Evolutions failures
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
LordGrover said:
Not too sure that's right. Average life expectancy was low in prehistory/palaeolithic times but that was largely down to high infant mortality, microbes that we now have protection/cure for, accidents, etc.
There are plenty of things to kill Mr Caveman after childhood - a simple infected wound would do the trick nicely. Dental records show that by about 35 their teeth were shot - without teeth you can't eat; you die. With no ability to farm or store food you're wide open to seasonal changes for food/water supplies. 
My understanding is our ancestor's teeth were very much better than ours. It was the advent of agriculture as 'we' stopped hunter/gathering that started the rot.
There were very few of 'us' compared to the amount of prey and plant-life available. We ate very well - that's why we're here today. Early man was largely in Africa/Asia or the Americas, not venturing into temperate climes until we gained control and use of fire. In these regions seasonal changes were minor.
I'd agree the picture was different in the African day before the great exodus - but I'm still not convinced that Lucy and Co lived to any great age, any more than primates there do today. Why design a creature to live beyond the point it has brought the next generation to adulthood? Beyond that, if one is being harsh, they are simply competing for resources.
It remains to be seen who will win the next few thousand years of evolution - 'civilised' man or nature in the raw.
It remains to be seen who will win the next few thousand years of evolution - 'civilised' man or nature in the raw.
Lucy rather pre-dates homo sapiens by several million years though - not really relevant. 'She' was successful for a million years though, right up to h. habilis so was around rather longer than h. sapien sapien thus far, or is likely to be. 
The period from which we are barely distinguishable is c. 40,000-10,000 years ago - palaeolithic period (old stone age). It was the Neolithic revolution c. 10,000 years ago that the decline began, and another downturn about 200 years ago with the industrial revolution.
The period from which we are barely distinguishable is c. 40,000-10,000 years ago - palaeolithic period (old stone age). It was the Neolithic revolution c. 10,000 years ago that the decline began, and another downturn about 200 years ago with the industrial revolution.
Edited by LordGrover on Friday 22 February 08:28
Fatigue...
It is the natural fatigue of structure that is the ultimate limit on the final end date of all complex creatures and if we were to renew all our parts perfectly and continually we'd all live forever (accidents excluded) but we don't.
That is because our bodies are catching up with our own mind enhanced leaps in ability, the important bit is the time taken to replace parts of the body, the old idea was that about every 7years we were renewed, that is both right and wrong, but the fact is that it is the speeding up of the renewal process from about 10years (post puberty) to about seven and that is the median, but the various parts (the bits that seem to get older age cancers) have renewed in recent times (3,000 years) at a much higher rate, this higher rate carries with it the higher risk of cancer (error in transcription) and hence the greater the presence of those cancers.
Evolution tells us then that the price of a greater number rejuvenating more rapidly and successfully is going to be for some the spectre of cancer will arise.
Evolutionary processes explain both the extended life and the burgeoning cancers that result from that benefit of longevity.
It is the natural fatigue of structure that is the ultimate limit on the final end date of all complex creatures and if we were to renew all our parts perfectly and continually we'd all live forever (accidents excluded) but we don't.
That is because our bodies are catching up with our own mind enhanced leaps in ability, the important bit is the time taken to replace parts of the body, the old idea was that about every 7years we were renewed, that is both right and wrong, but the fact is that it is the speeding up of the renewal process from about 10years (post puberty) to about seven and that is the median, but the various parts (the bits that seem to get older age cancers) have renewed in recent times (3,000 years) at a much higher rate, this higher rate carries with it the higher risk of cancer (error in transcription) and hence the greater the presence of those cancers.
Evolution tells us then that the price of a greater number rejuvenating more rapidly and successfully is going to be for some the spectre of cancer will arise.
Evolutionary processes explain both the extended life and the burgeoning cancers that result from that benefit of longevity.
LordGrover said:
Life expectancy. Agriculture and cultivation changed our diet dramatically. For millions of years our ancestors had consumed a consistent diet but the neolithic revolution changed all that. Stature shrank, health and fitness began to decline, tooth decay became an issue, etc.
You seem to be saying that stone-age man lived longer than we do.On GV's point about cancers being related to cell division, sort of yes - but also caused by mutagens and that our increased lifespan means they are now more common whereas previously we were dead from something else before then.
They did, or at least would have given our medical knowledge and science. Their bodies and metabolism was little different to ours. Their healthier lifestyle and diet combined with antibiotics and other medicines would've seen them living as long as us, without the fear of many 'modern diseases' like diabetes, obesity, cancers, etc.
Gene Vincent said:
Short of radioactive exposure, mutagens are largely the result of transcription errors.
A mutagen is the substance that causes a mutation (eg nicotine); you mean 'mutation' in the above sentence. There are plenty of mutagenic substances around - though if you mean they cause transcription errors then it comes to the same thing.LordGrover said:
They did, or at least would have given our medical knowledge and science.
No doubt, but of course the medical knowledge and science to keep them alive to 90 is the end product of all the stages that detracted from their health... 
The giant panda. It doesn't like sex, and it only eats 1 thing. If humans weren't destroying its habitat, a few months of bamboo blight would see it off anyway.
I get annoyed with the "save the panda" campaign. Let the f
kers die I say. A complete waste of space.
There are loads of tree frogs in central america and parasitic wasps that are in danger of extinction that are far more viable than a handfull of crap pandas, but no one cares because they aren't cute.
I get annoyed with the "save the panda" campaign. Let the f
kers die I say. A complete waste of space.There are loads of tree frogs in central america and parasitic wasps that are in danger of extinction that are far more viable than a handfull of crap pandas, but no one cares because they aren't cute.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff