Curt Adams wrote,
>Longer lifespan with no disadvantages would be selected for, roughly to the
>point where only a negligeable number of mice would survive that long due to
>other causes (a lot less than 200 years, I'd think). If the effects of the
>gene are more complex (only works if a particular set is in the organism,
>useless or harmful otherwise) then selection is less reliable, hence weaker
>and the effect "gives out" earlier.
>Of course longer lifespan may have costs. In the Rose lab, the long-lived
>strains take longer to develop and lay fewer eggs in the first part of life.
So, shorter life cycle strains would outperform long-lived strains?
Appreciatively,
--J. R.