If something can't die it's not alive.
2006-07-01 08:42:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by bones54 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Evolution selects for "reproductive success". This means that a person who dies at 30 with 10 children is more "evolutionarily fit" than a person who lives to be 100 and has only 2 children. Assuming all the children live to reproduce.
So say that you have two different species competing for the same resources.
One species lives really really long, but very gradually gets weaker and weaker as it ages. They have few children, because they live so long, and they don't need as many kids to replenish the population.
The other species has relatively short lives, but they are strong during those lives, and they reproduce more to keep the population steady.
Which of these two populations will "win out" if there aren't enough resources for both? Which species will be better suited to handle plagues, droughts, famines, and other disasters? This this the basics of evolution.
One question you might ask is why wouldn't God create beings who live forever? Now that is a tough question. Who can know the mind of God?
2006-07-01 08:56:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by tom_2727 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. The effects of aging are caused by the use of oxygen as our cell's primary energy source. This is true for all animal life on Earth. When oxydation occurs, by-products are produced called free radicals. These free radicals move through the cells tearing up whatever they run into. This minute amount of cellular destruction compounds upon itself. This is why we all age, and eventually. Most people that live long enough will find that there organs begin to fail them, because of many years worth of oxydation occurring within each cell. Your body simply cannot repair and renew itself as fast as the free radicals can wreak havoc. That is why skin treatments often contain anti-oxidents. By neutralizing the free radicals in the surface skin, the aging effect can be considerably slowed down.
Evolution would not be able to solve this problem without starting completely over at the first step of life, and finding a means of chemical energy that had no detrimental by-products. And, I don't see that happening unless a huge event destroys ALL life on Earth.
2006-07-01 08:52:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by bc_munkee 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'll answer your question with another. Would we still reproduce? because if we did, and didn't die, the world would be overrun. And evolution occurs over several generations for only a small change. It doesn't occur in individuals, unless you count puberty(spelled that wrong). God made a precious balance, when one dies, another is born. Besides, why would you want to live forever? Wouldn't everything get boring after the first few hundred years?
2006-07-01 08:47:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ally Cat 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
We die because, if we didn't, evolution wouldn't work. Evolution depends on the weak or ill-adapted to die out and for the superior individuals to make all the new babies.
No biological process can be sustained indefintily. Eventually (even in the most highly evolved organism) things begin to break down.
2006-07-01 08:41:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by DonSoze 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you need to re-read the question and find the grounds for logic...your question answers itself. We, as humans ARE living longer and longer...evolution AND life style, drugs, etc. all contribute to our greatly increased longevity. There is absolutely NO reason to equate death and afterlife...logic flaw. Animals die...my precious doggy is dying now...and I, for one, do not believe in an afterlife for animals. But then again, my vision of afterlife is very different than others...I too am agnostic, but I do believe in a collective spirit of soul perfection gained over a huge number of lifetimes. Heaven, to me, is on Earth..at least part of it. And I am not waiting to die to enjoy it. I have only my self to thank or blame for what happens to me. I do not need to rely on crutches of Christianity or any one religion. There are nuggets of true value in all religions, all based on the common good for the species. Please note...I do not go about cramming my beliefs down other's throats, I do not tell anyone they are going to hell if they do not believe as I do, and I do not tell anyone that their lifestyle is a sin or wrong.
2006-07-01 08:44:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dear Agnostic,
If your question is sincere, I assume it is, then I have not an answer but a suggestion. A book by the title of Deep Simplicity, Bringing Order to Chaos and Complexity by John Gribbin.
2006-07-01 08:48:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Braeburn_1993 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't follow the logic. Why would you assume that life would live forever if it had natural origins? Wouldn't you expect we'd live forever if we had a "perfect" creation?
I suggest you read up on evolution (www.wikipedia.com) and understand what evolution is about before making assumptions based on people who can't accept evolution because of their religious biases.
2006-07-01 08:41:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Erik P 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your argument assumes that we have proper nourishment and hygiene now. Even in America where food is abundant beyond our wildest dreams, we do not engage in proper nutrition and hygiene because our instincts were evolved to survive in areas where nourishment was scarce. We crave salt and sugar and fat above other nutrients because in the hunter-gatherer days salt, sugar and fat was extremely hard to come by. Now it is abundant and we are eating too much of it.
2006-07-01 08:44:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Guelph 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Evolution is based on one generation dying out and an altered generation taking its place. Evolution is based on Death. It is absurd to think evolution would lead to life. It is based on elimination of a species, to be replaced by another. We die because the Creator ordained it so.
2006-07-01 08:40:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by rockEsquirrel 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The world is getting more and more polluted and we cannot evolve fast enough to live with the pollution. We don't die of old age, we die because our bodies break down.
2006-07-01 08:41:36
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋