If the entire purpose of life and evolution is to reproduce, doesn't it seem a bit counter-productive that we age and die naturally? Why don't organisms just evolve to never die, retain fitness and repeatedly reproduce until killed by other organisms or environmental changes?Seems like such an obvious thing.
That's not how evolution works
>>16970770>Seems like such an obvious thing.Its not feasible though dumbass.
>>16970775
>>16970779Entropy
>>16970770I have never died.Therefore, according to established scientific projections, I never will.
>>16970775>Its not feasible though dumbass.Wrong.
>>16970798Came here to post this, shocked someone on /sci/ knows the answer. I'm going to let anon be your new dad, I'm leaving for cigarettes and I'm never coming back losers. PS, good luck figuring out how we defied entropy in the first place to ever exist at all, KEK.
>>16970817>PS, good luck figuring out how we defied entropy in the first place to ever exist at all, KEK.answer is god
>>16970770When your cells refuse to die, that leads to cancer, which might seem good for th cells in the short term but it leads to an early death for the body as a whole. Maybe when individuals refuse to die, it's similarly bad for the species, impeding its evolution and adaptability.
>>16970770The organism needs cellular replication in order to keep going.Cellular replication cannot occur with DNA synthesis that just starts writing on single-stranded DNA. It can only continue the synthesis of a partially complete double helix, and continue writing the remainder of the sequence.So DNA synthesis doesn't have a starting point. Also, DNA synthase only works in one direction. It can't write backwards.SO the cell has to lay down an RNA primer that start the synthesis. The DNA is written from the RNA primer on, but everything that is encoded opposite the RNA primer is not hard-copied into DNA, so it is lost.over time this loss consumes the DNA until the loss starts consuming vital genes. As these genes are lost, organism functions start failing or going haywire (cancer) and eventually organ failure or disease kill off the organism.
>>16970770I was thinking species that were created around a red dwarf sun that's lasts 100's of billions of years wouldn't have the time movements of someone new like us with our sun. Reflecting spatial time to keep people on top of the universe would have to renew peoples physical properties.
>>16970835New people from shorter span suns would have a different function and focus to the universe than people that are long term.
>>16970770>purposeelaborate
>>16970770Any new organism that is born latches on to whatever reality they are born into, this is hard to update or change aka stubbornness. If things didn't die, first we would run out of resources, balance would be a huge problem. Evolution optimizes the ability for things to make copies of themselves, hope for better gene expression, and a new brain to absorb the surroundings which will be smarter and better than its predecessor. The evolution you describe has yet to come. A perfect immortal being that can self update and rationalize its surroundings without having deep biases that would inhibit growth. This is AI computer sci fi but it could very well happen in the next few centuries. Go watch Westworld nephew
Itt many people utter their theories as some form of universal theory of aging. Think of your body as a series of industrial complexesThere is a series of things that can go wrong in each factory, each factory is specific to the raw material it transforms etc, and continued processing specifies each factory even more than mere classification, because its workers work different, have injuries and so on.But the general trend is that maintenance of the processes as a whole (ex throwing out garbage, sending signals to other factories to send more or less resources, some armament system that targets thieves) is tendantially less strong than the evolution of disrepair, that can be caused by outside factors, but even as a byproduct of industrial function (not unlike how human industrial activity damages the environment, how the free market economy favors deleterious processes like shit food and addictive apps)Hormones in one place can signal some reaction in your behaviour that you may call favorable, but some place else it can cause inflammation through an unwanted excitation, that was negligible for most of your life, but as it accumulates, destroys your cells. But that's one thing. There is DNA damage, cell garbage, misplacements of epigenetic tags, mutation rate etc...It is a holistic process.It can probably only be theorized through the accumulation of enormous amounts of data, because of the multiple effects one thing has on other things and the expression of itself.
>>16970864I'd also say why the bodies suck so much at repairing itself is that rather than being able to strip down the mechanism and the end result we want so as to avoid as many points of failure we can, the body has evolved so as to use one thing for many purposes, so that if one of its downstream applications is deleterious, inhibition of the source may cause even worse outcomes.A robot would be way easier to repair, it has less parts, and there is no use for the complex structure of muscle and bones when you can just make a metal rod and actuators.
>>16970798>>16970817>muh entropyentropy is a measure of thermodynamic equilibrium in a system, has absolutely nothing to do with this
>>16970770Because negative attributes cause things to happen. We might evolve to not get certain diseases after many generations like cardiovascular disease or producing our own vitamin c if we train over generations to not take it in orally with food. I’m not saying to induce scurvy, I don’t believe in species to species evolution, but in totality we can train ourselves if possible with drugs to evolve better positive attributes to be a better species as a whole. Vaccines could program us, or even education by inducing our g factor to increase over generations. Don’t know how the Flynn effect goes into increasing g substantially, but it’s possible with drugs
>>16970892This can allow us to live longer, look at alpha fold. Once we have drugs that get rid of all negative externalities and shieeet then you can prevent premature death in this context being said 80-90 years and possibly extend to 150-200 years. Our cells need to be able to live longer too
>>16970880When someone like them mentions entropy with zero statistical understanding of the term, you know they have an 8th grade education at best
>>16970770>never die, retain fitness and repeatedly reproduce until killedThat’s how you increase both the likelihood of inbreeding and competition between parents and offspring
