What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Killer Gift For A Movie Buff view!
bestbuy.com - Insignia Blu-ray player instantly streams Netflix movies right to your TV & comes with a free disc.
359 Comments
- nicksource, on 05/25/2009, -8/+292My Dad said I was an accident of evolution. :(
- fastfood15, on 05/25/2009, -13/+216if we didn't die, then we would compete for resources with our next generation. Evolution would favor species that give birth, provide for the young, and then get out of the way.
- eom64, on 05/25/2009, -10/+123Of course its not an accident. Evolution has selected for diversity. If the older population doesn't die out, then they are competing for resources with the younger generation. The next generation always has a chance of having a genetic change that would be more beneficial to survival. However if the next generation has no chance to survive and populate because the previous generation never died out, then diversity is limited.
It sucks, but evolution has designed us to age and die. - inactive, on 05/25/2009, -4/+99Why do I get the feeling you are young and healthy?.
- shujin, on 05/25/2009, -2/+88Accident is the wrong word, I would perhaps use "product"
- inactive, on 05/25/2009, -1/+86does it have anything to do with the "fastfood" or the "15" in his name?
- Hybride, on 05/25/2009, -0/+51You don't see any of him.
- iEATcatFOOD, on 05/25/2009, -4/+41The only point of evolution is to help an organism survive in a changing environment. No where in nature are you required to be immortal to continue your species.
- xexx, on 05/25/2009, -1/+37We would have to control the birth rates, probably sterilize everyone who's immortal-ish until we get to the point where we can expand into space/other planets or until we have the technology to deal with such large populations...
- dscan, on 05/25/2009, -9/+44life is short.
- nicksource, on 05/25/2009, -1/+35It was a joke but thanks. <3
- LonelyTylenoL, on 05/25/2009, -1/+34I was just trying to be positive :)
- LonelyTylenoL, on 05/25/2009, -10/+36I don't see anything wrong with you. Cheer up! :)
- CTK14A, on 05/25/2009, -3/+26People fail to see the advantages of death. I guess I can't blame them.
- hookai, on 05/25/2009, -2/+24Hi, I'm 137, male, recently divorced and looking for my 73rd bride. Non-aging bitches need not apply.
- Serphyas, on 05/25/2009, -1/+22Oh that's so deep dude.
- justok, on 05/25/2009, -1/+21I'll be dead alot longer than I'll be alive.
- LordPhoenyx, on 05/25/2009, -1/+19There's pills for that!
That's what the emails I keep getting tell me - inactive, on 05/25/2009, -4/+22life is... Too $hort
- DarkKnight5590, on 05/25/2009, -0/+16I like this idea.
Lets do this idea.
Now lets all stop bickering and acting like children and start making space ships that are capable of space travel. - iEATcatFOOD, on 05/25/2009, -0/+15We aren't required in anyway to do anything more than we are now.
Survive and reproduce is all it takes. - melloh31, on 05/25/2009, -1/+16I believe his name is Aubrey De Grey, and he's already claiming to have found the key to aging. His guess is that anyone as old as 30 to 40 could still be saved from the aging processes.
- Disgod, on 05/25/2009, -1/+16"Oh, but wait, you're calling your particular god "evolution" so it's all okay."
How is an explanation for how life developed a god? Are there some rituals, holy days, miracles, scriptures, rules, or tithes?
"I'd bet $1,000 that not one of you have ever read "Origin of the Species""
Why do we have to read "On the Origin of Species"? It's about 150 years old, shouldn't we look at books which are more modern and up to date? Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, and didn't have any knowledge of genetics. I think a more up to date source would be a smarter book to read considering the huge leaps in understanding since Darwin's day.
"Darwin hated the term "evolution", because he saw it as a fantasy constructed by people who considered themselves "too smart" to believe in god, but still wanted a fairytale to explain life in simple terms to them."
Ummm by the time Darwin died he wasn't religious, more agnostic than anything.
"Darwin espoused Natural Selection. The fact that none of you know the difference between the two says all that needs to be said about why the half-informed should never be allowed to have access to computers."
Natural selection is the FOUNDATION of evolution. It is how evolution happens. They are inextricably intertwined. Darwin also explained that life developed slowly over millions of generations, which is also evolution. - sb66, on 05/25/2009, -1/+16you just lost that bet, does paypal work for you?
- infotheory, on 05/25/2009, -0/+151) Evolution is now technologically based in humans. We now, and have for a LONG time, received more benefit from technology than by what most consider natural evolution. Point being, we have no need to preserve the effects of evolution in these terms. As to wait for evolution to provide these required changes would be detrimental to our civilization - it's just too damn slow!
2) The technology required to stop aging is fantastic. Furthermore, these technologies will be applied to an increase in efficiency thereby reducing our need for those natural resources we would otherwise be competing for.
3) It's a fact that, as a societies technology improves, the birth to death ratio stabilizes. In other words, population growth slows down. This seems counter-intuitive but is obvious when studied.
4) Significantly longer lives will drastically increase the privilege of having a child. It will become more of an honor versus an accident.
5) There are already species that live indefinitely despite unnatural death e.g. being stepped on. They have been around for longer than humans thereby suggesting that it is possible for a species to live indefinitely (which means they are not greatly affected by natural evolution) and still survive... even without the fantastic technologies humans posses.
6) Evolution has NOT designed us for death. Evolution has simply not had a reason to supply for life beyond procreation. After we have a child our genes have already been passed on. There is no need, in evolutionary terms, to live much longer than the age of maturity. So, there is no evolutionary reason that we should not and/or can not live indefinitely. - c0mputar, on 05/25/2009, -4/+18Theory of Evolution != Abiogenesis
(2) and (3) have both been observed in nature, and in laboratories.
The theory of evolution has been verified, to the extent that is has been observed in nature (one of many examples would be fruit flies), and in laboratories. We have thousands of fossil records which, combined with carbon dating, explicitly show the evolution of species. We can also examine retro-viruses in our DNA, and like markers, we can trace our lineage through them. In addition, the reproduction process and how an individual's DNA is put together by there parent's, is probably one of the strongest pieces of evidence that a species would evolve, because the individuals that make up the parents are more likely to be the ones that survived to the reproduction stage.
Also, concerning Abiogenesis, scientists have created life in laboratories, the only obstacle we have to overcome at this point, is to come up with an explanation on how DNA was created, which, as some early hypothesis' have suggested, was from RNA strands, because RNA strands have been shown to form on there own with the necessary chemicals present. Heck, abiogenesis could be happening all around us, all the time, it's just that we can't be observing everywhere at once, and even if we saw life as it was right after abiogenesis, it's likely that type of species could be indistinguishable from what we've already categorized as a very simple life form, or that it already was wiped out by more complex organisms before we even knew there was something to observe. Anyways, evidence for life points to abiogenesis occurring within 150 million years after the earth was formed, implying that it was no accident, considering that early earth was an extremely violent place with respect to our current atmosphere.
Regardless, your post seems like a hit and run against the scientific fact which is evolution... because, like with just about every field within biology, they all innately require evolution to work for there fields to be compatible, and the fact that they have all been shown to be compatible, just shows that evolution works. Yes, that was almost circular reasoning. This is no different then finding an explanation for the aging process, which has a cause that is probably a result of natural selection, as many arguments in this thread have explained. The radical theory has been thoroughly disproved as the dominant factor in aging, because they overwhelming fail to explain why some organisms live for minutes, while others last centuries, even millenniums (plants).
Ultimately, to deny the validity of the theory of evolution is tantamount to suggesting that the earth is in the center of the universe, with everything orbiting us... It's in the same ball park, because both theories rely on observations, calculations, deductive (Yes we do) and inductive evidence. - Post4Cash, on 05/26/2009, -0/+14Positivity and civil conversation on digg??!
:O - PabloIV, on 05/25/2009, -3/+16sociological advantages or personal advantages?
If I can retain a fully functioning body and expand my lifetime indefinitely, as an atheist I see no personal advantage in dying.
I can see how if too many people did the same thing it would create a social problem. - Serphyas, on 05/25/2009, -0/+13THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ***** EVOLUTION. Read beyond the comments people! This is about competing theories on the PROCESS of aging!
Oh and by the way, Defuser, you seem to have this flawed notion that modern humans should worship Darwin and everything he wrote on the subject of evolution and Natural Selection, which seems awfully "religious," as you would call it. I'm sorry, but the scientific process entails that we alter our beliefs based on what we know to be true and false. Darwin is famous for first putting FORTH the ideas of Natural Selection, not for being completely correct. - Disgod, on 05/26/2009, -0/+13ID is not a sound theory. Claiming that a "God did it" isn't an explanation...err I mean intelligent designer (Which btw it is the worst smoke screen known to man, ID is a purely religious claim). They do not have any explanation other than that. They have no evidence to support their claims, nor can they create testable hypotheses. They can't even cite anything to support their views. All they can do is corrupt, lie about, and ignore the whole of modern science. ID/Creationism can not be falsified and is not testable. Creationism violates everything in modern science.
The theory of evolution has every single piece of evidence ever collected from modern biology, chemistry, geology, and astronomy(chemical precursors to life found in abundance in space and on planets, specifically Titan), and fits in with the entirety of the scientific understanding of the Universe. Evolution has a proven mechanism, and overwhelming empirical evidence. Evolution can be falsified, and tested against.
If you think the two are somehow on equal footing you are a fool.
"Evolution interprets it according to the assumption that there is no God. "
Science does not start with any assumptions and bases it's conclusions on evidence. And you are creating a false dichotomy, a rather large number of scientists are religious and believe in some form of deity including the Christian god. The theory of evolution is in no way an atheistic theory. - Allusion219, on 05/25/2009, -0/+12Stop trying to argue with the intelligent design idiots. They refuse to see logic and reason, and basically hand-pick which sciences they deem as acceptable because it consequently coincides with the beliefs they already had.
- tidu, on 05/25/2009, -0/+12Just because Darwin didn't have sufficient evidence to prove his theory doesn't mean it's false. Galileo didn't have a vacuum to perform gravity tests in 400 years ago, but guess what, he was right. Anyone who is smart enough to create such a theory is smart enough to hold some doubt about it as well.
- PabloIV, on 05/25/2009, -4/+16I don't like getting into discussions online but I'm pissed already and you really pushed my buttons.
On abiogenesis: There was an article, on this very site, of RNA forming in the laboratory under conditions similar to that of an early earth. Here's the link: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Life_s_First_Spar ...
On the subject of complex organisms evolving, here's various examples from a reputable news source:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/evolutio ...
On single cells evolving into multicellular organisms. I couldn't find any solid example in the less than 2 minutes that it took me to find the other two. Mostly because I couldn't find a good query to use.
It's people like you that keep the world behind. A bit of skepticism is healthy, but remaining ignorant to the mountain of evidence readily available with under an hour of research is just plain retarded. - inactive, on 05/25/2009, -7/+19You're either:
A: A Religious Person.
B: An Internet Troll.
C: Someone who genuinely has a reason for disagreement.
D: None / More than one of the above. - inactive, on 05/25/2009, -2/+13thats would require 85% of the population to not be complete morons. so it will never happen, right now evolution is favoring the stupid.
- airwalkery2k, on 05/25/2009, -3/+14There are so many people in the world who don't deserve to live forever. Hell, I'm probably one of them. But, there are some geniuses and brilliant people who would advance society, culture, and science if they could have lived on longer.
Then again, having some bureaucracy to decide who gets to live forever and who gets to die would be scary and abused and probably lead to some elite, ruling class dystopia. - frostcrow, on 05/25/2009, -3/+14I'm pretty sure that everything is accidental/chance that is how evolution works. There is no "intent" unless you believe there was a creator.
Do you not see the difference ? You can't have it both ways. - LonelyTylenoL, on 05/25/2009, -0/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_grey
Interesting stuff, nonetheless.
These are his theories why we age:
"The seven types of aging damage proposed by de Grey
Main article: Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
1. Cancer-causing nuclear mutations/epimutations:
These are changes to the nuclear DNA (nDNA), the molecule that contains our genetic information, or to proteins which bind to the nDNA. Certain mutations can lead to cancer, and, according to de Grey, non-cancerous mutations and epimutations do not contribute to aging within a normal lifespan, so cancer is the only endpoint of these types of damage that must be addressed.
2. Mitochondrial mutations:
Mitochondria are components in our cells that are important for energy production. They contain their own genetic material, and mutations to their DNA can affect a cell’s ability to function properly. Indirectly, these mutations may accelerate many aspects of aging.
3. Intracellular aggregates:
Our cells are constantly breaking down proteins and other molecules that are no longer useful or which can be harmful. Those molecules which can’t be digested simply accumulate as junk inside our cells. Atherosclerosis, macular degeneration and all kinds of neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer's disease) are associated with this problem.
4. Extracellular aggregates:
Harmful junk protein can also accumulate outside of our cells. The amyloid plaque seen in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients is one example.
5. Cell loss:
Some of the cells in our bodies cannot be replaced, or can only be replaced very slowly - more slowly than they die. This decrease in cell number causes the heart to become weaker with age, and it also causes Parkinson's disease and impairs the immune system.
6. Cell senescence:
This is a phenomenon where the cells are no longer able to divide, but also do not die and let others divide. They may also do other things that they’re not supposed to, like secreting proteins that could be harmful. Immune senescence and type 2 diabetes are caused by this.[citation needed]
7. Extracellular crosslinks:
Cells are held together by special linking proteins. When too many cross-links form between cells in a tissue, the tissue can lose its elasticity and cause problems including arteriosclerosis and presbyopia.[6]" - BaphClass, on 05/25/2009, -1/+11Show me some scientist-backed, peer-reviewed proof that it's 'bull-manure,' or you're just a troll.
- freezo1994, on 05/25/2009, -2/+12fyl
- Disgod, on 05/25/2009, -0/+10The theory of evolution in no way states that any organism should live for any specific period of time.
"it evolution BS thats right BS"
You are full of *****, that's right *****... You are not just full of rancid *****, you are vapid tool who apparently has shuttered and locked down your mind to reality and anything that contradicts your idiotic bronze age book of myths. - ApokalypseNow, on 05/25/2009, -0/+10Congratulations on completely missing the point, and on completely misunderstanding how evolution works.
- nitsuj, on 05/25/2009, -3/+13@Defuser
"If, in fact, "species survival" is the ultimate goal of evolution (which clearly it isn't, considering how many species go extinct on a regular basis) then the absolute BEST thing evolution could accomplish is an immortal species, because then there's no need to "continue" your species."
The problem with this line of thought is that you are neglecting to remember that life evolves via imperfect replication. Lifeforms are shaped via natural selection to fit their environment. Without death, this simple act of changing to suite the environment through subsequent generations can't happen.
"Despite their constant mockery of Intelligent Design, they'll claim that "evolution" is somehow "intelligent" and has a "design" that it follows."
I've never heard that. Anyone who says evolution is intelligent or has a design is saying so in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's the claim of ID.
"BTW, the notion that human beings are somehow the ultimate form of life just because "we say so" is an INCREDIBLY religious idea."
The theory of evolution does not have the concept of an ultimate life form. Where are you getting this from?
"Amoebae, bacteria and cockroaches get along just fine, despite being no more intelligent that the average Digger."
Insults aside, those creatures are well suited to their environment. If intelligence is a useful survival trait to a creature in another environment, such as the environments we have experiences in our history, then it is also a useful selection trait. - blitzkriegpunk, on 05/26/2009, -0/+10Head asplode.
- Serphyas, on 05/25/2009, -1/+10You mean "100%," right? Unless everyone dies ten times over.
- Narcism, on 05/25/2009, -3/+12Maybe he thought that if nothing aged, thus nothing died, there wouldn't be enough resources to sustain such retardation?
- MrsFuttbucker, on 05/25/2009, -1/+10Why is there no mention of the immortal jellyfish, Turritopsis nutricula ? :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula
Also, research like this that points out the possibility of reversing aging one day doesn't help me at all in the present. What is essential is that people wake up and start adopting a healthy lifestyle to live long enough until they find a cure for aging.
We have to find relevant data that actually helps us in the present, instead of clinging on to the belief that you can continue munching on your grilled KFC and expect a miracle anti-aging pill one day.
What are the secrets of Centernarians ? How does Countries such as Singapore & Japan have such high life expectancies ? What is the Roseta Town effect ? Does Resveratrol truly help ? Does Angela Stoke's raw vegan diet truly work ? Does sex help me live longer ?
The internet is vast and infinite. Do your own research, if you want to live. - tidu, on 05/25/2009, -0/+9dugg for doug
- Disgod, on 05/25/2009, -4/+13"For starters, it's not scientific. "
lol, so the whole of modern biology isn't scientific? I guess if you really believe that you shouldn't bother going to the doctor. Most of modern medicine is in some way directly or indirectly influenced by the theory of evolution. Vaccines, antibiotics, medicines for genetic diseases, etc etc.
"It's not testable, not deductive (no direct proof, only inferences) and not observable."
Not testable eh? Hmmm how could evolution be tested? Let's see, find a bunny, dog, cat, human, t-rex in the pre-cambrian era geologic areas or any other organism which is out of place in the fossil record at any point. Find an organism that has absolutely nothing to do with any other life on Earth and no evolutionary cousins. Show that beneficial mutations can't happen (This has been proven countless times). Show that the whole of modern genetics is wrong. Show that most DNA can't mutate freely. Show that natural selection doesn't work. And the list goes on forever practically. Evolution is absolutely disprovable, and yet even with 150 years of constant testing it has withstood all comers.
As for single celled evolving into more complex forms:
A paper about a single celled organism which evolved into a multi-celled organism:
Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity by M.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998
Biologist explaining the evidence for single to multi-celled organisms, including species which can live both unicellular life and multicellular life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Rlu9rWTwI
And just a little more:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB922.html - shdwfx, on 05/25/2009, -6/+14From a certain evolutionary standpoint, once all offspring is created and reared, a specimen does not serve a purpose for the survival/fitness of its species; and if it dies, it removes itself from contention for scarce resources. Yes, greatly simplified, but you get the idea.
I wouldn't call this an accident. It seems like a pretty basic trait of evolution. -
Show 51 - 100 of 365 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is