News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong by jostmey on Monday January 05, 2015 @12:05PM (#8839753)
My favorite explanation of Againg comes from William Hamilton. He took advantage of the Euler-Lotka equation to calculate the number of offspring that would be alive at any given point in the future. Using this equation from the field of demographics, he showed that senescence has only a marginal effect on fitness. As such, selective pressure would not be strong enough to filter out mutations that might result in aging. Finally, he was able to derive various mortality curves that "seem" to match pretty well with real living systems.
Re:What Is Aging? Most Scientists Still Get It Wrong by mitteldorf on Tuesday January 06, 2015 @03:37AM (#8843409)
Marginal effect on INDIVIDUAL fitness, but a huge effect on THE FITNESS OF ECOSYSTEMS. Without aging, ecosystems would be unstable dynamic systems, and would not last more than a single generation. Without aging, everyone would die at once, in famines and natural disasters. Aging is necessary to spread out the death rate, so that populations don't swing wildly up and down.