Geoff Smith wrote:
> If you admit you were generalizing, do you retract your statement that
> human cells are neccessarily more difficult to cryosuspend than other
> cells with smaller genome? (I see you have deleted this statement from
> your post)
I didn't claimed human cells more difficult to cryosuspend, I claimed
human beings more difficult to cryosuspend than frogs, there is an
important difference and I still maintain my opinion on that matter.
There might be exceptions but statistically speaking, mammals are bound
to be more difficult to cryosuspend than other species because they are
more complex.
> What does IMHO mean, I've always wondered.
In My Humble Opinion.
> > Not in the same way as us. Our species appeared about 100 000 years ago
> > while other species (such as alligators, etc) appeared much before. Of
> > course that evolution made them more complex but at a lower rate than us
> > and made them more 'perfect'.
>
> I'd like to hear your definition of "complex" and "perfect" as it pertains
> to this statement.
I define "perfection" as the absence of mistakes/errors. More 'perfect'
means with less errors. "Complexity" is harder to define, in
biology/zoology, perhaps the more functions an organism performs the
more complex he is (including internal, cellular functions). Or perhaps
the higher different types of proteins or cells an organism has, the
more complex he is.
> > BTW, sharks do get cancer, they get it a
> > much lower rate than us but they naturally get it.
>
> Really? Live and learn. When was this discovered?
I think I read it in Steven Austad's "Why We Age" (1997), I don't know
who discovered it but I remember reading that he talked to a few
specialists and they toll him of a few cancers that sharks get. I don't
have the book, I read it in a library but I'll try to find the answer to
your question.
> If you think the
> functioning and abilities of your brain are "spiritual" and unknowable,
> then I cannot debate with you, because your ideas have been cemented by faith.
I don't think so, I was asking if you think so, I'm sorry if I offended
you.
> ...this is the great thing
> about not having faith... infinite possibilities ;)
Yes, if I wanted answers to all questions I would have gone to theology
and not Microbiology (just kidding).
> I think you'll find the majority of people want to fight aging. The
> majority of people also want to die, when it is "their time." Weird,
> isn't it?
They don't want to die, they just learn to accept it. Perhaps they're
the smart ones, have a quiet, peaceful life while we burn our neurons
trying to solve aging. We'll probably get ulcers too.
> I think you have entirely missed my point. I will give you 3 points will
> together will give you much grief:
>
> 1. Your brain is fragile- you will lose neurons whether you age or not.
> 2. You have a finite number of neurons.
> 3. Your neurons do not grow back.
> 4. You (I assume) want to live for a long time.
I'll just write a citation from Leonard's Hayflick "How and Why We Age"
"A controversial question in biogerontology is whether or not we lose
nerve cells as we age." This is from the 1994 edition, there is a 1996
edition with an extra chapter, I've read that chapter but I haven't read
the rest, presumably it's the same sentence in the 1996 edition.
And yet you affirm that I lose neurons!
Personally I think that we lose neurons but this is just to show you
that sometimes things are not as simple as they look. IMHO, we lose
neurons basically because of aging.
You put an interesting question, if one doesn't age, will he lose
neurons (naturally, of course)?
Sincerely I don't know and I bet (unless something new has been
discovered in the last months) you don't either. I guess we'll just have
to wait and see.
While looking in Hayflick's book I found a mention to replicating
neurons in songbirds but he isn't very precise, all he says is that,
songbirds' neurons replicate.
> > Give a laboratory so that I can try them out.
>
> Ah, but I am just a student. Go where the money is-- not here.
Where is the money? What are you planning to do when you graduate?
> > I guess it's a bit irrational (when you don't have any evidences and
> > need to draw conclusions, you use your balls right?)
>
> No, I don't. I find my balls are very good at making logical
> deductions. What do women do?
Probably nothing, it explains a lot of things (sorry, stupid joke, I
apologize immediately).
> You're going to let computers become more intelligent than you? Haven't
> you seen Terminator 2 ?!?
Yes I did but as long as they serve us, it's ok.
See ya,
--
Hasta la vista...
"Life's too short to cry, long enough to try." - Kai Hansen
Visit my site at: http://mithlond.esoterica.pt/~jpnitya/