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