Evolution, Ageing and Man

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I have been thinking about evolution and the differences is life expectancy between mamals, reptiles and the human race. I decided that it was important to reference the difference between mamals and reptiles because reptiles have been on the planet far longer, since the dinosour times and it will validate some of my assumptions later on.

First of all one of my theories is that the lifespan of a species in relation to its mass is an indication as to how evolved the species is in terms of its potential. To add some grounding to this thought I have decided to compare reptiles of similar mass to mammals.It is calculated that reptiles have been present on the earth for 300 million years, wheras mammals 200 million years. I am going to make the assumption that a species that has been on the planet 100 million years longer should have their evolution development potential more fulfilled so if my theory has basis it would indicate that Reptiles of equivelant mass should have a longer life expectancy. Now lets take a look at some examples.


Iguana - 15 Years
Rat - 2 to 3 Years

Sea Turtle - at least 80 years
Elephant Seal - 23 years

Python - 30 years
Badger - 14 Years

Salt water Crocodile - 70 to 100 Years
Rhino - 40 to 50 Years

As you can see the reptiles generally seem to have quite a significantly longer life span than that of a mammal with a similar mass. I also didn't have to go searching for examples to back up my theory, I literally thought of the first examples in my head and found the details on the internet.

The conclusion of this theory then leads me onto the human race and its evolution. The human race's current life expectancy is 67.2 years and in my opinion this is artificially higher than it should be due to modern medicine but for now we will disregard that point. So if you work off my theory above where would that put us in the evolution scale, well it puts us around mid way if you compare us to a sea turtle who have been known to live for 200 years.

So does that mean that humans can evolve to be much more than what they are, my opinion is yes. I think that the length of time a species can live is directly proportional to its stage in evolution and mass and I believe this because young species need shorter life expectancys so that there are more generations of that species giving it more chance to evolve. When a species is more evolved life turns its attention to life preservation as there is no more need for evolution.

Now what is the problem with this and the human race, well it is simple really as I believe modern society and modern medicine has considerably slowed our evolution if not halted it. In todays age we keep people alive with genetic defeacts who in the natural world would not have survived meaning they get to keep that defective gene in the whole system and it is passed onto further generations. Also our cycles of generations are much longer than they would be without technology meaning we have slowed down our evolution this way too.

All in all my conclusion is that our evolution has grinded to a halt and our future selfs could be potentially much greater than we will be due to our knowledge. I don't think this will change much either until one of two things happen.

1) A global catastraphy that eliminates our technologies but not our species and sends us back to the wild.

or

2) Genetic modification becomes socially acceptable and we evolve ourselves through our knowledge of genetic engineering and modern medical techniques.

Just my thoughts and I was wondering what people think?




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Interesting topic OP.

I don't think our evolution is grinding to a halt so much as its slowing to make a turn. The evolution of knowledge, science and technology has grown exponentially. It's as if we are at a great precipice. We can go back, forget about our recent discoveries, and go back to a simple "god fearing" life, or we can take a "quantum leap" and reject ignorance, defeat and self destruction.

I think we are watching the last dying throes of an old and outdated thought process rooted in ignorance and superstition, oppression and greed. We can't move forward when a vast number of people are gleefully calling for the destruction of the world. This kind of thinking needs to be rejected by the vast majority and adopted by new powers that be.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I think Evolution in the pure form of natural evolution has stopped due to the human race not letting the weak dye out. However I also think there is another option as I said, I think our evolution can only be bourne out of science and self evolution now. genetic engineering and such. I think that is where we stand as a race now at a kind of cross roads. However do we have the right to play god, or is it that god intended us to do this eventually? do we become God if we self evolve?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Modern medicine and modern life is absolutely accelerated our evolution
and in within the next 50 years we will probably become more than human.
Transhumanism is coming people
We will achieve immortality
We will modify our DNA
we will merge man and machine

Humanity will become an endangered species and it won't be because of asteroids or global warming.
By the end of this century the Human race will be going the way of the Neanderthal.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaOwl
 



But that isn't evolution in terms of natural selection (Darwin) which is my whole point of the post. My point is that in order to evolve further ourselves we will have to do it through our own knowledge because medicine keeps the bad genes in the pool thus stifling natural selection.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaOwl

Modern medicine and modern life is absolutely accelerated our evolution
and in within the next 50 years we will probably become more than human.


The evolution of memes is very fast, but that of genes is as slow as it's always been.

But memes are not human, they just inhabit, compete, evolve and and reproduce in the environment defined by the collective human mind.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
My prediction is that man will choose to make its own evolution through genetic engineering and when it does the human race will split in two. There will be those that cannot afford to embrace this medical science and those that can. I predict a super race will be created and those that were poor will be left behind. What will come of those people I do not know, probably slavery or extinsion.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
My prediction is that man will choose to make its own evolution through genetic engineering and when it does the human race will split in two. There will be those that cannot afford to embrace this medical science and those that can. I predict a super race will be created and those that were poor will be left behind. What will come of those people I do not know, probably slavery or extinsion.


Yes, but this threat isn't new. Hitler and the KKK were on the same page, but incorrect in judging the viability of those they would condemn.

How many enemies has mankind overcome and how many more will come. Polio, Tuberculosis, Leprosy, Aids, and our own weapons of mass destruction.

Richard Dawkins, in "The Selfish Gene" embraces the importance of altruism in the evolution of all species. Ignorant and bigoted selection will not breed a supreme species, all thing considered. A "rounded education" is still needed in order for a species to survive, not some super hybrid.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 

Your thesis is based on two mistaken assumptions.

The first is that there is such a thing as 'evolutionary potential'. There is not. Evolution is not a ladder on which species climb higher and higher as time goes on. There is only more or less perfect adaptation to a given environment, and since environments are forever changing, no species remains perfectly adapted for very long.

The second is that reptiles live longer than mammals because they have evolved for longer. Reptiles tend to have slower metabolisms than mammals; that is why they tend to be longer-lived. They live more slowly, so they live longer. Worms have existed for longer than reptiles and they're pretty short-lived. Also, don't forget that longer-lived species take longer to evolve because of the greater time between generations.

It may be possible for human beings to live much longer than we do now, but any such lifespan increase will be the result of advances in medical science, not evolution.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Other people have also been intrigued by the varying life spans of different animal. One of my favouritse is the "number of heart beats" theory that suggest that all animals have a set number of heartbeats.

Therefore, smaller mamals, shrews and mice for example that have rapidly beating hearts have shorter lifespans that larger mamals such as whales that have slower heartbeats, but they both have the same number of heart beats.

Apparently the equation works equaly as well for birds, fish and reptiles.

beholders.org...

this article links mass, metabolism and herat rate.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
Iguana - 15 Years
Rat - 2 to 3 Years

Sea Turtle - at least 80 years
Elephant Seal - 23 years

Python - 30 years
Badger - 14 Years

Salt water Crocodile - 70 to 100 Years
Rhino - 40 to 50 Years

As you can see the reptiles generally seem to have quite a significantly longer life span than that of a mammal with a similar mass. I also didn't have to go searching for examples to back up my theory, I literally thought of the first examples in my head and found the details on the internet.

All the mammals you mention live in social groups, while the reptiles do not. That should be expected to have quite an effect on the impact on life expectancy, due to easier quarrels and shortened average life expectancy for members lower in a hierachy.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I think eventually a human will live to be 200 years old. When exactly that will happen is still unclear but I think it's sooner than we think. It will be a huge milestone and that person will find themselves in the history books.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
The less complex the organism, the longer the lifespan, generally speaking. The trick to longevity seems to be the conservation of energy.

We are very, very close to longevity treatments. Look up telomeres and aging. Fascinating topic. The last I'd heard, human trials will be starting within the next 10 years.

Which opens up a whole Pandora's box of issues. First and above all will be a huge population explosion. The birth rate will not change, and with people living so much longer, it's going to be a problem. Second, we don't know what toll it will take on us once we hit a certain age. Cancers, heart issues, memory problems...these will most likely skyrocket and new diseases we've never even thought of yet will arise.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Evolution isnt slowed down its actually in Overdrive now. All the chemicals, radiation and Mutagens in the enviroment are scrambling our DNA good. The most common result is cancer but thats how evolution works. kill 1 million so one trait can emerge that lets us live 2 years longer.

With every cell division there is evolution going on. however Most doesnt affect us very much.

I guess the driving force of modern medicine will be Viral Therapy. With a specially designed virus you can virtually hunt down any cancer cell. and the cancer itselfs provides more virus until its gone. And of course Genetherapy where viruses are used to deliever a gene. Phage (viruses of bacteria) can destroy any bacterial pathogene and so on.

Maybe incorperate viruses into our DNA is a good idea too. As a sort of alternative immunesystem. Viruses can replace whole organs. The stomach could be argumented with viruses that Lyse living cells and use the machinery of those "host" cells to add to our cells. So there is no need anymore to produce other proteins except virus itself.

Hmm that would definatly create a new form of human. I guess Homoviridea would be a good name.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


[Human] aging is all in the mind. Focus on health and eternal youth and you'd be surprised what you might get.

This is according to "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrne.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Eternal youth is through science. Science is the next step in human evolution. I've been working on this theory for a while now and I feel that human evolution is going to progress now with our technological advancements. i watched The Fifth Element and wondered how her DNA was so compact. I think I have an answer. Normal DNA comsists of two nucleic acid bases held together by simple ribosome excrements. Our ribosomes use simple sugars as their energy source. One day we will train our ribosomes to use different sugars to create more complex DNA strands. The term is De-oxyribose Nucleic Acids. The term for the next stage in evolution will be Qual-oxyribose Nucleic Acids, using four different bases instead of two for each link in the chain, making it resemble a spiralling cross helix instead of a spiralling ladder helix. When you do the math of the possibilities of construction based on your own DNA into QNA, I found that there is only one combo per person. If all four bases are used based on the two bases in a ladder helix, there is only one possible arrangement for all four bases to fit together properly.
QNA is going to be based on heavy isotopes. Heavier then we have now. Isotopes that are constantly negatively charged. The heavy isotopes will have so many neutrons comprised of only Higg's Bosons, that an additional valence level of electrons will be needed. The only problem here is decay. The negatively charged particles will react instantly with any positive isotopes and exchange will be constant.
As for eternal youth, telomerase, a stem cell derived enzyme, reconstructs the split ends on our DNA strands as good nexxus hair products restore luster and shine. If you have money, you can live forever on telomerase, polymerase, and pure electricity: the energy source of our cells in the ever nearing future.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 

First of all, the lineages leading to contemporary species have all existed for the same exact time. As to why reptiles tend to live longer than mammals, it has to do with the ectotherm/endotherm (cold/warm blood) divide..



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


First, it's your hypothesis not theory. I don't want to nitpick, just clarifying this point because the term theory is very often misrepresented on this topic.

Secondly, evolution is not linear, therefore, there is no "potential" as the term would indicate that there is a higher level to attain which is not the case.

Lastly, humans continue to evolve. Genes are combined when a child is born. All medical and technical knowledge does is add in another factor that may help a gene expression that is not optimal in a natural environment reach sexual maturity.



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

rhinoceros
reply to post by michael1983l
 

As to why reptiles tend to live longer than mammals, it has to do with the ectotherm/endotherm (cold/warm blood) divide..


To be more precise it's actually metabolic rate that determines longevity. For example, reptiles of the same species will live longer at a higher latitude than those at a lower latitude. Ambient temperature also influences the longevity of endotherms.

Also, some reptiles live longer than some mammals and vice versa, even those of a similar mass. When discussing longevity, the ecto/endotherm comparison is misleading.





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join