Re:Physics Makes Aging Inevitable, Not Biology (2016)
by jamesrcole on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @08:45AM
(#16429358)
Not the person you're replying to, but the theory I've heard is the following.
The background for this theory is that evolution is gene-centric, not individual-centric. What is fitter is what will better propagate the genes, which is not necessarily what's best for the individual.
So it can build "designs" that have a better chance of propagating genes earlier on, where features that help that (I'm making this example up, but say something like faster growth) may later have a deleterious affect on the individual. And since evolution is gene focused, there's not as much evolutionary pressure for a longer and healthier life for the individual.
Re:Physics Makes Aging Inevitable, Not Biology (2016)
by Tepix on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @09:06AM
(#16429491)
If you leave out the repair mechanisms you save a lot of resources.
Re:Physics Makes Aging Inevitable, Not Biology (2016)
by fooker on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @03:30PM
(#16432693)
Interesting point.
This has a nice analogy in coding theory.
In general you can do things significantly faster with a lower number of bits if you leave out the redundancy required for error detection or correction.
Why do species have a prime? Why don't they reach a certain "amount of reproductibility" and stay at that constant amount forever?
The fact that a prime exists is just one instance of one of those things that evolution hasn't figured out yet. Or maybe there's a different reason why it hasn't happened, but that reason is certainly not fundamental physics.