I wrote and Anders Sandberg asked:
> > True, around 175 divisions when compared to 50-60 divisions in our case.
>
> What is the source of this? It sounds interesting.
Hayflick's "How and Why We Age" pages 132/133.
CurtAdams wrote:
> It's my understanding that many of these species (the lobsters in
> particular) have since been shown to age, and the current theory
> holds that every animal ages if it lives long enough. A long
> while back people thought that growth cessation was a necessary
> part of aging and hence animals that keep growing (fish, lobsters)
> didn't age.
That's why biogerontologists call them species that appear not to age.
As far as I know, no-one has ever proved that lobsters age. If you know
of anyone, please let me know.
Also, species that appear not to age do grow indefinitely. I don't know
if there is any species that grows indefinitely and does age, but I know
that all species that appear not to age grow indefinitely. Hayflick
writes:
"Animals that reach a fixed size as adults -- ... -- do age"
See ya,
--
Hasta la vista...
"Life's too short to cry, long enough to try." - Kai Hansen
Reason's Triumph at: http://homepage.esoterica.pt/~jpnitya/