How is death genetically/evolutionarily viable?

[Night]

How? I've been wondering lately, why is it in our genes to get older, and die? Why don't our cells work at full capacity their whole lives, instead of killing themselves intentionally?

[Jubloz]

Do they kill themselves intentionally? I've seen information leaning both ways. It doesn't make sense to me that a self-destruct button would be included within our genes, but I'd be interested in reading up on it if anyone can provide some reliable scientific studies suggesting that this occurs.

[gallo]

Quote by: Night How? I've been wondering lately, why is it in our genes to get older, and die? Why don't our cells work at full capacity their whole lives, instead of killing themselves intentionally?

I'm not sure that I know what you are talking about. What cells that kill themselves intentionally are you talking about? How do you think that a cell actually forms some sort of "intention?"

Beyond that, how do you propose that evolution will happen without the death of one generation, followed by another generation? Exactly what is it that you understand genetics and evolution to be?

Of course, there is also the fact that there are few individual organisms that die because their cells kill themselves "intentionally." Given the nature of reality, most organisms succumb to predators, parasites, and infections.

And, of course, when you equate genes 'getting older' with cells 'working at full capacity', you are talking about two different things. My father died at 74, and my mother at 88. Neither because their genes got older or their cells stopped working. My mother's sister is still going strong at 91 - her genes and cells are still working just fine. Of course, she has had some problems with her back, but so have I.

But let me repeat the answer to the your primary question with another question. How do you propose that evolution can happen without reproduction and death, generation after generation? Do you know what evolution is? Do you know what genetics is? Do you understand either? Do you know what a gene is? Do you know what a chromosome is? Do you know what a telomere is? Do you know what a centromere is?

So, if you have some specific questions, I am willing to answer them.

[DEEJ85]

I was told that from an evolutionary standpoint, the goal of all lifeforms is to survive long enough so you can pass on your genetic material (have children).

Anything that happens after that is irrelevant.

There are many species that do die soon or directly after producing children.

Octopus, Squid, Spiders, certain fish, off the top of my head.

[5010]

As far as I know, the priority for evolution is survival till reproduction, so lifespan is low priority. Short lifespans = more generations which allows more opportunities to test mutations. Long lifespan = less generations which allows a successful mutation to propagate longer. Some traits are more efficient than others within a niche depending on competition.

But does this explain why certain species get their lifespan? Why does an adult mayfly live 1-3 days while a creosote bush lasts 11,700 years? (source)

[Captain Cardio]

Remembering vaguely from highschool biology.. I believe that everytime cells reproduce, the RNA strands get shorter over the course of our life, until finally they can't reproduce anymore. And for some reason cells die off regularly on their own, so this reproduction is necessary.

I spose that might be a fundamental problem with organisms, but as long as there was nothing preventing the pass on of genes to the next generation, there was no evolutionary cause for edging out our expiry date trait.

[Technosoul]

You might be looking in the wrong place.

Ageing and death by old age seems to be regulated by growth harmones coming from a gland in the brain. And it would seem that the bio-clock that pre-determines when the gland will shut down growth harmones can be found in the genes or DNA genetic instructions.

It could be that cell reproduction depends on the amount of harmones produced and as that production slows down the genes are effected in what we call the ageing processes beyond prime time maturity.

Some scientific studies have shown that an active sex life will extend the life span of that individual relative to those less active in later years.
So we might note a "loop-back" of (for lack of a better term) intelligence gathering going on that lets the "gland" know when it is time to shut down some of the harmones.

But that last idea is party based on logical assumptions and remains un-studied in detail (far as I would know).

Cells are replaced about every 6 or 7 years, as far as I know that replacement cycle remains pretty constant over the span of a persons life. But such cells are subject to radical behaviors at times, re: cancer cells.

If you wish to check out some more radical concepts I posted them over in the religion department under the topic "Science & Sin".

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Night How? I've been wondering lately, why is it in our genes to get older, and die? Why don't our cells work at full capacity their whole lives, instead of killing themselves intentionally?

Very recent news was that Scientists have identified few genes in human genes set, which are responsible for developing life threatening diseases causing the death. I wonder, if only those few genes are resposible for death (natural one). By gene modification technique if those genes could be removed at the time of Zygote formation or later at infancy, death could be largly conqoured. Still, accidental deaths would continue to occur !!!

Second cause is the aging egffect of cells, which is a natural phenomina, as pointed out by Technosoul. Detail of aging mechanism could be studied from literature. But then, it is natural to age...why to bother ???

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo I'm not sure that I know what you are talking about. What cells that kill themselves intentionally are you talking about? How do you think that a cell actually forms some sort of "intention?" Beyond that, how do you propose that evolution will happen without the death of one generation, followed by another generation? Exactly what is it that you understand genetics and evolution to be? Of course, there is also the fact that there are few individual organisms that die because their cells kill themselves "intentionally." Given the nature of reality, most organisms succumb to predators, parasites, and infections. And, of course, when you equate genes 'getting older' with cells 'working at full capacity', you are talking about two different things. My father died at 74, and my mother at 88. Neither because their genes got older or their cells stopped working. My mother's sister is still going strong at 91 - her genes and cells are still working just fine. Of course, she has had some problems with her back, but so have I. But let me repeat the answer to the your primary question with another question. How do you propose that evolution can happen without reproduction and death, generation after generation? Do you know what evolution is? Do you know what genetics is? Do you understand either? Do you know what a gene is? Do you know what a chromosome is? Do you know what a telomere is? Do you know what a centromere is? So, if you have some specific questions, I am willing to answer them.

Intention would suggest thinking. If cells stop growing and die for the greater good of evolution through reproduction, then that might suggest intention and therefore thought. Cells then would be the servents of some sort of 'greater' (supernatual) thought process with a plan.
Such a notion could not be reduced to just the examination of cells or genetics and so any claim to that effect would not be a scientific one.

But before we toss out intention as a possible science would need to have a good explaination for what consitutes thought. Does genetics play a role in formulating thought? Is physical reaction to stemulation concidered to be primitive thought, or the 'evolutionary anscester' of thinking? Can we draw a relationship between reactory responses an reactionary thinking with a evolutionary map?

How much authority can we grant thought? Now, as far as I know a cell does not have a brain and so it cannot know things, or imagine things, and so forth. And so brainless intention would seem to be an unacpetable concept. (each of these claims are questions).

If cells reproduce every 6 years (more or less) - with exception of the eye? Then apparently cells pass on weaker abilites survive or else they no longer have external support systems in thier environment to continue the process of reproduction and death, perhaps harmones are what they need in their environment to continue and that source slows down or discontinues which then breaks down the whole system. Keeping in mind that the 12 strands of DNA are composed of an asortment of chemical combinations, which might need be re-supplied, perhaps?

But then you are back to square one. Chemicals with intention, which idea gets to sound a bit radical. And yet Ants communicate chemically and they can produce different chemicals to 'write' messages on the ground for other ants to follow. And so how much would reacting to chemical combinnations play a role in understanding the 'how' - relative to the OP ponderings? And so intention might be simply reaction to chemicals or it could mean that certain chemical combinations control genetics as well as thought processes. (meaning not intention at all).
Can cancer cells behave that way due to their reaction to some external chemical combination in their environment that is not the norm?
A reaction to a threat.

Unless they can think they cannot know if something is a threat. So we must attempt to figure about another system that consitutes such behavorism in order to sound sceintific. Reaction to stress might be one area we could examine (also). Age is a measurement of the effects of time on a living being. This would suggest that time is a pressure or force that causes death by wearing out the established 'being'. Like water wearing down a stone in a river. Time, becoming like a gravity that weights-down the life force until it is no longer strong enough to withstand the continued pressure. To overcome that theat animals evolved generational reproduction - and the genetics to make that possible, while the individual being cannot withstand the test of time as it would subcome to the "pounding tides of time" upon it's shores (to use some poetic anology for illustrational purposes). Reproductive evolution is sort of like mouse-clicking the refresh button on your computer. (that idea just popped up and might be a bit un-reasonable as an anology).

And so we have chemical-electronic combinations at work in our biology. And abibities to react to stemulation, such envrionmental stemulations might be temperature, and perhaps time. But the time factor would have to conform to established theories about what consitutes time to be sceintific - or a new theory would be called for to establish the linkage between time and death. I am only a visonary so I will need to leave the scientific theory making up to you other people.

Now lets sidetrack a moment and compare concepts of social science with this project. The rise and fall of Rome - hmm? Can internal corupting forces come into effect on the human body such that it can rot away form it's core and then die due to it's weakened ability to deal with outside attacks it's immune system. (far-out eh?). Is that a "spiritual topic only" or one that can become "scientific"?

Can isolated cancer cells be compared to rebel sub-groups within the mainstream establishment of a culture (governmental system)?
Do the same modes of conduct apply? Can science embrace such notions or should we leave that for the philosophy department to imagine about?

The attitude of selfishness and egoism - if our mind is selfish and ego-centered then could our body cells pick up on those intentions and express them also in their behaviorisms? Are cancer cells being egocentric and selfish - trying to hog everything up for "me me me" (them). Can science embrace that notion or is that just metaphysical nonsense? RE: mind-body-spirit theology.

That's all folks - whatcha' think - or shoud I say "what do you know from all that hard study from book reading".

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Technosoul That's all folks - whatcha' think - or shoud I say "what do you know from all that hard study from book reading".

I wish I could answer your all the questions in greater detail, which you have imagined and raised in the post. However, within my limitations, I would lay down what I feel about the whole thing.

1. Cells of animals or plants do reproduce and die only till the specific animal or plant is alive (Alive in the sense we understand Life). The ego, me, me, and me as you rightly put, is the consciousness, existing in that specific identity. This consciousness is the root cause of, not only whole of physical aspects but also of metaphysical aspects of the individual. I won’t touch metaphysical aspect here !

2. This consciousness is the cause of formation of next generation offspring's physical body organs (internal & external) through a mechanism of genes, DNA, RNA, electronic impulses, chemicals and what not…reproduction in nut shell.

3. To my mind this consciousness is the driving force behind conscious mind, sub-conscious mind and unconscious mind, thought, control of neuronal electronic impulses, feeling through various senses...so on and so forth right up to cell production and dieing !

4. I also feel that whole activity going on from minutest particle DNA, RNA. Genes or cell is two way reversible reaction. Thought is formed in mind due to consciousness and affects right up to minutest particle while; effect on organs through minutest particles affect the consciousness (mind in gross form)

5. In view of what I said in point no. 1, due to existence of life in individual, I dare to say, the me, me, me ego in each of cell do exist and they reproduce and die due to presence of consciousness of individual. But, when the individual dies, the reproduction of cell seizes. Different system, which is the process of deterioration starts, also due to different living organisms having their conscious mechanism.

6. Aging, I can put as true, mainly for the physical aspect, is nothing but due to wearing, fatigue or exertion…of cells, organs and the like. The continual reversible functions between cells and self (individual) does develop imbalances between rate of production and rate of dying out of cells…ultimately affects vital organs and their functions…finally to the consciousness or what we call death of individual.

7. We cannot ignore scientific knowledge of genes, according to which Genes are responsible for pre-programming the later developments in the physical body or organs therein, that system act to have final affect as death (latest finding). Cancer cells and other life threatening developments take place through gene network. As these cells ultimately kill a person, we can term those as rebellions compared to normal functioning of other cells.

8. Consciousness goes out on death., metaphysical mind acompanying , but I won't discuss that as it is supernatural stuff !!!!

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Night How is death genetically/evolutionarily viable? How? I've been wondering lately, why is it in our genes to get older, and die? Why don't our cells work at full capacity their whole lives, instead of killing themselves intentionally?

Why don't we have wings?

Why can't we have claws and super strength?

Why not painless births?

Why are our bones calcium instead of something stronger?

Evolution doesn't give us what we "need". We change at random over the course of many generations. Some changes are carried along while others cause us to die out depending on our enviroment.

Why do we age? Why not stay young until disease or injury kills us? For two reasons:

1) We haven't developed that trait. Like wings, super strength, titanium bones and painless births, we simply haven't happened to develop that genetic mutation.*

2) Depending on the enviroment, being immortal doesn't work with natural selection. A species that overpopulates in an area will run out of resources. Really, this is more speculation. The first reason is the real big one: we just haven't happened to develop that trait.

There are anti-aging scientists who are trying to figure out how to help us stop aging. According to a documentary I saw, some believe humans stop aging around 95. People in their 90's get worse and worse and worse until they hit about 95; instead of worsening their bodies stay the same... but by that time they're so far gone a cold or a stumble is enough to do them in. These scientists, they're looking for a way to crank that age back from 95 to say 35.

In our Western society, if they were to make this breakthrough, it's doubtful you or I would ever see it. There isn't a billionaire alive who wouldn't pay at least a billion to be 40 or 50 for decades... and skip 60, 70, 80, and 90.




*I remember hearing an internet rumor a few years ago about a "woman" who wasn't aging. She was 30 years old and looked 12, but was severely mentally handicapped... as in vegtable.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Nacht How? I've been wondering lately, why is it in our genes to get older, and die? Why don't our cells work at full capacity their whole lives, instead of killing themselves intentionally?

If it weren't for natural expiry, the human race wouldn't last very long. Assuming that the average couple has two children, and no one ever dies of old age, the world's population would double every thirty years. Resources would be depleted rapidly and the species would die out. So there is an evolutionary benefit to death.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy If it weren't for natural expiry, the human race wouldn't last very long. Assuming that the average couple has two children, and no one ever dies of old age, the world's population would double every thirty years. Resources would be depleted rapidly and the species would die out. So there is an evolutionary benefit to death.

I would seem, perhaps, that time-space controls or influences the processes of aging and death.

Time seems to regulate the growth and aging processes due to what people call the biological clock. Not sure if science favors that idea because it is not a real clock ticking away inside of us but rather a predictable pattern of events that are triggered (harmones -etc.) as we move from womb to grave. Science can estimate the average life span of humans based on time measurments, other factors concerning health can effect living longer after we pass the prime time for reproduction.

You pointed out that death is controlled in part by space, we only got so much space on earth and so population control by death, normally induced by illnesses that break out in overpopulations, and by how much the environment can yeild to maintain the health of that population.

Time and space as a controlling influence upon nature is something that we can study and observe, if one was so motivated, and if not already done, one could come up with a wide-reaching theory about the effects of time-space on nature and it could be testable.

To put off death the living things then must conform to the dictates of space and time. But not totally. Certain adaptations can aid a living thing to combat those influences.

Take a tomato plant. I live in a location where we can have 100 degree weather for a few months. If I water the tomato plant everyday it will grow at a normal rate of speed to ripen the fruit. But if I stop watering the plant for a couple of days it will start to die but the tomatos will ripen faster to insure that seeds will be produced in time to pass tomato life on for another chance at speices survival. Interesting.

Humans have evolutionary options. We can create medical resources to extend life. We can import needed foods into overpopulated areas from areas not compacted with population. We can even notice that other planets have unused space and can use our space program to make other planets user friendly for expanding our space options. And likewise we can control population growth with contraceptives. Through genetic research we might even be able to master and control the whole evolutionary processes of our evolutionary potentials.

But we must comprehend the limitations set by time-space when taking advantage of those scientific options so that our activities are conducted with wisdom and logical perception.