Evolution has failed?

I have a serious question about evolution that I'm hoping some of our more well read folk may be able to answer.

If the prime reason for the change that happens when spieces evolve is to survive, then why has evolution not stopped ageing? Or at least alowed us to live way longer? It is by far the most persistant threat to our survival and yet the problem has not been resolved?

If we can transform from ozze to conscious biengs, surley the biological clock should be no problem for evolution to overcome!

And a side note, if we are at the top of the line concerning evolution why are there not a more dominant level of humans if we are the largest threat to each other?

Its because Death doesn't exist.
No one ever goes through the experience of Death because it is not there to experience.
Sure our Life shows us that Death is a real experience,but in actuality how would anyone know?
Its because we are a Constant,our "time limit" and "death" are to help us learn,because if everyone knew that we never died,people would be wasting their lives,more so than now.

The Theory of Evolution argues for the survival of the species. Not for survival of an individual of the species.

i think we will see the thw randomness part of evolution will fail. things do evolve, but there is an intelligence within creating.

1. "Stop aging" is not the best way to help a species survive.

2. There are organisms that do not "age." Bacteria, for example, do not age.

As people said above it's for the survival of the species. This is wrong also, it's for the survival of the genes themselves. Once you've got to mating age and passed on your genes, there is not much point to keep the body alive, wasting resources better used on the young new gene-holding offspring.

reply to post by Kargun

If the prime reason for the change that happens when spieces evolve is to survive, then why has evolution not stopped ageing?

I thought it meant for the perpetuation of the species.

To live long enough (with the help of mutations and adaptation) to reach enough maturity to procreate, so the species doesn't completely die off.

Not to live forever.

reply to post by Kargun


First of all, evolution has pretty much stopped since the development of civilization. The weak are generally protected by society and allowed to survive. The special trait that evolution gave us was mental capacity, and THAT might sort out our life span.

But it makes no sense as a species for us to not die. Let's say there were a mutation in one single human being, or several for that matter, that allows them to "not die" from old age. Okay, so all these people survive past breeding age, then what? How do we know these people are invincible and impervious to age? Why would they be biologically selected to continue their genes if they made it PAST relative breeding age. And who would breed with them? HOW would we breed with them? And why would it be sexually selected? What makes a 500 year old person hot?

Plus, degeneration of living tissue is natural and will always happen in living beings. The telomerase strands replicating your DNA run out of material, so unless we can find a way to utilize cancer to make us live forever, it'll never work.

reply to post by Kargun


Evolution is performing naturally....

Its the people's minds which is mutating...

Originally posted by UnivoxSuperfuzz
reply to post by Kargun

 

First of all, evolution has pretty much stopped since the development of civilization. The weak are generally protected by society and allowed to survive.

Just to clarify, evolution doesn't stop. It just stops what we might consider are improvements. If the weak can get away with producing offspring then evolution is working, it's producing offspring with less effort into producing the parents. The more offspring with lower quality(cost) parents is a benefit for evolution(less waste).

reply to post by Okandetre


I understand, which is why I said it "pretty much" stopped. It's certainly abstracted from the natural process, but it technically continues, yes.

Still doesn't mean people will ever biologically live forever. Scientifically we might get there, but again civilization, not evolution.

If humans didn't age the planet would get ridiculously over populated and wouldn't be able to sustain itself. That's not an unrealistic idea in the future, however. Give it 20-30 years, they'll probably be able to do it, but then people have to be responsible about how many kids they have. Genetics has come very far in a relatively quick time. Soon we'll be able to do it all.

reply to post by Kargun


Well im no expert but hasnt the life span of human beings significantly increased throughout the centuries? Im pretty sure it has.

Also with each new generation humans are becoming more intelligent.

en.wikipedia.org...

During the Roman Empire, Romans had a approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years. In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years and in 1985 it was about 62 years, just two years short of today's life expectancy

[url=http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/lifeexpectancy.htm]http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/lifeexpectancy.htm[/ur l]

Evolution basically aids in reproduction, not living. Any mutation that keeps you alive but not reproducing isn't gonna have any more advantage than anything else by natural selection.

Example; Sea horses dying right after mating.

~
Aging is caused by mutations in the skin. Our cells aren't subject to natural selection, because even the "weaker" ones aren't killed off, and are still supported by the body.

We have evolved(ironically) methods of double checking information in our genes before passing it on. We've got the design to try to catch stop mutations, it's just imperfect. Allow me to rephrase that: We've got the design to try to catch stop aging, it's just imperfect.

Also, hypothetically, a perfect system would actually be damaging. Without mutation, there'd never be good mutations to keep, and no species would be able to further develop and adapt.

I'd pick aging over being completely unfit for my environment, and getting killed off because of it.

~
I'd recommend "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It would do a much better job answering your question than I could.

Originally posted by caf1550
reply to post by Kargun

 

Well im no expert but hasnt the life span of human beings significantly increased throughout the centuries? Im pretty sure it has.

Also with each new generation humans are becoming more intelligent.

Both can moreso have the credit given towards human development than evolution. IE a Roman with the same Shelter, Education, medicine, and nutrition would be nearly as good as any of us.

However, it brings up a good point;
Our intelligence could solve aging, and will eventually. Our intelligence is essentially because of our evolution(and there's specific explanations for why we've evolved to have it). In that respect, evolution has created a(second) system that will solve aging.

reply to post by Kargun

That is an excellent question, and it has a fascinating answer. The answer is that death is necessary in order for evolution to occur, and evolution is necessary in order for life to survive.

Death, the replacement of individuals within a species by others, allows for the shuffling and recombination of genes and the rapid spread of beneficial mutations within a population. Both are necessary for natural selection to function; both are needed to keep a species evolving.

Species need to keep evolving in order to adapt to changes in their environment. If they stop evolving, they grow less and less fit. Eventually they die out. The removal of individuals and their genomes from the gene pool is a mechanism for avoiding this.