Life span and evolution

Originally posted by humy
living things being programmed to age specifically to function to die of aging, unless this (somehow) results in an overall reproductive advantage (and I/we don't see how), wouldn't make any evolutionary sense whatsoever i.e. cannot be explained by evolution theory. Thus your skeptical of that claim is irrational and/or based on ignorance of the subject.
"lac ...[text shortened]... often no measurable natural selection pressure for anti-aging attributes for beyond that window.

It may not be an advantage to have a longer life span from a reproductive standpoint, but species can be selectively bred to have longer life spans so here is my conclusion:

Natural selection can result in a life span increasing because of genetics.

You can nit pick and say it is not programmed because of your lack of understanding, but it clearly is genetic and it can increase or decrease because of artificial selection. This has been proven. To claim natural selection cannot change this programming is ignorant. Look at an ape's life span and a person's. To deny this is to deny evolution.

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. People may have a slowly increasing life span on a hereditary level right now because of modern medicine increasing the amount of older people reproducing. It is just too slow to notice and will take many generations for it to be noticeable.

Originally posted by wildgrass
There is some evidence that human lifespans can be genetic (although complicated by lifestyle factors, see the island of Sardinia, Italy http://www.ibtimes.com/sardinias-secret-longevity-genetics-diet-lifestyle-754380).

Also, I would not rely on domesticated species for evidence of evolutionary oddities. These species did not evolve by "survival of the ...[text shortened]... e physical forces limit its fitness (at which point it should die and stop consuming resources.)

Fruit flies were not domesticated. Domestication isn't even relevant. Just because dogs are evolving because of artificial selection does not mean they are not evolving. Selective breeding longer life spans pretty much proves you wrong. Natural selection can result in the same thing and it does as far as I'm concerned, just takes longer. You are just having a hard time accepting it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Fruit flies were not domesticated. Domestication isn't even relevant. Just because dogs are evolving because of artificial selection does not mean they are not evolving. Selective breeding longer life spans pretty much proves you wrong. Natural selection can result in the same thing and it does as far as I'm concerned, just takes longer. You are just having a hard time accepting it.

There are some sharks found to be living over 400 years and why nobody really knows. That goes WAY past simple reproductive maturity.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
It may not be an advantage to have a longer life span from a reproductive standpoint, but species can be selectively bred to have longer life spans so here is my conclusion:

Natural selection can result in a life span increasing because of genetics.

You can nit pick and say it is not programmed because of your lack of understanding, but it clearly ...[text shortened]... producing. It is just too slow to notice and will take many generations for it to be noticeable.

It may not be an advantage to have a longer life span from a reproductive standpoint, but species can be selectively bred to have longer life spans

This is artificial selection you are refiring to here which obeys different rules from natural selection because artificial selection can be done for selection of traits that have nothing to do with the chances of reproductive success.
Since natural selection, as opposed to and unlike artificial selection, only selects for maximumizing reproductive success, what artificial selection can do is irrelevant because artificial selection can select for traits that wouldn't ever be selected by natural selection, such as dogs with ridiculously short deformed legs that probably wouldn't survive in the wild for long etc.
To suppose that just because we can artificially select for a trait, such as longevity, that means natural selection must also select for that same trait, is idiotic.
Artificial selection can be done to select for a far greater possible range of traits many of which natural selection would never select for.

To claim natural selection cannot change this programming is ignorant.

Where did I/we claim this? We didn't.
Where and when greater longevity measurably increases chances of reproductive success, natural selection will selective for genes that help with greater longevity. One thing natural selection will not select for in particular is genes for greater longevity when and where that greater longevity makes no measurable difference to the chances of reproductive success. This helps to explain why we haven't all evolved with each of us having the natural potential to live for, say, 1000 years old.

Originally posted by humy

It may not be an advantage to have a longer life span from a reproductive standpoint, but species can be selectively bred to have longer life spans

This is artificial selection you are refiring to here which obeys different rules from natural selection because artificial selection can be done for selection of traits that have nothing to ...[text shortened]... ven't all evolved with each of us having the natural potential to live for, say, 1000 years old.

" that means natural selection must also select for that same trait, is idiotic. "

Using the word "must" instead of "can" is idiotic! I never suggested it must. Stop assuming!

Originally posted by sonhouse
There are some sharks found to be living over 400 years and why nobody really knows. That goes WAY past simple reproductive maturity.

The Bowhead Whale (mammal) lives pretty long as well. I do not know why, but this does show that natural selection can result in longer life spans despite Humy's arrogance. The fact that closely related species can have different life spans proves that unless Humy has become a closet creationist.

http://www.livescience.com/9769-humans-outlive-apes.html

I do not agree with the conclusion of the writer of the article above, but it does show that primates do evolve different life spans.

Edit: Are you sure Sharks life that long? I could not verify your claim.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
" that means natural selection must also select for that same trait, is idiotic. "

Using the word "must" instead of "can" is idiotic! I never suggested it must. Stop assuming!

that 'can' is also 'unlikely' so it makes little difference which you meant.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The Bowhead Whale (mammal) lives pretty long as well. I do not know why, but this does show that natural selection can result in longer life spans despite Humy's arrogance. The fact that closely related species can have different life spans proves that unless Humy has become a closet creationist.

http://www.livescience.com/9769-humans-outlive-apes.ht ...[text shortened]... the writer of the article above, but it does show that primates do evolve different life spans.

The Bowhead Whale (mammal) lives pretty long as well. I do not know why, but this does show that natural selection can result in longer life spans despite Humy's arrogance.

I never believed nor said/implied in any way that that natural selection cannot result in longer life spans. In fact, I clearly repeatedly implied the exact opposite to what you claim I claim i.e. I claim that evolution CAN result in longer life spans especially with my last comment of;

"...Where and when greater longevity measurably increases chances of reproductive success, natural selection will selective for genes that help with greater longevity. ..." (my previous quote)

Please at least actually bother to actually read my posts to see what I actually said before dishing out incorrect and ignorant arrogant insults and stop embarrassing yourself .

Originally posted by humy

The Bowhead Whale (mammal) lives pretty long as well. I do not know why, but this does show that natural selection can result in longer life spans despite Humy's arrogance.

I never believed nor said/implied in any way that that natural selection cannot result in longer life spans. In fact, I clearly implied the exact opposite to what yo ...[text shortened]... lly read my posts to see what I actually said before dishing out incorrect and ignorant insults.

So you are just saying my explanation is wrong? Great! Tell me your best theory instead of poo pooing on me just because you resent me for my debating ability.

BTW, you insulted me first you hypocrite!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So you are just saying my explanation is wrong?

No, not just that your explanation is wrong; I have stated why it is wrong and what is the correct explanation. Please go back actually bother to read what I actually said before embarrassing yourself any further yet again.
Pay particular attention to my quote of;

"...Where and when greater longevity measurably increases chances of reproductive success, natural selection will select for genes that help with greater longevity. One thing natural selection will not select for in particular is genes for greater longevity when and where that greater longevity makes no measurable difference to the chances of reproductive success. This helps to explain why we haven't all evolved with each of us having the natural potential to live for, say, 1000 years old...."

Tell me your best theory

I just did 3 times only for you to simply completely ignore what I actually say, as usual. And it isn't just 'my' theory but that of many (if not most) evolutionary biologists. See my theory above; it is in that quote.

poo pooing on me just because you resent me for my debating ability.

this above comment of yours (and many others) shows you delusional arrogance; nobody here including I is at all impressed with your 'debating ability' and you are showing delusional arrogance in expressing the belief that I/we are impressed.

Originally posted by humy
No, not just that your explanation is wrong; I have stated why it is wrong and what is the correct explanation. Please go back actually bother to read what I actually said before embarrassing yourself any further yet again.
Pay particular attention to my quote of;

"...Where and when greater longevity measurably increases chances of reproductive success, nat ...[text shortened]... bility' and you are showing delusional arrogance in expressing the belief that we are impressed.

Great! Explain why a specific mammal species evolved a longer life span because of greater reproductive success. 😏

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Great! Explain why a specific mammal species evolved a longer life span because of greater reproductive success.

I obviously didn't imply a species evolved a longer life span because of greater reproductive success.
I clearly implied if a greater reproductive success results from a longer life span then a longer life span would tend to evolve.
Can't you read? Or do you choose to be confused? Exactly which part of;

"...Where and when greater longevity measurably increases chances of reproductive success, natural selection will select for genes that help with greater longevity..."

do you not understand?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Fruit flies were not domesticated. Domestication isn't even relevant. Just because dogs are evolving because of artificial selection does not mean they are not evolving. Selective breeding longer life spans pretty much proves you wrong. Natural selection can result in the same thing and it does as far as I'm concerned, just takes longer. You are just having a hard time accepting it.

I just found it interesting that the species you chose as examples were primarily domesticated (cows and dogs) and are typically not relevant species for evolutionary discussions. Upon further reading it seems like you are purposefully looking for examples that do not fit a theory, but that was not clear in the original post. Sorry.

Why do you reject the metabolic rate theory? It seems to fit most predictions pretty accurately. It is not logical to me to think that "There has to be some sort of competitive advantage to limited life spans" when there are obvious physical limitations (entropy) which counteract life's highly complex molecular architecture. Evolution is simply working within that physical framework to select for traits with a higher fitness.

Originally posted by wildgrass
I just found it interesting that the species you chose as examples were primarily domesticated (cows and dogs) and are typically not relevant species for evolutionary discussions. Upon further reading it seems like you are purposefully looking for examples that do not fit a theory, but that was not clear in the original post. Sorry.

Why do you reject th ...[text shortened]... ion is simply working within that physical framework to select for traits with a higher fitness.

Man does not have the longest life span of all species. Not even of all mammals. I'm not rejecting it as a factor, but I think life span is limited for a reason. My theory is that it helps evolutionary progress and that is the advantage. Unlimited life spans would hinder long term progress.

Originally posted by humy
I obviously didn't imply a species evolved a longer life span because of greater reproductive success.
I clearly implied if a greater reproductive success results from a longer life span then a longer life span would tend to evolve.
Can't you read? Or do you choose to be confused? Exactly which part of;

"...Where and when greater longevity measurabl ...[text shortened]... l selection will select for genes that help with greater longevity..."

do you not understand?

I see. I considered the same thing, but having a longer life span to reproduce would seem to have greater reproductive success too. Clearly a limited life span has greater benefit to a collective species than not. Without it change (for survival) would be stunted in certain ways. That is my theory.