Aging Process of Species Challenges Current Evolutionary Theory

A new demographic study has been making its rounds and was recently published in the Nature Journal of Science. The abstract below indicates that the empirical data of various species in regard to the aging process is NOT in line with current evolutionary theories.

Diversity of ageing across the tree of life
www.nature.com...

Evolution drives, and is driven by, demography. A genotype moulds its phenotype’s age patterns of mortality and fertility in an environment; these two patterns in turn determine the genotype’s fitness in that environment. Hence, to understand the evolution of ageing, age patterns of mortality and reproduction need to be compared for species across the tree of life. However, few studies have done so and only for a limited range of taxa. Here we contrast standardized patterns over age for 11 mammals, 12 other vertebrates, 10 invertebrates, 12 vascular plants and a green alga. Although it has been predicted that evolution should inevitably lead to increasing mortality and declining fertility with age after maturity, there is great variation among these species, including increasing, constant, decreasing, humped and bowed trajectories for both long- and short-lived species. This diversity challenges theoreticians to develop broader perspectives on the evolution of ageing and empiricists to study the demography of more species.

A more general review of the material is linked to below. The authors express the implications very succinctly concerning the reasoning as to WHY this data and conclusion should be further scrutinized and reproduced.

New Demographic Data Show How Diversely Different Species Age
scitechdaily.com...

New demographic data on humans, animals and plants for the first time unveil such an extraordinary diversity of aging processes that no existing evolutionary theory can account for. Both life spans and mortalities vary from species to species. The fact that the probability of dying rises with age applies to humans, but is not principally true. This is shown by a catalog of 46 species with their respective mortality and fertility rates . . .

I am looking forward to the response from the geneticists and biologists to this article as to how this issue specifically impacts their models of the evolutionary process or if it is thrown out entirely.

Please post opinions if you must.

Links to other journals addressing this topic are more then welcome.

-FBB

Are you claiming that the question casts doubt on evolutionary theory? It doesn't. It isn't a "challenge". It is saying that there may be more aspects to evolutionary theory than just reproduction. It's a good proposal.

Why do human females live long after their ability to reproduce? Hmmm...let's see. Perhaps because they can contribute to the survival of others that still can. Perhaps they can help rear to sexual maturity children of mothers who have died. For further study I would look at the tendency for socialization as an evolutionary advantage. A tribe with long lived females just might have a better chance of survival than a tribe with females which die before (or soon after) menopause. Looked at in this regard, extended lifespans would be an evolutionary plus.

Phage
Are you claiming that the question casts doubt on evolutionary theory? It doesn't. It is saying that there may be more aspects to evolutionary theory than just reproduction. It's a good proposal.

Why do human females live long after their ability to reproduce? Hmmm...let's see. Perhaps because they can contribute to the survival of others that still can. Perhaps they can rear to sexual maturity children of mothers who have died. For further study I would look at the tendency for socialization as an evolutionary advantage. A tribe with long lived females just might have a better chance of survival than a tribe with females which die before menopause.

Current models are definitely having doubt cast upon them. The so called evolutionary mechanisms driving them fail to account for the observed results. This is why I said another institute should investigate this and see if they can reproduce the results.

The study was done by the Max Planck Institute so it is not as though it's some religious challenge.

This is observational data which is not in accord with the predictions of current models.

So if the models are not shown to account for this phenomena, then yes . . . the current incarnation of evolutionary theory would be wrong.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Current models are definitely having doubt cast upon them.

No they aren't. Please point out where the article in question casts doubt on evolutionary theory.

This is why I said another institute should investigate this and see if they can reproduce the results.

What results? From the abstract of the source article:

A genotype moulds its phenotype’s age patterns of mortality and fertility in an environment; these two patterns in turn determine the genotype’s fitness in that environment.

Mortality patterns. If a female with an extended lifespan can improved the chances of survival of related children to maturity they can improve probability of survival of the phenotype. It's not that complicated.

So if the models are not shown to account for this phenomena, then yes . . . the current incarnation of evolutionary theory would be wrong.

I'm not sure what models you're talking about but evolutionary theory definitely has room to be expanded. But this in no way indicates that it is "wrong".

Phage
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Current models are definitely having doubt cast upon them.

No they aren't. Please point out where the article in question casts doubt on evolutionary theory.

Wow, already responding like your panties are in a wad Phage.

It is clearly stated in the abstract;

This diversity challenges theoreticians to develop broader perspectives on the evolution of ageing and empiricists to study the demography of more species.

If the theory does not account for observed results and must be modified it is wrong . . . What is so difficult to understand about that?

I'm not sure what models you're talking about but evolutionary theory definitely has room to be expanded. But this in no way indicates that it is "wrong".

Because that is the scientific method . . . right?

Its not wrong we just need to change it to make it work . . . puuhh-leaazzzz

-FBB


PS
If it is really that simple maybe you should contact the Max Planck Institute and inform them that they are mistaken. Here is the link for you to get in contact ; www.mpg.de...

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Wow, already responding like your panties are in a wad Phage.

No. Just asking how you came to the conclusion that the article indicates a "challenge".

If the theory does not account for observed results and must be modified it is wrong . . . What more is so difficult to understand about that?

What is so difficult to understand that refining an existing theory does not mean the theory is wrong? Or don't you understand how science works?

Its not wrong we just need to change it to make it work

It works just fine and the article you've brought to our attention does not indicate that it doesn't.

Would you like to comment on my reasons for thinking that extended female lifespans may have an evolutionary advantage?

reply to post by Phage

Although it has been predicted that evolution should inevitably lead to increasing mortality and declining fertility with age after maturity, there is great variation among these species, including increasing, constant, decreasing, humped and bowed trajectories for both long- and short-lived species. This diversity challenges theoreticians to develop broader perspectives on the evolution of ageing and empiricists to study the demography of more species.

I am going to pretend you didn't read the actual journal and are posting your opinion in regards to the potential discrepancies which they specifically target in regards to evolutionary theory.

It is not just humans that buck the trend, but turtles and other animals as well . . . other non-social animals.

The current models and predictions certainly are not "right," whether that makes them "wrong" I suppose is another issue entirely.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

I am going to pretend you didn't read the actual journal and are posting your opinion in regards to the potential discrepancies which they specifically target in regards to evolutionary theory.

I did read the abstract. Did you read the full paper?

It is not just humans that buck the trend, but turtles and other animals as well . . . other non-social animals.

I guess you must have read the full article because that is not what the abstract says. It says there is great variation.

But the article you linked about the paper does say this:

This makes humans a real oddity. No other species in the researcher’s catalog has a mortality curve which rises that sharply. Even among other mammals, death rates reach no more than five times the lifetime average.

scitechdaily.com...

So, perhaps my speculation may not be so off the wall. But it's not really about "challenging" evolutionary theory. It's about understanding of aging and mortality.

Ahem... This seems like it is going to be an interesting thread. Bookmarked!

The people who don't understand evolutionary theory to begin with are the ones who keep trying to disprove it.

FriedBabelBroccoli
Diversity of ageing across the tree of life

So you felt it necessary to take an articles named "Diversity of ageing across the tree of life", and "New Demographic Data Show How Diversely Different Species Age" and name your thread "Aging Process of Species Challenges Current Evolutionary Theory"?

I think the titles of the articles you referenced are more consistent with the content than your title.

From the second source in the OP:

Data will pave the way for a unified theory of aging

“Surprisingly, one can hardly imagine a type of life course that is not found in nature,” says MaxO researcher Owen Jones.

Why is this variety surprising? It seems consistent with what I know about evolution, that evolutionary changes are not designed intelligently but are somewhat akin to experiments in genetic mutations, so a wide variety is what I'd expect from evolution if genetic mutations are somewhat random.

The "unified theory of aging" sounds akin to "unified theory of music appreciation". There is a wide variety in the types of music people enjoy, just as there is a wide variety in sexual reproduction and aging of various organisms. Why would either of those need to fit a unified theory?

I'm happy about the diversity. Can you imagine if all species adopted similar aging and reproductive strategies, and say it was like the spiders where the female kills the male spider after mating? I'm glad there are differences and the "unified theory" sounds like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

To the question of why there needs to be aging and death, I must ask, would evolution work without it? Organisms with more rapid aging and shorter life spans do have the ability to evolve more quickly simply because there are so many more generations in the same amount of time. On the other extreme, organisms which were immortal (or very long-lived) would compete with their offspring for resources, but would be much slower to adapt because the generations would take more time to pass along genetic changes.

Not only is the topic title wildly inaccurate but even if we were to assume that there was an anomaly, one single anomaly would not refute the staggering amount of experimental and observational evidence that currently supports the theory of evolution. The chances of the fundamentals of evolution being "challenged" are practically zero considering the evidence and direct observation of the process, at most the theory would become a subset of some larger theory should further evidence be found (perhaps once we've had the opportunity to study extra-terrestrial life).

It would appear that the OP is reading what he/she wants into the article rather than what is actually presented.

Phage
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Current models are definitely having doubt cast upon them.

No they aren't. Please point out where the article in question casts doubt on evolutionary theory.

This is why I said another institute should investigate this and see if they can reproduce the results.

What results? From the abstract of the source article:

A genotype moulds its phenotype’s age patterns of mortality and fertility in an environment; these two patterns in turn determine the genotype’s fitness in that environment.

Mortality patterns. If a female with an extended lifespan can improved the chances of survival of related children to maturity they can improve probability of survival of the phenotype. It's not that complicated.

So if the models are not shown to account for this phenomena, then yes . . . the current incarnation of evolutionary theory would be wrong.

I'm not sure what models you're talking about but evolutionary theory definitely has room to be expanded. But this in no way indicates that it is "wrong".

edit on 2/4/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

One time I'm going to say Phage is absolutely correct.

The models aren't "Wrong" just "incomplete."

Which is pretty much the standard in all models in science.

Strong and Weak Force
Gravity
Quantum Mechanics

The list goes on.

So I see a lot of you are upset that a specific set of predictions made by a current model of evolution is showing signs of weakness. Many of you are having issue that I took my title from the abstract of the actual journal instead of copying and pasting another article's title.

Boo Hoo . . .

I have to laugh as most of the people attempting this are the ones who call others "science deniers" in other threads. Face it a current model of evolution did not predict these results and now accredited individuals in academia are attempting to correct this issue.

Here are a few other journals so folks can get a better understanding of how the theory of evolution has been dealing with ageing. You may be surprised to find out that it varies and is not agreed upon by everyone and that there are in fact many different interpretations of the base theory.

Mechanisms of Ageing and Development
Volume 123, Issue 7, April 2002, Pages 737–745
The Biology of Ageing
www.sciencedirect.com...

Sexual selection, sexual conflict and the evolution of ageing and life span
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Functional Ecology
Volume 22, Issue 3, pages 443–453, June 2008
R. Bonduriansky*,
A. Maklakov,
F. Zajitschek,
R. Brooks

This thread is mostly aimed for the "high and mighty" self righteous crowd going around calling people science deniers and "brainwashed fanatics" for not buying everything the model has to say.

To put it quite simply the theory has problems that must be addressed because they are not "correct" in their predictions. You can say a model predict 1+1=3 isn't wrong all day and that it just needs to be refined, but you would really just be denying reality.

-FBB

EDIT
Basically most of the clowns here like AfterInfinity can only say that people who don't understand evolution would think this study challenges anything . . . Except you didn't utilize any science.

Dare I say you sound a LOT like that Ken Ham fellow from the debates not being able to site any data to support your belief.

Or

GetHyped who clearly didn't even read the journal nor the article but goes on to say this;

even if we were to assume that there was an anomaly, one single anomaly would not refute the staggering amount of experimental and observational evidence that currently supports the theory of evolution

Where did I say the very fundamentals of evolution are wrong? I am presenting a study which observed results very different from what was expected and so proceeds to challenge the community (read the abstract at the very least) to address this imbalance.

It would appear that the OP is reading what he/she wants into the article rather than what is actually presented.

No, that is clearly what YOU are doing.

/EDIT

Laykilla

Phage
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Current models are definitely having doubt cast upon them.

No they aren't. Please point out where the article in question casts doubt on evolutionary theory.

This is why I said another institute should investigate this and see if they can reproduce the results.

What results? From the abstract of the source article:

A genotype moulds its phenotype’s age patterns of mortality and fertility in an environment; these two patterns in turn determine the genotype’s fitness in that environment.

Mortality patterns. If a female with an extended lifespan can improved the chances of survival of related children to maturity they can improve probability of survival of the phenotype. It's not that complicated.

So if the models are not shown to account for this phenomena, then yes . . . the current incarnation of evolutionary theory would be wrong.

I'm not sure what models you're talking about but evolutionary theory definitely has room to be expanded. But this in no way indicates that it is "wrong".

edit on 2/4/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

One time I'm going to say Phage is absolutely correct.
The models aren't "Wrong" just "incomplete."
Which is pretty much the standard in all models in science.

Strong and Weak Force
Gravity
Quantum Mechanics

The list goes on.

euphemism
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of EUPHEMISM
: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also : the expression so substituted

All there is to say about that really.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Starred and Flagged!

Good article and interesting find. Of course you're going to have the knee jerk reactions because evolution is a holy sacrament for materialist and atheist so the slightest questions are met with knee jerk responses.

At this point, there's no evidence that the theory of evolution as it stands can explain these things. At least a natural interpretation of evolution. There's a lot of holes in a natural interpretation of evolution. I wouldn't just call them holes, they're more like craters. But again, you're dealing with a holy sacrament and it's just like telling a Muslim in Iran that the Mahdi doesn't live at the bottom of the well.

This is just more evidence to support an intelligent design interpretation of evolution.

neoholographic
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Starred and Flagged!

Good article and interesting find. Of course you're going to have the knee jerk reactions because evolution is a holy sacrament for materialist and atheist so the slightest questions are met with knee jerk responses.

At this point, there's no evidence that the theory of evolution as it stands can explain these things. At least a natural interpretation of evolution. There's a lot of holes in a natural interpretation of evolution. I wouldn't just call them holes, they're more like craters. But again, you're dealing with a holy sacrament and it's just like telling a Muslim in Iran that the Mahdi doesn't live at the bottom of the well.

This is just more evidence to support an intelligent design interpretation of evolution.

Well I cannot say I support ID, I do see that there are issues with the current models of evolution which are finally being challenged by observation which for years was presumed truth due to lack of data.

I can completely agree with you on the knee jerk reactions from those of the holy sacrament of evolution. So many science deniers demonstrating their hypocrisy and biases in the face of the tried and true scientific method.

The arrogance of rhetoric like afterinfinity's is especially hilarious given their attitude in other threads.

-FBB

Here is some further background on the methods and challenges of studying ageing;

The challenges of age research
JOHN GRIMLEY EVANS, JOHN BOND 1 Division of Clinical Geratology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX 26HE, UKl Centre for Hearth Services Research, The University, 21 Claremont Place, Newcastle upon
Tyne NE 2 4AA , UK
ageing.oxfordjournals.org...

The above is a pdf available in full at the link free of charge.

I understand some here cannot access the journal which I linked to in the OP.

If you are interested I will see what I can do about making some copies as I have access to them at my university library.

reply to post by neoholographic


Those who cherish glass theories should not throw rocks. ID makes the Swiss cheese of evolutionary theory look like solid marble.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by neoholographic

 

Those who cherish glass theories should not throw rocks. ID makes the Swiss cheese of evolutionary theory look like solid marble.

edit on 5-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I know I asked folks to share their opinion, but would you be kind enough to share your basis for this statement?

I would honestly like to see the evidence for which you are basing your opinion on.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Your average biology textbook explains it much better than I can. Oh, and thanks for calling me a clown. I'd love to see your basis for that statement.