Immortality - Evolutionary Trait

[crims]

Note: I post this as a purely theoretical question, since I base all this on understanding of evolutionary principles and not any statistics or numbers.

 

In biological evolution, a species exists only as far as it can continue to survive and reproduce in many numbers. It would seem that the longer the life span of an animal, the greater the chances are that it would have reproduced, therefore species with greater life spans have greater survivability. So, if this is true, that would mean that biological evolution favors those species that have greater life spans.

 

Given this, why are there still limits on life span of all species? Is it not possible for biological reasons, or has evolution not been fast enough to create such species?

[Algebracus]

It is not enough that a species reproduce. It is also necessary that the offsprings are up and healthy. The possibilty of this happening dwelves on the general capability of adjusting oneself to the nature and the changes in the nature. This ability is on the other side bases on the ability to eliminate flaws and carry on advantages, that is, it is based on a fast reproduction and therefore a rather short life span. In other words, the "ideal" life span is balanced, not too short, neither too long-lasting.

 

If your first argument were correct (that a great life span is indeed a great advantage), then it would not necessarily imply the possibility of immoratal species. More naturally, we would have two possibilities: (1) During the ages, the maximum life span converges to a certain limit, based on certain limitations that does not directly base itself on the biological evolution (for instance, the fact that the earth is limited). (2) During the ages, the maximum life span diverges. Every individual dies sooner or later, but it takes longer and longer time before they die. This is surely not the same as immortality.

 

Also, if immortality in fact was a possibility, at some stage we would have "the first (theoretically) immortal individual". But were came the immortality from? It cannot been inherited, so several mutations then must have occured, but how?

 

I cannot imagine how an individual could be immortal, when encountering for instance the energy laws (especially the law of an increasing unorder), but it is one the other side much easier to imagine an individual being very, very old (like 3000 years old ore something).

 

(But then, I really don't know what life and death is all about, and we all know the hypothesis that death is only an illness that can be avoided, with the right diet and medical assistance. In this case, the question of how the species became theoretically immortal is more or less irrelevant.)

[Mokele]

Well, first, a thread about the possibility of the evolution of immortality can be found here.

 

My general point from the thread was that first, immortality would have to overcome entropy (to a greater degree than life already does), and thus would be metabolicly expensive, and second, very few animals in the wild live to their maximum lifespan anyway, so why would it be an advantage to have an unlimited one? For example, ball pythons can live for 50 years in captivity, but you're *never* going to find a wild one that old; disease, parasites, natural disasters and predators would have killed it off long before then. So where's the advantage? All that cost and probably no significant benefit for the organism, plus passing on that cost to it's offspring.

 

Mokele

[ed84c]

Evolution doesnt really take kindly on living longer, as it is fairly pointless unless your sexual'y active days are extended, and unless we lived life always sexually active (or animals did) it would have no affect on evolution.

 

Example;

 

2 People, Geoff and Gary.

 

Geoff will live to 60

Gary will live to 90

 

Geoff has kids at 40, and can no longer have kids at 50

Gary has kids at 40 and can no longer have kids at 50.

 

In evolutionary terms, once over 50, these years are "wasted" as Gary, cant pass on any more genetic material on compared to geoff, even if he will live longer, as he cant have kids between 60-90.

[Mokele]

In evolutionary terms, once over 50, these years are "wasted" as Gary, cant pass on any more genetic material on compared to geoff, even if he will live longer, as he cant have kids between 60-90.

 

Not necessarily: What about inclusive fitness? Sure, he might not be helping his own DNA directly, but by helping his kids and relatives survive and prosper (via contribution of time and resources) he's gaining genetic benefit from staying alive.

 

Mokele

[ed84c]

Hmm i see your point, but really i was talking about in the natural environment, and i havent seen any evidence of such happening.

[AzurePhoenix]

Lionesses. Grrrr

[Xavier]

Consider the genes as the things that are passed from generation to generation and that the phenotypes of more successful genes act in such a way that that gene occurs in more bodies as the generations go by.

 

Now, if the gene of interest is in the body of a parent there is a 50% chance that it is also in the body of each child. Therefore a gene that promotes the survival of a parent at the expense of a single child will be successful but a gene that promotes the survival of the parent at the expense of more than two children (or acts at the expense of a single child but does so too often) will be unsuccessful.

 

If you add in the opportunity cost of a more resilient, longer lasting body opposed by the cost of creating new bodies from scratch and that these bodies would be competing for the same resources so you can't have both, there is a point of maximum success for the gene in the frequency with which either parent survives or child survives.

A range of optimal strategies have been developed for generation time from the hour or two for bacteria up to the decades for us higher mammals. Where the optimum lies depends on other factors in the species' survival strategy - notably body size and the opportunity cost of creating new ones each generation. Mammals are close to the upper limit of generation time due to their warm blood, rapid motion and so on which are expensive to build, but makes good survivor in its niche role (from a non humanocentric viewpoint mammals could be regarded as occupying a highly specialised niche). Humans are pushing even closer into the realm of diminishing returns and it is only the enormous survival benefit of our intelligence that makes the cost of our long gestation and childhood worthwhile.

 

 

As was mentioned by ed84c, evolution can only be interested in reproductive lifespan which, for females has probably hit an upper limit for our body architecture - babies are born in a woefully vulnerable state; they are popped out the moment there is a decent chance of survival despite the tremedous cost to produce them - but perhaps males could continue to increase their reproductive lifespan. But...the existence of the older males would reduce the number of children that could be raised using the available resources so this increased longevity would extend to the point where it costs more to make the older body resilient enough to survive than to make a replacement.

(Of course all this is moot with respect to humans for whom inclusive fitness has little to do with survival and for whom the level of available resources are continuously growing and then crashing in the near future so an evolutionarily stable state cannot develop)

 

I can think of a group of creatures that have taken on the strategy of making the body as resilient as possible to maximise their reproductive lifetime. They are the largest living beings on the planet; trees. If the timescale is long enough even the need to ruggedise itself against climate change or earthquake must be factored into the cost of trying to make a tree immortal - as they have already evolved the resilience to beat once per century forest fires - but even for them longevity is ultimately finite.

[ed84c]

Lionesses. Grrrr

 

Hmm have we seen any evidence that they appear to evolutionarily live longer than say cats that dont display what you say they will?

[AzurePhoenix]

Can't say, but a lion is sure to be more successful genetically than a tiger or jaguar. Entire prides are made up of sisters, aunts, mothers, and grandmothers, who work together to try ensure the survival of as many cubs as possible.

[Christ slave]

Note: I post this as a purely theoretical question' date=' since I base all this on understanding of evolutionary principles and not any statistics or numbers.

 

In biological evolution, a species exists only as far as it can continue to survive and reproduce in many numbers. It would seem that the longer the life span of an animal, the greater the chances are that it would have reproduced, therefore species with greater life spans have greater survivability. So, if this is true, that would mean that biological evolution favors those species that have greater life spans.

 

Given this, why are there still limits on life span of all species? Is it not possible for biological reasons, or has evolution not been fast enough to create such species?[/quote']

 

The same reason a baby does not remain in its mother's womb for all eternity. Sure, a baby can indeed be protected in the womb and does indeed grow healthy and adapt nicely...but at the same rate, regardless of its particular ratio of fragility to other species and things that we know of (particularly adults and born children), it is not enough to simply sit in a womb forever...a caterpillar likewise does not sit in its cocoon forever either. No, then becoming a butterfly would be useless. Likewise, just as a being developing a physical body in the womb of its mother would be absolutely pointless and useless if birth did not exist, so it would be useless to live on earth forever. If you don't believe your spiritual body, which eyes are closed and whatnot and (although some people are quite mature) is very immature, like a fetus, exists, then fine. However, even an unborn baby does not know the light of life and this outward world, nor does it have open eyes or speak with its mouth yet. In fact, it still has an umbilica cord and must drink milk upon its entering into life.

 

Life and eternity does not require that one remain suspended forever (such as sitting in the same old world for all eternity--what a tragedy if this were true and then you were sentenced to a life-setence in prison), however, all life does indeed seem to undergo many trasnforming and blooming processes (such as conception, the emerging of a butterfly from a cocoon, puberty, growing hair, growing fur, maturing, birth, death, etc.).

 

Don't be fooled, all things are eternal, but the transformation(s) and processes may not cease. Don't think this is the only life one has to live...the soul of a being, be it entering into a zygote, be it an embryo and fetus maturing, be it a child growing breasts or beginning to produce sperm and sexually maturing, be it the baby separating from the mother's environment, or be it the spirit separating from the mother earth's environment--awakenings and cycles are undergone. Let us accept reality and truth!

[Christ slave]

And by the way, no pregnancy wants to end prematurely, lest the child be underdeveloped and defective (weak or whatnot). Likewise, the survival for the physical life of a species is dependent on that the longer the life, the more opportunity and whatnot something has for spiritual growth.

 

The things about the spirit is that the spirit is the eternal form, whereas the physical is a representation of rank. So, being a shadow of the spirit, one can use many analogies and insights from this world to begin to connect with the spiritual truth...and as you do this, you also grow. So, whereas one person might be more intelligent than another here and so more consciously aware (while another person is so completely out of their mind that they see a rock being thrown at them and stand there without the inclination to respond and move), although both exist in the same world and existence simultaneously, the ultimate objective is to where the spiritual reality is strengthened in all humanity enough that we're all smart enough to move out of the way from rocks being thrown at us.

 

At the same rate, if one can detach from their body and realize that it is not their true self, they can begin to recognize that all the cells, all things are echoed. So, whereas I might on a certain level/scale move out of the way of a rock being thrown at me and so avoid being injured (or, entering into a wounded/lower state of health), so likewise one might be able to attune on another level and scale to move out of the way of negative and harmful elements--whereby their cells will "move out of the way of rocks" and indeed begin to heal.

 

When one is suffering of disease, it is because he is letting something release their stress, anger, frustration, and to indulge in pleasure on them by allowing them to abuse him/her by allowing that something to throw stones at him/her without moving out of the way. So, when one is suffering, it is indeed possible to be healed--one just simply has to be willing and alert enough to move out of the way of rocks being thrown at them...lest they be beaten to a bloody, paralyzed, and "helpless" state of being stoned to death because they fail to ever drag their self off the railroad tracks.

 

So, whereas one person might know and understand everything about astronomy and another everything about cosmetics, and both seem to be moronic when it comes to learning the other, so likewise many people today are failing to acknowledge and realize that yes, indeed, one has to make the conscious decision to move out of the way of tossed-stones' paths...or, the railroad tracks. So, while one might be smart enough and understanding enough in everything about moving out of the way of a disease (healing), another may not or may be educated in other more spiritually attuned areas.

[AzurePhoenix]

I'm gonna vomit. We get it Christ Slave. But I think crims would like thoughts from a biological standpoint.

[crims]

Thanks everyone, I think I get all I cared to know. And I apologize for re-creating this discussion when the same topic had been raised in another discussion (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8308). I'll use the search feature next time. And Christ slave, no offense but I'm really opposed to your spiritual-political leanings (I didn't want to discuss those things here). But it's refreshing to know people disagree.

[Auburngirl05]

I would think that if individuals in a hyopthetical wild population were living longer and longer, their populations would boom (similar to what is happening now with people as we live longer and the elderly population increases) and would strain the carrying capacity of the environment. The older individuals would probably be out-competed by the younger, more vigorous ones for resources and would eventually succumb anyway, or at least that's my take on things. Also, you'd have to evolve a way to replace teeth (for mammals) and indestructible joints, skin and hair (or fur) that don't get thin with age, etc etc, living eternally would mean you'd wear out a lot of body parts over time without extreme adaptations.

[Radical Edward]

Note: I post this as a purely theoretical question' date=' since I base all this on understanding of evolutionary principles and not any statistics or numbers.

 

In biological evolution, a species exists only as far as it can continue to survive and reproduce in many numbers. It would seem that the longer the life span of an animal, the greater the chances are that it would have reproduced, therefore species with greater life spans have greater survivability. So, if this is true, that would mean that biological evolution favors those species that have greater life spans.

 

Given this, why are there still limits on life span of all species? Is it not possible for biological reasons, or has evolution not been fast enough to create such species?[/quote']

 

one has to remember accumulated damage. Let us assume that an organism could hypothetically live forever, if it lived in a nice padded box and was not injured. i.e. no late onset deleterious genes.

 

In the real world the organism would be prone to injury, either evading predators, accidents, fights, parasites those kinds of things, which the body would not repair perfectly each time. over time damage would accumulate, meaning that an older organism would be much more damaged than a younger organism, hence the younger organism would force the older one from the gene pool. This in turn means that the deleterious genes in the older organism would not be selected for or against, evolutionarily they are neutral, resulting in old age and death.

[Kleptin]

if evolution progressed, would there be an adaptation against this physical harm?

[Skye]

One thing that is worth considering is that many animals have lifecycles with temporally distinct asexual and sexual stages. That temporal distinction is of course maintained by an orderly death.

[Kleptin]

wait, animals such as?

[Hellbender]

wait, animals such as?

Daphnia, or water fleas are a good example.