sciborg

I guess this is why the book is a book length document and not a paper. The book provides logical arguments that appear to counter all or most of the arguments made above. The book cites recent scientific papers of quite a few scientists that currently believe in group selection of one sort or another and explains why group selection is becoming more popular. (The selfish gene theory essentially proposes a form of group selection.) The chapter on the digital nature of inheritance and consequences for evolution theory has to be 30 pages and explains in detail why digital genetic messages are different from atoms and molecules. There is discussion of the cheater problem, why immortality would be bad for evolution even in species that seldom die of old age, phenotypic variation, etc. There is no way I can repeat all the arguments, evidence and citations here.

Yes BUT. The book points out that in an analog system, errors (noise) create small variations just like the variations we see in organisms. In a digital system such as the genetic code, errors do not result in small variations but usually totally mess up the message. The variations that we see are actually created by a series of complex evolved design features that organize, and merge the digital data in the code to produce variations that LOOK like analog variation.

I thought mutations were essential to the whole process of evolution. Without mutations we would all still be one-celled organisms. The "system" is built on mutations. Yes the "pathogen" explanation for sexual reproduction is popular among people that do not believe in "group selection". However, the book contains a long series of arguments to the effect that some form of group selection is the best overall explanation encompasing all the discrepancies with Darwins theory.

I am more comfortable with scientific explanations than "common sense." The book discusses this in depth but here are some examples of benefits of aging or other evolved life span restriction: - Aids evolution by eliminating older, less evolved individuals and freeing resources for younger more evolved individuals (1882) - Aids evolution by preventing a few old individuals from dominating reproduction and reducing genetic diversity - Allows evolution of intelligence and other features that involve acquisition of some property that is not genetically transmitted. - Acts to control population growth and prevent extinction due to overpopulation. There are several others.

There is a new book on evolution theory: The Evolution of Aging (2nd ed), ISBN 0978870905, by Theodore Goldsmith that discusses digital information aspects of inheritance and their implications for evolution theory. Darwin tells us that selective breeding and the corresponding evolutionary mechanism of natural selection both depend on the natural variation of characteristics between different individuals. Variation creates differences for selection to select. According to the book, natural variation in more complex species is not actually "natural" in the sense of being a fundamental characteristic of all living things. Instead, because of the digital nature of the genetic code, the "natural" intrinsic situation is that members of a species should nominally tend toward being genetically identical. "Natural" variation in complex organisms is actually created and maintained primarily by the action of a long list of complex evolved mechanisms that process mutations including sexual reproduction, genetic recombination, certain behaviors, etc. The degree of variation produced by these mechanisms is described to be much greater than that produced by the occasional propagatable mutation. This brings up the issue of how all these variation-producing traits evolved. It seems to be a somewhat circular situation: organisms are evolving the means for evolving. Further, variation considered as an evolved design feature is itself incompatible with Darwinian evolution as generally understood. If organisms are striving to propagate their personal designs, then variation is adverse because it acts to reduce the ability of an organism to do that. A Darwinian organism would rather clone itself and therefore propagate ALL of its design characteristics than dilute its design via sexual reproduction and other evolved variation-producing characteristics. Cloning is the "natural", easier, route given digital genetics. So how did these characteristics evolve? Wouldn't an organism that had the variation-producing characteristics be at a disadvantage relative to one that did not (such as one that reproduced by cloning) and therefore "select out?" An organism that happened to possess an advantageous design would certainly seem to be less able to propagate that design. Its descendents would likely be less able to survive, breed, etc. than would a clone. Somehow variation-producing characteristics were able to evolve despite fitness disadvantage, apparently because they convey an evolutionary advantage, an improvement in the capacity for evolution. The question: Is this a plausible idea? If not, where is the fatal logical flaw? If you accept these arguments, Goldsmith then goes on to suggest that aging, seen as a design feature that deliberately limits life span, also enhances the evolution process in several different ways. If variation can evolve, then aging can evolve even though both are fitness-adverse. This is counter to traditional theories of aging that say that aging is an adverse "side effect" linked to some beneficial and therefore evolvable trait such that there is a net Darwinian benefit. ("Beneficial" means a trait that helps in survival or reproduction as in "survival of the fittest.") I realize these concepts might seem, at the least, radical, but they are nonetheless interesting.

As I see it the big issue is whether we are designed to age and possess some kind of "drop dead timer" or whether aging is something that just happens because of some limitation in the organism. In connection with telomeres, is there a fundamental limit on cell division as suggested by Hayflick or is telomerase programmed by some mechanism to act as part of the self distruct mechanism? This is medically significant because if there is a self distruct mechanism there might be some way to disable it.

There is still a lot of scientific argument about why we age. Some say we age because it is essential to the process of evolution. See http://www.azinet.com/aging/ and http://www.mathforum.org/%7Ejosh/humanist.html