If ageing is a big factor that contributes to extinction...?

Question

, why isn't there any species that evolves to eliminate the gene that causes ageing? I mean, if merely to exist and to continue to exist is the sole purpose of every single living organism, then why die in the first place?

I'm not saying this to offend you nor am I offended by you answer Labsci. If you said that the sole purpose of living organisms is that there is no purpose, then why do you keep on living in this world? If you'd been dead then it would make no difference at all, wouldn't it?

Answer 1

Many studies have been made to either slow or stop aging but at the moment, we are limited to simple life forms...protists and such. It is inevitable that we may achieve a greater life span (even today an adult male lives almost twice as long as a century ago), however immortality seems not possible. The metabolic rate, simple wear on bones and teeth, reduced elasticity of cartilage show that it is not only genetic but a matter of cell replacement equal to or greater than cell destruction, and we haven't found a way to do so yet!

Answer 2

Once genetic material has been passed on, there is no benefit to getting much older. There is a benefit to parents living till say, 40 years old, until their children have grown old enough to feed themselves, because it increases the chances of their genes continuing. So, genetic conditions which cause death in early adulthood, whether offspring had been produced or not, would result in decreased chance of survival of those offspring, and so those genes would diminish. Genes which give survival beyond 40-50 years, would neither help nor hinder survival very much. If you look at tribal societies, survival beyond this age was rare. Our longevity is due to improved health, medicine, artificial environment etc.

The sole purpose of living organisms is that there is no purpose. The continuance of survival is not a purpose, it is a result of success.The fact that an organism exists just tells us that its genetic material has succeeded where others have failed.

Nothing more.

Additional edit: I am not offended by your additional comments. And I didn't mean that life should have no meaning, I enjoy life. So much so that I would like to live as long as possible. But there is no higher purpose, other than life itself. We "merely exist", just because we are here, not the other way around. Existence itself is shallow, the meaning you put into your life is, in some respects, irrelevant, in other respects, all important. Sorry if this sounds like a Zen answer, but I think some people look for purpose and meaning in biological things such as life, where there are none, really.
Regards
labsci

Answer 3

I'm not too sure about the idea of aging leading to extinction, I think that's incorrect. After all, you have all your offspring before you get old and die. By passing on our DNA to the next generation. we continue to exist (sort of...).

It is also silly to say that there is a single gene that causes aging. If genes are involved in the aging process then there are multiple genes, not a single gene.
It is difficult enough to identify genes involved in something like fleece colour, it would take a massive effort to find a gene involved in aging. And as for elimintaing it...that is very risky. Genes often have multiple roles so elimintating it could leave to a very nasty side effect.

Aging can occur via the replication of DNA. Nothing is perfect and the replication process is no exception. Sometimes mistakes are made - the longer we live, the more mistakes in replication are made. So the longer you live, the higher the chance of getting a mistake that is really bad (eg. lead to cancer). Also, the replication occurs in such a way that the ends of the DNA aren't replicated. So as more and more replications occur, your DNA gets shorter and shorter. Eventually, this will affect the outer genes.
That's also why cloning is bad, becasue it involves aged DNA. However, DNA in the germ line (the DNA that eventually makes offsring) do not get shortened so offspring don't have "aged" DNA.

So the matter isn't as simple as finding a gene and "eliminating" it.

Answer 4

That's becuase dying doesn't stop the passing down of genes. Living long enough to propagate ensures that the genome lives on long after an individual dies. It's like asking, "Why don't we have more fingers on our hands when having fingers is obviously to our advantage?" That's because five is enough. Our species got on--and even got on well--with only five. With that analogy, I should say that living long enough IS ENOUGH. Aging is not an impediment to propagation. We don't have to live forever for the genome to live forever. Individuals are not the concern of evolution--we are only the vessels. On this note, I should also say that perhaps we've evolved to delay aging until it's way past our reproductive peak. Have you heard of telomerase? Try reading on that. You'll realize that evolution has put some effort, so to speak, to delaying aging. That's because if aging took its toll on organisms before they could produce the optimal number of offsprings for their species to live on, then that species would most certainly be wiped out. But then after the reproductive phase, after the individual has done its part, evolution can't care less anymore. As I said, we are only vessels.

Also, aging is NOT a big factor that contributes to extinction. Hardly.

Answer 5

Easy......to improve....once the cells are formed the mitochondria in every living cell of any lifeform can not alter in the lifetime of that lifeform....life must end always for genes to improve themselves generationally.

Incidentally, I would be failing you if I didn't point out a simple contradiction: life is more or less defined by us humans as any organic organism that exhibits behaviors consistent with and comprised of : a: respiration (aerobic/anaerobic)
b. consumption/absorption (of nutrients)
c. reproduction (propagation)
D. MORTALITY (carbon-based compounds and molecules do not last forever; every known element has a radioactive half-life)

life with indefinite continuity would not be life at all....and if your life was infinitely long, then how could you even perceive the passage of time?

Answer 6

There is not gene for ageing therefor it can not be eliminated. Our DNA has these things called telomere at the ends of them. With each replication of our DNA these telomeres get shorter. Scientists are not 100% what causes aging but they believe that it has to do with the shorting of these telomeres.

Answer 7

read your answer and digest it.look,the key word is evolve.medicine aside,aren't we living longer?were evolving to live longer, the longer we live, the longer by nature our[your,I have none]kid;s will live.our immune system is evolveing to fight bacteria,virus's and the such.how old are you?your mom?dad?their parent's?Getting older by generation, huh? One other thing,if we evolved from ape's,then that[this] evolution is not complete.There are still ape's and were changing.How big is your dad's little toe?

Answer 8

all matter,...... but paticularly biological matter are subject to the processes of germination, aging, then cessation.

If it was'nt,........ there'd be cavemen and dinosaurs still walking around in the middle of town.

So therefore,....... new generations will still start and end, pretty much the same way they always have.......

Answer 9

Cycle of life, can't be avoided!