Twink wrote:
> >My theory is that some species never aged (in a evolutionary scale)
> >while others started to show signs of aging and then "evolved" towards
> >non-aging species (they evolved because they were close to the top of
> >the food chain or had other kind of non-hazardous lifestyle where there
> >is evolutionary preassure against aging). We, in turn, become so complex
> >that errors in our more advanced functions are more likely to occur.
> >Aging is caused by this errors and the ones mentioned ahead.
>
> Sounds unlikely, but what is the evidence for your theory?
My first evidence is that our ancestrals did not age (bacteria don't age
and most of the non-aging species are quite primitive in an evolutionary
scale). If aging "evolved", it can be caused by two types of errors: (1)
old processes that started to fail; or (2) new processes that are not
perfect yet.
About the evolution of aging species towards non-aging species, the
question might be asked of weather these species suppressed aging or
their evolutionary "relatives" in more hazardous positions evolved
aging? I think it can go either way, the best evidence I have supporting
the first option is that there is some evolutionary pressure against
aging in species who live non-hazardous lives. For example, in mammals,
the species with the longest life span (ours), is the one with the
longest maturation time, something that can only be achieved by being on
top of the food chain.
Anyway, the best is to read my article about the evolution of aging.
It's a long and boring (yes, very boring, I intend to change that soon
by making it smaller) article, the URL (after saying it is boring you
probably won't be interested but...) is:
http://homepage.esoterica.pt/~jpnitya/science/why.htm
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/