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