X-Message-Number: 26207 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:15:45 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: to Basie, for the umpteenth time To Basie, for the umpteenth time: 1. To affect aging we need not find ways to alter the genes. I would agree that such ways MIGHT turn out more effective than other treatments, and so would eventually be preferred. However, if one consequence of the action of these genes is to make an animal (or a person) more subject to the destruction of oxidation, then any treatment which helps prevent that oxidation will prolong their lives. I doubt very much that many people would only want a treatment which deals with fundamental reasons for aging if no such treatment presently existed but other treatments such as antioxidants DID exist. And the level problem I referred to gets even worse. JUST HOW do these genes create the problem of aging? If they do so by promoting oxidation of our tissues, then any treatment which prevents oxidation works against these proposed genes. It would probably be much easier to apply than a total change of relevant genes, at least for now, too. 2. If you had seriously read my comments about inbreeding you would not have dreamt of claiming that inbreeding ALWAYS acts detrimentally. I hardly wish to advocate inbreeding, but many lab strains exist which are very inbred. It's still true that USUALLY inbreeding is detrimental, but USUALLY does not equal ALWAYS. And as I said, if we get a strain of animals with genes for longevity, then breeding them with one another they'll keep those genes, while otherwise those longevity genes will simply dissipate. That hardly looks very detrimental. Finally, I hope that you understand that in 1. and 2. above I am NOT saying that oxidation is the cause of aging, nor am I agreeing with your theory that death rate is selected to prevent inbreeding. I am discussing the logic of your arguments, such as it is. And if you wish to find the original reference to GC Williams theory of how aging (and eventual death by old age in animals kept safe from the normal stresses and damage), it is GC Williams, "Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolution of senescence", EVOLUTION 11(1957) 398-411. And one consequence of Williams' theory is that evolution is now acting to lengthen our lives, not to keep them the same or shorten them. We just are trying to get it to work faster, so we can take advantage of such evolution ourselves. Best wishes and long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26207