X-Message-Number: 26242
References: <>
From: Kennita Watson <>
Subject: Re: To Mike99 re. evolution of aging
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 05:52:23 -0700

Thomas Donaldson wrote:

> The problem with the notion that deterioration of our genes explains 
> our
> aging is very simple. There is no special reason why our gene repair
> systems, or genes themselves, might not become more resistant to
> damage. In animals (bacteria, actually) living in nuclear reactors
> we see exactly that: they have duplicates of their genes, so that
> repair uses a majority vote to repair all of the genes. (No, that's
> not perfect, but it makes them much more resistant to radiation than
> we are or even normal bacteria are).
>
I assume that the reason we haven't become more
resistant to damage is that it hasn't been
cost-effective.  It would take a lot more energy
to build duplicates into our genome; the
bacteria do it because otherwise they don't
survive.  We don't either, in the long term, but
we survive long enough to reproduce, which is
all the genes "care about".  As we survive and
reproduce for significantly more years,
eventually we'd evolve hardier genes, but I
figure we'll take that bull by the horns long
before evolution would have any measurable
effect.

Cheers,
Kennita

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26242