[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Well, I did not mean to imply that some kind of God figure did the programming. I do believe, however, that the invention of death (by nature) was not accidental.

Obviously, when multi-cell organisms first evolved, it proved to be beneficial to have those complex organisms expire. Death occurs differently in single-cell organisms. Bacteria et al can be killed, but a single-cell organism will in principle live and multiply as long as there are sufficient nutrients to feed it. There is no multi-cell organism alive today that, even when well nourished or not otherwise threatened, will not expire after some amount of time. So, I'd say that particular kind of death was invented with the introduction of multi-cell organisms. In that sense, I used the words 'purposely programmed': death by old age was programmed into multi-cell organisms, because it proved to be beneficial to evolution.

...

I guess I am. That is, I'm inclined to see evolution as more than an endless series of happy accidents.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I do look at our bodies as complex machines (see my first post in this topic). And I believe that our bodies know perfectly well how to repair themselves. With the exception of brain cells and a few others, all cells in your body are continually being replaced by newer cells, to ensure the survival of the organism as a whole. As the body ages, the rate of renewal slows and that (amongst other things, such as random mutations) ultimately causes the minor damage you mention and the eventual death of the individual. How fast or slow cells are renewed is controlled, at least in part, by our DNA - just as the growth in your youth was tightly controlled by DNA. The process of aging has thus effectively been "programmed" into us all.

Ok, I agree with what you seem to mean, but your choice of words (programmed, invention) still reflects the fairly common misunderstanding of evolution, which sees it as a directed process, as if the genes somehow choose how they'll contribute to evolution.

It seems from most of your posts you understand most of what evolution is about. But granting it intentionality is a major flaw, so I'll go over the basics. The main two processes of evolution are random mutation and natural selection (theres also genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, and possibly group selection, and maybe more). Random mutation is the process of accidental changes that occur in genes during cell division (or through exposure to ionising radiation, or possibly other external influences). Natural selection is the process through which genes which contribute to the expression of a helpful trait are propagated more than unhelpful traits, because of the contribution of those traits to the organism's survival and ability to compete with other organisms.

Natural selection is a non-random process. That is, it happens specifically because some traits are better than others, rather than randomly choosing traits. This is probably why some people, perhaps you too Jim, think evolution is driven by some intentional process. It seems as if either the organism, or the genes themselves, are making a choice of which genes get passed on or not. They're not. The only relevant choice they have is to procreate, or not (and for some, i.e., most animals and plants, they don't even have that choice. They just do it), and to survive in order to do so.

So, if cell death benefited an organism more than immortality, cell death would have been selected over immortality. But according to evolution, the occurrence of death, i.e., whatever causes death to happen, would have been accidental.

Originally Posted by williamhessian

i strongly beleive that our evolution (strongly aided by our intelligence) is following a very logical course at a technological scale. as technology and our knowledge as a race grow, it is only logical for us to live for a longer period of time, and our intelligence is at a climax point in which we can break new barriers. Living for hundreds of years is just around the corner and its simply evolution.

Human guided evolution

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

...or at least until you get hit by a truck, or some other unfortunate mishap.

Look out for that asteroid! (and don't bother looking for that nearby gamma ray burst. By the time it hits us it'll be too late)

Originally Posted by Sam988

So my point is that the technological benefits always exceed the technological drawbacks such as the possibility of destroying all human race. We already have the technology to destroy it all but we didn't do it, so i don't think that further technological advances with further dangers will destroy us.

If only those who unreservedly oppose stem cell research, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, nuclear research, etc., understood what you do...

Originally Posted by Sam988

But besides all the arguments, no one really knows (yet ) what makes us age, if it's an "aging gene" causing the damages (unlikely), or just the imperfection of our DNA causing these damages (more likely). So we won't reach an agreement because the answer isn't out there yet.

Very true. But then discussions are not necessarily all about reaching an agreement.