, just that then there might be too much competition between ancestors and descendants for the same resources.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > just that then there might be too much competition between ancestors and descendants for the same resources. Why is that supposed to be a problem? Plenty of species will happily eat their own young.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    Because changing conditions could necessitate the species adjusting to the new conditions as they change, if the young have to outcompete both the old and the new landscape there's a higher chance of an extinction event.
m0llusk 5y ago
This reasoning has been invalidated by the proof that living ancestors can contribute to successful procreation and rearing.
- odyssey7 5y ago
  Sugar is great because it quickly converts to energy, but its benefit doesn’t always increase with the amount consumed.
Beldin 5y ago
Only if aging is separate from growing. I'd be somewhat shocked if there is absolutely no relation between them. Note: This is completely outside my expertise, so make of that what you will.

inglor_cz 5y ago

Epigenetic clocks have been built for many mammal species, not just chimpanzees, and they seem to work reasonably well for them. But for chimpanzees some human clocks can be used directly, without adjustments - indicating how close relatives we in fact are.