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