DanArmak comments on Does evolution select for mortality? - Less Wrong

12 Post author: DanArmak 23 February 2013 07:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (55)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanArmak 23 February 2013 11:57:30PM 1 point [-]

That's one of the major theories of aging. The difference is that it doesn't say aging itself is selected for, the way Eric Lander claims. It just says aging is accidentally genetically linked to something else that's being selected for.

Comment author: faul_sname 24 February 2013 12:28:48AM 2 points [-]

The failure of many systems at approximately the same time is selected for. Death as a result of the failure of those many systems is not itself selected for, but the reproductive benefits of systems that only have to function for a set amount of time are selected for. It's not exactly correct, but it's a reasonable approximation for talking to laypeople, as it's close enough to the truth to allow people to make reasonably accurate predictions about the world (e.g. this new wonder drug won't cure aging). Whereas if you say that aging is "accidentally linked" to another trait, that makes it sound like we just have to identify one or two traits and we can cure aging, so while it may be closer to being literally true, it's also more likely to cause misconceptions in people who don't have more than a layperson's grasp on the mechanisms of evolution.