X-Message-Number: 3188
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 20:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: 
Subject: SCI CRYONICS Evolution and Ageing (aging).

Date sent:  28-SEP-1994 20:46:46 
>    #1          28-SEP-1994 20:16:02.34                                
>    From:ACAD::COETZEE_JV  
>To:SMTP%""
>CC:COETZEE_JV
>Subj:Re: SCIEvolution and Aging (Ageing)
>
>Date sent:  28-SEP-1994 19:50:00 
>>From:SMTP%"" 28-SEP-1994 18:40:21.41
>>To:COETZEE_JV
>>CC:
>>Subj:Re: SCIEvolution and Aging (Ageing)
>>
>>From: 
>>To: 
>>Subject: Re: SCIEvolution and Aging (Ageing)
>>Lines: 4
>>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 94 15:40:08 PDT
>>Message-ID: <>
>>X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
>>
>    #1          28-SEP-1994 20:16:02.34                                 
>>You should use the keywords Hayflick (Leonard) and telomeres
>>(not exactly sure of the last spelling).  There is a fairly
>>well understood theory of aging nowadays--turns out to be a 
>>side effect of a very powerful defense against cancer!  Keith
>
>I hate to tell you this but Hayflicks idea of limited divisions is only 
>true for certain cells under culture plate conditions. Ask any cancer 
>patient. It has been shown that what you call telomeres is only true for 
>a limited number of cells. Both these theories are basically the one and 
>same idea. The clock. Theories that are in line with religious dogma 
>always become popular. By that I mean "God" decided how long creatures 
>can live. Thus the popularity of "clock" theories. My idea forces 
>scientists to see aging for what is: Evolutioni! I can write in 
>scientific mubo jumbo if I wish but I want this Idea to be discussed by 
>every one not just those in white ivory towers. 
>Thanks for your reply.
>Jan (John) Coetzee.

P.S. I think my reply will help to dump the "Clock" hypothesis on 
garbage heap of Bio History. Jan (John) Coetzee.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3188