X-Message-Number: 29469
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: 2Arcturus <>
Subject: Hayflick on aging

--0-789348760-1177785955=:72602

Keith,
   

  Am I the only one who is confused by Leonard's position? Is he against 
  research to slow aging or not? Why does he think "molecular aging" is the 
  issue, not biological processes? What could possibly justify pulling research 
  off funding age-related disease if he thinks slowing or reversing aging is 
  impossible (if he does?)? And does -below- represent a change in his thinking?
     
  Greg
   
  >>>>


Message-Number: 29467  Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:27:38 -0400  From: Keith Henson
< var s1 = "hkhenson"; var s2 = "rogers.com"; var s3 = s1 + "@" + s2; 
document.write("" + s3 + ""); Subject">>  Subject: Part I. 
Aging, Longevity, and Evolution  Biological Aging Is No Longer an Unsolved 
Problem    LEONARD HAYFLICK    The belief that aging is still an unsolved 
problem in biology is no longer   true. Of the two major classes of theories, 
the one class that is tenable   is derivative of a single common denominator 
that results in only one   fundamental theory of aging. In order to address this
complex subject, it   is necessary to first define the four phenomena that 
characterize the   finitude of life.    
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1100/1/1?etoc    

       
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
--0-789348760-1177785955=:72602

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29469