Genes and Aging

[Vene]

Research has been done on the process of aging and it appears that there are genes responsible for it. Researchers have experimented with worms and found a gene "switch" that can either speed up or slow down aging. These genes also exist in humans (consequence of common descent) and it may be possible to slow down aging by altering those genes. Now, there are other factors (ex. free radicals, disease, smoking) that influence aging, but by finding out what they are, it's possible to increase our lifespans.

link to article

 

[exxxys]

Hm, that's rather interesting. But should we toy with genetics like that? What economical and social impacts would increasing our lifespans create?

 

[Cabal]

Is telomere length still shortened even if these genes are turned off? (apologies if question is completely wrong...)

 

[Vene]

Is telomere length still shortened even if these genes are turned off? (apologies if question is completely wrong...)

I think so. Shortening is a property of DNA, not something that a gene can change.

 

[Cabal]

I think so. Shortening is a property of DNA, not something that a gene can change.

I see. Sorry, telomeres are about the only detail I recall from my genetics days...

So presumably turning off these aging genes will cause other genetic problems? Can telomeres be lengthened by gene therapy?

 

[Vene]

Sorry, but I just don't know enough to answer if it will cause other problems. It's still new research. As for gene therapy, not at our current level of technology. Gene therapy in humans has not been very successful. It works much better in single-celled organisms.

 

[TheGnome]

I think so. Shortening is a property of DNA, not something that a gene can change.

Some organisms have telomerase which adds telomeric sequences at the ends of chromosomes.

 

[Vene]

Some organisms have telomerase which adds telomeric sequences at the ends of chromosomes.

I learn something new everyday. Thanks.

 

[True_Blue]

Research has been done on the process of aging and it appears that there are genes responsible for it. Researchers have experimented with worms and found a gene "switch" that can either speed up or slow down aging. These genes also exist in humans (consequence of common descent) and it may be possible to slow down aging by altering those genes. Now, there are other factors (ex. free radicals, disease, smoking) that influence aging, but by finding out what they are, it's possible to increase our lifespans.

link to article

I think this article has discovered an EFFECT, not a cause, though the article acknowledges this. A lot of articles have been published recently on environmental stimuli that switch genes for certain behaviors and traits on and off, essentially blurring the distinction between nature and nurture, which you hint at in your post. So the trillion-dollar question is what is causing the genes to stimulate aging.

I've long thought that solar radiation is one of several causes of premature aging. The article you linked to lists that as one of several possibilities. So far, I've learned of at least four marine creatures (whales, clams, sea turtles, and squid) that live an extremely long time (a minimum of 150 years, probably considerably longer). They found a live whale recently with an ancient harpoon embedded in its flesh that dated from the 1800s. I believe these ocean animals live an extremely long time because the ocean water shields them from solar radiation. Creationists have long believed that the magnetic field used to be much stronger, which blocks and redirects certain types of radiation, and a major theory of creationism is the canopy theory with large amounts of water in the atmosphere (I accept the canopy theory, though with less water than some proponents claim). Significant evidence of this integrated theory is the massive evidence of gigantism in the fossil record, implying great longevity rather than different species, and the genealogy in Genesis citing people who lived 900+ years during the pre-Flood era.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Significant evidence of this integrated theory is the massive evidence of gigantism in the fossil record, implying great longevity rather than different species, and the genealogy in Genesis citing people who lived 900+ years during the pre-Flood era.

gigantism in the fossil record does not appear at the same time. (geologically) recent large mammals existed tens of millions of years after dinosaurs. There are large mammals living today. Gigantism has to do with environmental factors. The differences in morphology and chronology also show that we are seeing separate species, not simply long lived ones. I am troubled by your use of the word evidence in the same sentence as the claim that people lived 900+ years. Such a thing is biologically improbable and impossible to prove.

 

[Naraoia]

So the trillion-dollar question is what is causing the genes to stimulate aging.

What in the world do you mean by that?

I've long thought that solar radiation is one of several causes of premature aging. The article you linked to lists that as one of several possibilities. So far, I've learned of at least four marine creatures (whales, clams, sea turtles, and squid) that live an extremely long time (a minimum of 150 years, probably considerably longer). They found a live whale recently with an ancient harpoon embedded in its flesh that dated from the 1800s. I believe these ocean animals live an extremely long time because the ocean water shields them from solar radiation.

What about giant tortoises? Trees? Which whale lives thousands of years? Or do you think some land animals and many plants are somehow exempt from the harmful effects of solar radiation?

Creationists have long believed that the magnetic field used to be much stronger, which blocks and redirects certain types of radiation, and a major theory of creationism is the canopy theory with large amounts of water in the atmosphere (I accept the canopy theory, though with less water than some proponents claim). Significant evidence of this integrated theory is the massive evidence of gigantism in the fossil record,

Except the timing of gigantism doesn't add up. The giants you are probably thinking of (some dinosaurs, perhaps giant pterosaurs, aren't they?) lived past the middle of the time animal life has spent on dry land. There were plenty of big creatures before the dinosaurs, but none of them were nearly as big as any ordinary sauropod dinosaur (or even a large theropod). In fact, I don't think any Palaeozoic land animal grew even elephant-sized (the closest thing I can think of is Moschops, up to 5 m long. If you check the length/mass estimates for some of the genera on that page, few of them come close even to a large rhino, let alone an elephant).

How does this work with your degeneration-from-a-golden-age way of thinking?

implying great longevity rather than different species,

Really? Which prehistoric giants would be just long-lived rather than different species? And how does the fossil record imply any of that? I'm asking because I've looked at skeletons and restorations of some of these prehistoric giants and... well, let's say I wouldn't think of calling Brachiosaurus and Indricotherium, or even Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus, the same species.

and the genealogy in Genesis citing people who lived 900+ years during the pre-Flood era.

So does the Sumerian King List. Why should I accept what ancient pieces of mythology say when (1) stories, even those that started out true, easily get distorted in the telling and re-telling and (2) there is no independent objective evidence to back up said claims of ancient pieces of mythology?

 

[Tomk80]

Also, true_blue ignores the life times of many other marine animals, cherry picking a few. While bowhead whales may indeed live to be over 200 years old, as far as we know the humpback whale lives to a maximum age of around 80.

 

[True_Blue]

What in the world do you mean by that?

What about giant tortoises? Trees? Which whale lives thousands of years? Or do you think some land animals and many plants are somehow exempt from the harmful effects of solar radiation?

Except the timing of gigantism doesn't add up. The giants you are probably thinking of (some dinosaurs, perhaps giant pterosaurs, aren't they?) lived past the middle of the time animal life has spent on dry land. There were plenty of big creatures before the dinosaurs, but none of them were nearly as big as any ordinary sauropod dinosaur (or even a large theropod). In fact, I don't think any Palaeozoic land animal grew even elephant-sized (the closest thing I can think of is Moschops, up to 5 m long. If you check the length/mass estimates for some of the genera on that page, few of them come close even to a large rhino, let alone an elephant).

How does this work with your degeneration-from-a-golden-age way of thinking?

Really? Which prehistoric giants would be just long-lived rather than different species? And how does the fossil record imply any of that? I'm asking because I've looked at skeletons and restorations of some of these prehistoric giants and... well, let's say I wouldn't think of calling Brachiosaurus and Indricotherium, or even Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus, the same species.

So does the Sumerian King List. Why should I accept what ancient pieces of mythology say when (1) stories, even those that started out true, easily get distorted in the telling and re-telling and (2) there is no independent objective evidence to back up said claims of ancient pieces of mythology?

What do I mean by "trillion-dollar question?" An ability to slow aging through genetic therapy would be a valuable skill worth trillions of dollars. That's all that I mean by that.

I don't subscribe to the evolutionist ages/epocs (i.e. Paleozoic, Jurassic), so nothing I say will mesh with that paradigm. I definitely do not expect the "timing" to add up with respect to messing evolutionist theory with observation. I do not mean to insult, only to express what I believe.

Massive fossilized versions of almost every kind of plant and animal has been found:
Giant birds: http://www.amonline.net.au/birds/research/fossil_history.htm
Giant sea turtles: http://www.notesfromtheroad.com/westindies/bbc/bakers_bay_turtle1.htm ("No record of transitional species")
Giant alligators: http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Fossilgroups/Crocodylomorpha/Fossilrecord.html ("Scientists studying growth rings in the bone believe it was able to obtain its vast size by growing constantly throughout its 50-60 year life span.")
Giant insects: http://researchmag.asu.edu/stories/bugs.html ("The fossil evidence is abundant.")
Giant fungi: http://environment.newscientist.com...historic-fossil-verified-as-giant-fungus.html
Giant deer: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0906_050906_giant_deer.html

I could go on. I believe that gigantism in prehistoric plants and animals has multifactoral causes. 1) Incredible longevity in animals and plants that continually grow for their entire lifespan. 2) Vastly better nutrition. 3) 50% higher atmospheric oxygen content. 4) Undegraded, pristine genome. 5) Little or no selective pressure in favor of smaller animals.

One can compare the geneologies in Genesis and the detailed and precise factual accounts of the Flood in the Bible with the corresponding Sumerian accounts and the dozens of accounts from other cultures and see at once that the Genesis account is by far the most credible of all the accounts of which modern man is currently aware. As far as the scientific evidence is concerned, the evidence of a massive worldwide flood is completely manifest. Evolutionists are very late to the game when it comes to accepting catastrophism, but the modern trend is heavily in favor of catastrophism, even if many scientists can't bring themselves to admit that it was a global flood and not a mega-asteroid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism ("The dominant paradigm of geology has been uniformitarianism (also sometimes described as gradualism), but recently a more inclusive and integrated view of geologic events has developed resulting in a gradual change in the scientific consensus, reflecting acceptance of some catastrophic events.")

 

[Vene]

What do I mean by "trillion-dollar question?" An ability to slow aging through genetic therapy would be a valuable skill worth trillions of dollars. That's all that I mean by that.

Oh, but it's in worms, there is no reason we should function the same way as worms. Unless, we're members of the same kind.

I don't subscribe to the evolutionist ages/epocs (i.e. Paleozoic, Jurassic), so nothing I say will mesh with that paradigm. I definitely do not expect the "timing" to add up with respect to messing evolutionist theory with observation. I do not mean to insult, only to express what I believe.

What you believe has no relation to observed reality. You have no problems making money off of scientific thinking, but you are unwilling to believe that it works.

 

[keith99]

gigantism in the fossil record does not appear at the same time. (geologically) recent large mammals existed tens of millions of years after dinosaurs. There are large mammals living today. Gigantism has to do with environmental factors. The differences in morphology and chronology also show that we are seeing separate species, not simply long lived ones. I am troubled by your use of the word evidence in the same sentence as the claim that people lived 900+ years. Such a thing is biologically improbable and impossible to prove.

You touch the main point, but not clearly.

Simply put size does not imply long life!

One very simple example is in dogs, the exact opposite is true. LArger breeds in general have shorter lives.

The normal case for animals is that they grow to adult size and then stop growing, or even become smaller in old age. The only exception that comes to mind is some fishes, esp. carp.

 

[True_Blue]

You touch the main point, but not clearly.

Simply put size does not imply long life!

One very simple example is in dogs, the exact opposite is true. LArger breeds in general have shorter lives.

The normal case for animals is that they grow to adult size and then stop growing, or even become smaller in old age. The only exception that comes to mind is some fishes, esp. carp.

"But many animals, including some mammals, keep growing throughout their lives. Kangaroos, for example, just keep growing and growing until they die. Most fish, amphibians, lizards, and snakes are also indeterminate growers. Until something--disease, a predator, or old age-takes them down, these animals know no bounds when it comes to size." http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/growing.html

I suspect that many dinosaurs fall into the category of animals that keep growing as they age. We'll never know of sure, of course.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I suspect that many dinosaurs fall into the category of animals that keep growing as they age. We'll never know of sure, of course.

But we do know just how fast they were growing, it was found that they, like some other animals have growth marks in the bones that cycle yearly. Funny thing, it turns out that they grow fast, just like big animals today.

Unless of course God was trying to trick us by hiding false evidence in nature again.

 

[True_Blue]

But we do know just how fast they were growing, it was found that they, like some other animals have growth marks in the bones that cycle yearly. Funny thing, it turns out that they grow fast, just like big animals today.

Unless of course God was trying to trick us by hiding false evidence in nature again.

I know practically nothing about bone growth marks, so I will keep an open mind. The predominant Creationist philosophy, which I adopt, is that the pre-Flood environment was tropical and/or subtropical across the entire globe with little or no seasonal fluctuation. Can bone analysis of a land-dwelling animal that spent its entire life on Hawaii or similar nonseasonal environment show bone growth such at a researcher in a blind study with no knowledge of the animal be able to tell how old it is by measuring its bones? If that is the case, that would be very good evidence against my theory on longevity, and I would likely abandon it with respect to animals if what you say is true as applied to a place like the Galopagos, Hawaii, etc.

 

[Naraoia]

I know practically nothing about bone growth marks, so I will keep an open mind. The predominant Creationist philosophy, which I adopt, is that the pre-Flood environment was tropical and/or subtropical across the entire globe with little or no seasonal fluctuation. Can bone analysis of a land-dwelling animal that spent its entire life on Hawaii or similar nonseasonal environment show bone growth such at a researcher in a blind study with no knowledge of the animal be able to tell how old it is by measuring its bones?

More importantly, do supposed pre-Flood environments hold any evidence of seasonality (patterns in tree rings, for example)? You must know that before you base any idea on non-seasonality.

 

[Naraoia]

By the way, TB, I wonder how many modern environments on the planet lack seasonality and how many could possibly lack it.

To my best knowledge, most tropical/subtropical regions are seasonal in rainfall if nothing else. The only exceptions I can think of are tropical rainforests and some deserts (the sort where rainfall is completely unpredictable if there's any rain at all - this is the situation in parts of Australia if memory serves).

At higher latitudes, even if rainfall is reasonably even and temperature is reasonably high, the availability of light will be strongly seasonal (unless you suggest the earth's axis of rotation wasn't tilted before the Flood). That will definitely influence plant growth - I don't know how much animals would be affected but I'd think Palaeocene/Eocene fossils are a good place to look for clues (AFAIK these two epochs are prime examples of a generally warm and wet global climate, so seasonal variables other than light are less pronounced than today).