Ageing: The girls who never grow older
bbc.com
bbc.com
There are no conclusions or new research in this article.
Talks about some theories of the scientist interviewed about what aging is (Spoiler: He doesn't know and all current theories have flaws), wastes some time on human interest fluff, gives an interesting picture of girls with Syndrome X (that prevents them from developing, in a way that might be a lack of aging - if you've already heard about it there is nothing new here, if not this is a reasonable introduction), but has no conclusions or new information.
They are doing genetic testing of the girls involved, results are not in yet, this article should have waited for the results.
Our genetic code is like a computer program that runs into a bunch of fatal errors after it has been left running for too long. These fatal errors do not matter to our genes provided enough time has elapsed since our birth for our DNA to pass on several copies of itself. There is simply an absence of selective pressure for us to live past a certain reproductive age.
(If I wrote in laymen's terms it is because I am a laymen on the issue, but a well informed one at that.)
The main problem with the argument is that our body does a great job of fixing errors - so why does that process suddenly seem to stop? Why not just keep on fixing errors. If you can fix errors for 40 years why stop there? Why does the process suddenly stop at that age?
It's not like there is a gradual accumulation of errors - it's no errors for 40 years, then suddenly error correction mode is switched off. Why?
It also just raises the question of why there is a reproductive age in the first place? Why does that stop? (For women anyway - it doesn't seem to stop for men, so the evolutionary argument fails there too.)
But the biggest argument against that theory is other animals. Why do they have different lifespans? The genetic machinery for all mammals is more or less the same.
The evolutionary theories of aging actually provide a pretty solid explanation as to why separate species have different lifespans. Some species take longer to reach reproductive maturity than others. Some species reproduce more slowly than others, which in turn effects how quickly the animal may age. Individuals in some species don't survive very long due to external pressures such as starvation and predation, which also shapes lifespan.
The best introduction into the evolutionary theories of aging I have found is: http://www.genetics.org/content/156/3/927.full.pdf . It is worth noting this theory explains human mortality curves once external causes of death have been removed.
The motive for genes to reproduce does not end after a single set of offspring. In fact, I don't think the motivation is even reduced.
Compare 2^100 vs 3^100:
2^100: 1267650600228229401496703205376
3^100: 515377520732011331036461129765621272702107522001You neglected the variable of time. That third offspring will be born after the second one, which is born after the first one. You need to use the Euler-Lotka equation. The mathematics was worked out centuries ago. Here is the wikipedia article
How does that change the conclusion? 3 children vs 2 is still immensely more children, not just a marginal amount as you thought.
> That second child has already resulted into two offspring, and counts for twice as much.
Only for one generation, but we care about many many generations. 10 generation down the line the slight difference in timing makes no difference.
But the increase in number made an enormous difference.
You really need to sit and run some numbers and you'll see you are mistaken.
Maybe your intuition will help you if think of it as a steady state - babies in (born), babies out (die), rather than thinking about one moment in time. In a steady state the timing make no difference (because you've already waited out the time) - only the number matters.
Well, to pull the idea from my own other comment... a child+grandchild pair is not twice as good as a child even if all you care about is that specific moment in time). It's 1.5 times as good, because a grandchild is only half as good as a child.
And (as ars says) once all concerned have died, the timing offset is of no significance whatever. However, for the impact on your total representation in the world of the present (no particular present), which does have significance... see my other comment, where you're still quite wrong. The Euler-Lotka equation values all members of the population equally; that has no relationship to reality when you're talking about (in your own exact words) "how many copies your genes make of themselves".
Strong is better than not strong. But a stronger model comes at its own fitness costs: maybe it requires more energy upkeep, maybe it sacrifices speed, etc. At some point, fitness benefit from additional strength is less than the fitness cost of the weakness it must accept.
Likewise, an infinitely-living, infinitely fertile organism is better (more fit) than a finite one. (The environmental cost is not a problem for those genes.) But the costs of having it eventually exceed the benefits: perhaps it requires a more robust replication process that's too energy-intensive.
OTOH, if somehow you could reduce this error rate that leads to aging without having to sacrifice in some other way, that would be a mystery.
I think there is a case to be made that death gives organisms, that is to say it gives genetic material (which is the important bit, not the organism which is a mere vessel for the genes) an evolutionary advantage.
Another reason could be that the brains and bodies of older generations will eventually get saturated / tired. Keeping them alive is inefficient for the species.
A lot of that is based on the idea of a nuclear American 1950s family, mom dad and 2.5 kids in a house and grannie lives in Florida 1000 miles away.
More likely, if I lived for 1000 years I'd spend a lot of time ensuring the economic success of my descendants by teaching programming, electronics, maybe math unless a better mathematician comes along. If this situation existed in the past, I have a GGGGG-uncle (cousin?) who was a Harvard literature prof in the early 1800s and I'm sure he would have taken a decade out of his semi-eternal life to educate me on English lit and related topics. I have some GGGG-Uncles who were in the civil war and fought in Tennessee, surely their personal experiences would have more impact than merely reading a book.
This has certain economic and evolutionary effects, such that a "migrant farm harvesting laborer" not allowed to ever benefit from his own labor, would not be able to help his GGGG-grandkids in any obvious way. So some kids are going to grow up with 16 hours a day of continuous one on one academic tutoring from a team of perhaps a dozen PHD ancestors, while other kids are going to grow up basically playing video games, or at best, watching youtube videos.
Its an obvious sci-fi topic to explore the nature vs nurture question. A permanent overclass would likely develop based solely on ancestry (indirectly "nature" although in practice "nurture")
This is aside from obvious social interaction. Locally I know a lot of the people in my field, and a descendent going into my line of work could be financially (aka reproductively) rewarded by hanging out with me and meeting people. If I do nothing for a descendent other than socially introduce them to local hiring managers, that's still genetically a net win. Everyone else will be doing the same thing so I will have to keep up.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...
"Understanding why we age is a long-lived open problem in evolutionary biology. Aging is prejudicial to the individual, and evolutionary forces should prevent it, but many species show signs of senescence as individuals age. Here, I will propose a model for aging based on assumptions that are compatible with evolutionary theory: i) competition is between individuals; ii) there is some degree of locality, so quite often competition will be between parents and their progeny; iii) optimal conditions are not stationary, and mutation helps each species to keep competitive. When conditions change, a senescent species can drive immortal competitors to extinction. This counter-intuitive result arises from the pruning caused by the death of elder individuals. When there is change and mutation, each generation is slightly better adapted to the new conditions, but some older individuals survive by chance. Senescence can eliminate those from the genetic pool. Even though individual selection forces can sometimes win over group selection ones, it is not exactly the individual that is selected but its lineage. While senescence damages the individuals and has an evolutionary cost, it has a benefit of its own. It allows each lineage to adapt faster to changing conditions. We age because the world changes."
That's something I wouldn't want to be quoted on. :-P
Seriously though, it's making a group selection argument, which stacks the deck against it: any gene that weeds out the host for the benefit of the "generation" will be strongly selected against.
“If you lived forever you'd starve people of resources and never evolve, that'd be bad!” If you lived forever, you wouldn't need to evolve, because you wouldn't be dying due to the environment. If you are still alive: you are well suited to be. Reproduction is just a form of genetic immortality if not individual immortality.
All of this presupposes that some immortal people were born and just died out because being immortal wouldn't be rewarded by reproducing.
And ignores the fact that animals that live for a very long time reproduce slower than animals that live for a short time.
Because then you compete for resources with your offspring and limit the chances of passing on your genetic code.
"Publish early, publish often" ? You know how the biz works ;-)
Not that, as a reader, I disagree. Thanks for the outline.
Having just become a father a few weeks ago, I'm beyond grateful that our son so far appears to be a healthy boy and when I read about parents having to deal with adverse health events of their children, I can't think of anything tougher to go through than that. I don't know if I would have the strength or resilience to do what these parents did (raise these girls, who never develop beyond infancy), nor do I know whether it's the "right thing to do" (or if there even is such a distinction under the circumstances), but I respect the hell out of them.
We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com.
For those interested, here is a non-paywalled version of the Walker 2009 paper that describes the case study [1].
[1] http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/cellbio/shay-wright/publicati...
These are children who fail to reach maturity normally.
All of this was evidence of what Walker dubbed “developmental disorganisation”. Brooke’s body seemed to be developing not as a coordinated unit, he wrote, but rather as a collection of individual, out-of-sync parts. “She is not simply ‘frozen in time’,” Walker wrote. “Her development is continuing, albeit in a disorganised fashion.”
The first this subject came up here, someone pointed out this has nothing really to do with the aging that anyone would want to stop. It might help understand the process of development and maturation but it clearly won't help us directly stop aging.
And "never grow older" seems like a rather poor and even cruel way to describe a unfortunate syndrome.