Human life span seems too short as generally humans will want to live on...500 years? is the short life cycle for humans to "churn" the gene pool and keep mankind viable from a survival perspective?

Needs Answer Please..

Consult the bible....:-)....

they cant answer you. they dont know and they will avoid this thread like the plague.

davidylan: they cant answer you. they dont know and they will avoid this thread like the plague.

pls, let them not avoid this thread o!

Am really waiting to hear from are smart brains.

davidylan: they cant answer you. they dont know and they will avoid this thread like the plague.

pls, let them not avoid this thread o!

Am really waiting to hear from are smart brains.

mkmyers45: Human life span seems too short as generally humans will want to live on...500 years? is the short life cycle for humans to "churn" the gene pool and keep mankind viable from a survival perspective?

That's how long we live before our cells die faster than they regenerate, we reach a point were cancer cells cease to be destroyed successfully or one or other organs regeneration/self-maintenance fails causing death directly or inhibiting (in the wild) ability to self-sustain.

We live long enough to procreate, as long as that's done, evolution is satisfied. Women stop being fertile around the point of the spike in maternity deaths meaning that children tend to have mothers to protect them to maturity.

Our adult lifespan is similar to other large Hominini, such as gorillas and chimpanzee, however we take much longer to reach maturity.

Life expectancy for a captive gorilla is ~50 years, life expectancy for a Nigerian is 51.4 years.

mkmyers45: Human life span seems too short as generally humans will want to live on...500 years? is the short life cycle for humans to "churn" the gene pool and keep mankind viable from a survival perspective?

First and foremost, evolutionists,which includes almost the entire members of the scientific community as well as the majority of the civilised world, except ofcourse, dark Africa and the US bible belt,have never made any claims whatsoever that they have a complete mastery of all mysteries of existence.
Scientific rationalism operates from the position of unknowing and gradually progresses in knowledge. Conclusions are not reached before observation, experimentation and analysis. That is for religious people.

davidylan: they cant answer you. they dont know and they will avoid this thread like the plague.

Therefore, there is no shame or dishonour in not knowing because science does not have any omnipotent deity to protect.

@op:

Human lifespan is short relative to what?
Infact, human lifespan is very long compared to those of other species in this planet. So I dont really know where you get the notion that human lifespan is too short. Too short for what?
If an average human was to live 200yrs and uses the better part of that in breeding offsprings, do you know the havoc it could have on the eco-system?Such would directly threaten the very survival of the species,because a species cannot survive without a robust and dynamic ecological system.

Evolution ensures that the life span of any species, including humans, has to corrolate with the species ecological environment.

Think about it this way,species with short lifespans have a greater chance of survival than species with extremely long life spans. The reason is that since evolution is a trail and error mechanism, errors in the general gene pool have to die off quickly so that newer configuration of genes can take center stage to test its survivability.

A trial and error mechanism like evolution needs a rapid turnover of [b]biological prototypes [/b]to maintain the integrity of the general gene. pool.

You see, unlike religion of old, today we do not need to run to any holy scripture to learn simple things.
Aging is no mystery.
It has to do with cell division. As times goes by, cells divide at much slower rates and therefore are slower in repairing and replacing old and worn organ tissues.
When tissues are not rapidly replaced,organs can no longer maintain their structural and functional integrity. This leads to disease and eventually death.

plaetton:
Human lifespan is short relative to what?
Infact, human lifespan is very long compared to those of other species in this planet. So I dont really know where you get the notion that human lifespan is too short. Too short for what?
[b]If an average human was to live 200yrs and uses the better part of that in breeding offsprings, do you know the havoc it could have on the eco-system?[/b]Such would directly threaten the very survival of the species,because a species cannot survive without a robust and dynamic ecological system.

Hmm that's odd. Why does evolution ensure the galapagos tortoise can live to over 200 yrs but the lizard cannot? What is the evolutionary advantage of a longer lifespan for the galapagos tortoise over the lizard?

plaetton:
Evolution ensures that the life span of any species, including humans, has to corrolate with the species ecological environment.

that makes zero sense and i wager you really dont know but just pulled this out of thin air. Please see my above question... what is the evolutionary advantage for an elephant living up to 70 yrs but not a chicken? How is that an advantage to its ecological environment? Are you trying to state that evolution is actually a directed, purposeful biological process?

plaetton:
Think about it this way,species with short lifespans have a greater chance of survival than species with extremely long life spans. The reason is that since evolution is a trail and error mechanism, errors in the general gene pool have to die off quickly so that newer configuration of genes can take center stage to test its survivability.

again you seem to be saying a lot but conveying no meaning. Blue whales for example can live for over 100 yrs, does it have a worse chance of survival than a frog which has numerous predators? Why in the first place did nature design some animals with long or short half lives? What was the evolutionary advantage?

plaetton:
A trial and error mechanism like evolution needs a rapid turnover of [b]biological prototypes [/b]to maintain the integrity of the general gene. pool.

In that case, shouldnt ALL animals have short lifespans since they are all products of evolution?

Insects have a tremendously short life span... why? Are they still evolving in that case?

plaetton:
You see, unlike religion of old, today we do not need to run to any holy scripture to learn simple things.

that's true. however you cannot replace one "myth" for completely incomprehensible illogic.

plaetton:
Aging is no mystery.
It has to do with cell division. As times goes by, cells divide at much slower rates and therefore are slower in repairing and replacing old and worn organ tissues.
When tissues are not rapidly replaced,organs can no longer maintain their structural and functional integrity. This leads to disease and eventually death.

Fairly correct but a little too simplistic. Cells go into senescence (stop dividing) because their telomeres have gotten shorter than is required to protect DNA integrity.
Cells in the brain dont divide for example... regardless of how old you are.

^^^^
Sometimes I see that you argue just for argument sake.
The Op asked a simple question. I offered what were reasonable conventional scientific explanations.

Now, if my explanations where scientifically unsound, then you, as scientist(?), should offer the scientifically correct explanation in its stead.
But in your usual fashion, you are asking me to educate you on why this is this and that.
Hey, its a brave new world. Information is at everyone's fingertips.
Find out the answers to these questions yourself and then come to repudiate mine. ok

Meanwhile, we are waiting for your explanation, if you any, on ageing and human life span.
I just hope it wont have anything, once again, to do with the will a wrathful god.
We, and I mean humankind, are tired and have long transcended this angry god crap of an excuse for simple things.
We have grown up.

plaetton: ^^^^
Sometimes I see that you argue just for argument sake.
The Op asked a simple question. I offered what were reasonable conventional scientific explanations.

its ok to admit that you really dont know. Oftentimes its better than posting a meaningless tome that conveys nothing but your own paucity of knowledge. You didnt have to comment on the thread if you truly didnt have an idea how to answer the question. Sometimes i think many of you respond to threads like this either out of an "ITK" mentality or out of desperation to convince yourselves that your pseudo-scientific faith is justified.

plaetton:
Now, if my explanations where scientifically unsound, then you, as scientist(?), should offer the scientifically correct explanation in its stead.

Why are your explanations scientifically unsound in the first place? I thought you all were the purveyors of all things empirical science no?
Why are you responding to a thread if you are not sure of the scientific validity of your claims? Why are you waiting on me to "correct" your explanation?

FYI i did EXACTLY what you expected me to... simply point out the illogicality of your position only to find you moaning?

plaetton:
But in your usual fashion, you are asking me to educate you on why this is this and that.

I dont need your "education". Clearly you dont know what you are saying here so why would i need your help? I only posed those questions so you could see how poor your own non-argument truly was.

plaetton:
Hey, its a brave new world. Information is at everyone's fingertips.
Find out the answers to these questions yourself and then come to repudiate mine. ok

if you dont know the answers then spare yourself and dont post. You should have found out your information before posting.

plaetton:
Meanwhile, we are waiting for your explanation, if you any, on ageing and human life span.
I just hope it wont have anything, once again, to do with the will a wrathful god.
We, and I mean humankind, are tired and have long transcended this angry god crap of an excuse for simple things.
We have grown up.

why are you waiting on my explanation? I thought you eggheads knew it all no?

davidylan:

its ok to admit that you really dont know. Oftentimes its better than posting a meaningless tome that conveys nothing but your own paucity of knowledge. You didnt have to comment on the thread if you truly didnt have an idea how to answer the question. Sometimes i think many of you respond to threads like this either out of an "ITK" mentality or out of desperation to convince yourselves that your pseudo-scientific faith is justified.



Why are your explanations scientifically unsound in the first place? I thought you all were the purveyors of all things empirical science no?
Why are you responding to a thread if you are not sure of the scientific validity of your claims? Why are you waiting on me to "correct" your explanation?

FYI i did EXACTLY what you expected me to... simply point out the illogicality of your position only to find you moaning?



I dont need your "education". Clearly you dont know what you are saying here so why would i need your help? I only posed those questions so you could see how poor your own non-argument truly was.



if you dont know the answers then spare yourself and dont post. You should have found out your information before posting.



why are you waiting on my explanation? I thought you eggheads knew it all no?

Great response, bro, as was the dissection of his "explanation". These guys are incredible with their evasive ways.

@david, you know homo sapiens are late entrants to the gene pool, right? So it reasons that until nature finds that prefect balance, it'll continue churning and burning humans at the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&list=PL202A5088113EFC28&index=3&feature=plpp_video

plaetton:

First and foremost, evolutionists,which includes almost the entire members of the scientific community as well as the majority of the civilised world, except ofcourse, dark Africa and the US bible belt,have never made any claims whatsoever that they have a complete mastery of all mysteries of existence.
Scientific rationalism operates from the position of unknowing and gradually progresses in knowledge. Conclusions are not reached before observation, experimentation and analysis. That is for religious people.





Therefore, there is no shame or dishonour in not knowing because science does not have any omnipotent deity to protect.

@op:

Human lifespan is short relative to what?
Infact, human lifespan is very long compared to those of other species in this planet. So I dont really know where you get the notion that human lifespan is too short. Too short for what?
If an average human was to live 200yrs and uses the better part of that in breeding offsprings, do you know the havoc it could have on the eco-system?Such would directly threaten the very survival of the species,because a species cannot survive without a robust and dynamic ecological system.

Evolution ensures that the life span of any species, including humans, has to corrolate with the species ecological environment.

Think about it this way,species with short lifespans have a greater chance of survival than species with extremely long life spans. The reason is that since evolution is a trail and error mechanism, errors in the general gene pool have to die off quickly so that newer configuration of genes can take center stage to test its survivability.

A trial and error mechanism like evolution needs a rapid turnover of [b]biological prototypes [/b]to maintain the integrity of the general gene. pool.

You see, unlike religion of old, today we do not need to run to any holy scripture to learn simple things.
Aging is no mystery.
It has to do with cell division. As times goes by, cells divide at much slower rates and therefore are slower in repairing and replacing old and worn organ tissues.
When tissues are not rapidly replaced,organs can no longer maintain their structural and functional integrity. This leads to disease and eventually death.

This is a good explanation really. What most religionists miss is that even if this turns out to be incorrect(there's always the possibility), the explanation will entail a natural cause. That's how it has always worked.

I expect some quack to compare a nearly sedentary, low metabolizing animal's life span to that of energy-intensive human life. And ask 'why?'
Why indeed.

And I'd just like to add, despite the fact that many don't like to hear it, evolution has no purpose. It isn't purposely looking to make you the perfect organism. This is more or else chance. So even if a human lifespan where somehow flawed, it would just mean we haven't been lucky with getting optimal genes. And indeed, we haven't in many ways. The human design isn't exactly flawless you know?

wiegraf: And I'd just like to add, despite the fact that many don't like to hear it, evolution has no purpose. It isn't purposely looking to make you the perfect organism. This is more or else chance. So even if a human lifespan where somehow flawed, it would just mean we haven't been lucky with getting optimal genes. And indeed, we haven't in many ways. The human design isn't exactly flawless you know?

They miss this all the time. No grand discernible purpose or direction.
Our genes gave us intelligence. Salamander gene gave it regeneration. They assume we must have everything. When controversial research is being conducted to determine the workings of such mechanisms, they hinder such progress on the basis of religion.

davidylan:

its ok to admit that you really dont know. Oftentimes its better than posting a meaningless tome that conveys nothing but your own paucity of knowledge. You didnt have to comment on the thread if you truly didnt have an idea how to answer the question. Sometimes i think many of you respond to threads like this either out of an "ITK" mentality or out of desperation to convince yourselves that your pseudo-scientific faith is justified.



Why are your explanations scientifically unsound in the first place? I thought you all were the purveyors of all things empirical science no?
Why are you responding to a thread if you are not sure of the scientific validity of your claims? Why are you waiting on me to "correct" your explanation?

FYI i did EXACTLY what you expected me to... simply point out the illogicality of your position only to find you moaning?



I dont need your "education". Clearly you dont know what you are saying here so why would i need your help? I only posed those questions so you could see how poor your own non-argument truly was.



if you dont know the answers then spare yourself and dont post. You should have found out your information before posting.



why are you waiting on my explanation? I thought you eggheads knew it all no?

It is religious nuts that already have conclusions about everything.

Correction, I did not say that my explanation was scientifically unsound.
No. Based on your response, I said[b] If [/b] they were unsound as you implied, then refute them and give your own.
Obviously you dont have any idea or alternative explanation?
You are obviously disagreeing without offering scientifically sound alternative explanation of your own.
Or is this topic outside the domain of science? If you thinks so, then we are all ears.

Frankly speaking, your questions were silly and childish because you are basically asking me to be your tutor.
Are you ready to learn? Then spend a day in the library.
That is why asked you to educate yourself on the subject.

I learned the basic ideas of evolution when I was in secondary school some 27 yrs ago.

Obviously you do not subscribe to the theory of evolution. So what do you believe? That god created the world in 6 days some 6000yrs ago?
Fine, suite yourself.

It is so shameful and embarrassing for me to try to educate an adult on the basic ideas of evolution in this 21st century. I am so embarrsased for my fellow Nigerians.
I'm beginning to find it condescending of me to be arguing about basic evolution with anyone in this era. I will offer my comments but will desist henceforth from arguing with any religious nut about evolution. The world has long past this type of nonsense.

Ihedinobi:

Great response, bro, as was the dissection of his "explanation". These guys are incredible with their evasive ways.

Oti mkpu, welcome to the thread.
What will you entertaining us with today?

SimonAndal: @david, you know homo sapiens are late entrants to the gene pool, right? So it reasons that until nature finds that prefect balance, it'll continue churning and burning humans at the speed of light.

and insects too? and dogs, lions, cats? All with far smaller life spans are all late entrants to the gene pool too?
Its better to keep quiet if you dont know and be thought a f[i]o[/i]ol than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Avicenna:
This is a good explanation really. What most religionists miss is that even if this turns out to be incorrect(there's always the possibility), the explanation will entail a natural cause. That's how it has always worked.

I expect some quack to compare a nearly sedentary, low metabolizing animal's life span to that of energy-intensive human life. And ask 'why?'
Why indeed.

A "good explanation" really?

With regard to your last line... so you point is that lifespan is determined by lifestyle? I.e. sedentary, low metabolizing animals have a much longer lifespan that humans right? In that case wouldnt we expect the lifespan of a sloth to be longer than that of elephants or at least similar to that of a galapagos tortoise?

You really should think before posting.

wiegraf: And I'd just like to add, despite the fact that many don't like to hear it, evolution has no purpose. It isn't purposely looking to make you the perfect organism. This is more or else chance. So even if a human lifespan where somehow flawed, it would just mean we haven't been lucky with getting optimal genes. And indeed, we haven't in many ways. The human design isn't exactly flawless you know?

So the turtle or galapagos tortoise has optimal genes then? Perhaps we should go to them for the solution to longevity no? I laugh at the stu[i]pi[/i]dity on display on this thread.

davidylan:

and insects too? and dogs, lions, cats? All with far smaller life spans are all late entrants to the gene pool too?
Its better to keep quiet if you dont know and be thought a f[i]o[/i]ol than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Can you explicitly give us your own explanation for difrence in lifestyle of man and other animals?

plaetton:

It is religious nuts that already have conclusions about everything.

Correction, I did not say that my explanation was scientifically unsound.
No. Based on your response, I said[b] If [/b] they were unsound as you implied, then refute them and give your own.
Obviously you dont have any idea or alternative explanation?
You are obviously disagreeing without offering scientifically sound alternative explanation of your own.
Or is this topic outside the domain of science? If you thinks so, then we are all ears.

Frankly speaking, your questions were silly and childish because you are basically asking me to be your tutor.
Are you ready to learn? Then spend a day in the library.
That is why asked you to educate yourself on the subject.

I learned the basic ideas of evolution when I was in secondary school some 27 yrs ago.

Obviously you do not subscribe to the theory of evolution. So what do you believe? That god created the world in 6 days some 6000yrs ago?
Fine, suite yourself.

It is so shameful and embarrassing for me to try to educate an adult on the basic ideas of evolution in this 21st century. I am so embarrsased for my fellow Nigerians.
I'm beginning to find it condescending of me to be arguing about basic evolution with anyone in this era. I will offer my comments but will desist henceforth from arguing with any religious nut about evolution. The world has long past this type of nonsense.



Oti mkpu, welcome to the thread.
What will you entertaining us with today?

Isnt it amazing that your only response to my succinct examples is nothing but a long tome bereft of any scientific rationale for your claims? Why have you decided to desist from sharing your VAST evolutionary knowledge with us? I thought you were the science guru here. Oh boy.... how empty this place will be now.

What is shameful and embarrassing is not that you have to argue basic evolution with us but the fact that you keep getting shown up for knowing next to nothing about it. Trust me, belief in the creationist story and evolution are two sides of the same coin - blind faith! You're just too arrogant to admit that fact.

To say i am disagreeing with you without a rational scientific alternative is just plain laughable...

1. At no point have i told you the creationist story has anything to do with science... i believe it in faith, so why you expect me to propound a scientific rational for the bible is beyond me. I'm not the one hawking science here... i'm only here to prevent quacks like you from latching unto it to justify your disbelief.

2. THAT is the safe haven for atheists like you, disagreeing with christian beliefs without providing a rational scientific alternative since you claim logical scientific ideas is your forte.

mkmyers45:

Can you explicitly give us your own explanation for difrence in lifestyle of man and other animals?

God made them so. Cest fini

If you have a scientific alternative to that, let us hear it.
Remember this thread was set up to get answers from you...

davidylan:

God made them so. Cest fini

If you have a scientific alternative to that, let us hear it.
Remember this thread was set up to get answers from you...

I don't have the answer.....

mkmyers45:

I don't have the answer.....

Fair enough.

davidylan:

So the turtle or galapagos tortoise has optimal genes then? Perhaps we should go to them for the solution to longevity no? I laugh at the stu[i]pi[/i]dity on display on this thread.

You should ask for a refund from your schools. You should also stay out of the way of science so it could work on gene therapy to fix the areas in your brain responsible for logical reasoning.

But yes if living long is your purpose, looking at the turtle etc genes (among other things) for hints on how to achieve this would not be a bad idea

wiegraf:



You should ask for a refund from that school. You should also stay out of the way of science so it could work on gene therapy to fix the areas in your brain responsible for logical reasoning.

But yes if living long is your purpose, looking at the turtle etc genes (among other things) for hints on how to achieve this would not be a bad idea

why should i ask for a refund? Why should i stay out of science? I majored in it, do remarkably good science at the bench and been recognized for it... you on the other hand?

Secondly, it seems you just made this post primarily to be insultive... what exactly where you disagreeing with and where is your scientifically sound refutation?

Actually science has been looking at an organism with a surprisingly short life span (mere days-weeks) for the answers to longevity. The C. elegans for example has shown that certain biological processes are vital to prolonging lifespan such as caloric restriction.

No serious scientist worth his salt is looking at the turtle... so much for opening your cavern of idiocy to insult me.

Again i repeat, better to keep quiet if you dont know and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and clear all doubt.

Me, insulting, why I didn't notice. I did notice you labeling my reasoning stoopid. After that you posted a reply in which you confirm that an approach similar to what I suggested is in fact being used. In other words, it was completely useless post in which you repeated an idea similar to mine, then you accused me of having nothing to say. The rest of your post was something about your personal life, why should I care?

davidylan seriously flogging the atheists on this thread.
Serves them right. Conceited, full of themselves group of people.

davidylan:

A "good explanation" really?

With regard to your last line... so you point is that lifespan is determined by lifestyle? I.e. sedentary, low metabolizing animals have a much longer lifespan that humans right? In that case wouldnt we expect the lifespan of a sloth to be longer than that of elephants or at least similar to that of a galapagos tortoise?

You really should think before posting.

This is d.a.f.t really.

There are factorS influencing evolution. Interplay of such factors determine survival.

Different animals have different adaptations to their environment. Some excellent enough to give them longevity to procreate. Some not so excellent. But they pass on the gene.

My notion of excellent is subjective. In the animal kingdom ! Dying quickly but procreating even quicker can be the most excellent adaptation.

GOD created them that way. Lazy idiot. So much for phd. In science. I laff in fraudulent degrees.

^^^^^^



I would love to read his thesis

"God made it so" "It is God" "God's handiwork" All answers given by lazy brains too complacent to do work.