Watchmen #fundie

Watchmen #fundie topix.com

cool. You'd think, though, that through millions of evolution that the human race would somehow mutate a gene that would produce a race that would have a longer than 70 year life span. I mean isn't "survival" the goal?

["Well considering the maximum life span for a human used to be early 30s, I think 70 is pretty impressive."]

Actually, it used to be in the hundreds and now has dwindled down to the 70's. Let's speak worldwide and not old west days. By your implication, live in the beginning would have to been measured in months or days and it's taken us millions of years to get to the 70's. A chart from the beginning until now would show that. Sure there would be ups and downs but the general slope of the graph would show either a constant upward slope or a downward slope.

Second law of thermaldynamics (never could spell that) says what?

76 comments

old comment by Fanatic-Templar

"Well considering the maximum life span for a human used to be early 30s, I think 70 is pretty impressive."

Since we already know the fundie is an idiot, I want to disagree with this. I don't know when our maximum lifespan 'used to' be supposedly early thirties, I surely never read about that.

I know that human average lifespan could be around thirty (or far less) during most of our history, but it is important to note that these averages were markedly low because of ridiculously high child mortality rates. Even when average lifespans were about thirty or less, maximum lifespans could still be fairly high once you managed to survive long enough, and especially if you were in the favoured societal classes.

So while I agree with this person's intent, I do believe he is wrong.

As for Watchmen, he's an idiot.

old comment by Tiger

"You'd think, though, that through millions of evolution that the human race would somehow mutate a gene that would produce a race that would have a longer than 70 year life span. I mean isn't "survival" the goal? "

No, because a. GENES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY and b. evolution doesn't have a "goal". It's not a teleological process.

Even if there were a gene to make you live to be 200, it wouldn't be selected for. Why? Because by 70, most people are sterile. Survival of the individual doesn't matter, it's survival of the species (actually survival of the genes in that species' gene pool, but we're simplifying) that counts. If you're not going to be reproducing in those extra 130 years, then the gene isn't advantageous. Hundreds of species die immediately after reproduction. It doesn't matter, though, because they've already passed on their genes, ensuring that said genes will survive.

Of course, it would be advantageous to survive to reproduce multiple times, but it would also be advantageous to be able to shoot laser beams out of your eyes and teleport at will. Evolution doesn't go for perfect, evolution goes for good enough.

And that's your biology lesson for the day. Knowledge is power.

old comment by Mister Spak

"the human race would somehow mutate a gene that would produce a race that would have a longer than 70 year life span. I mean isn't "survival" the goal? "

No, retard, reproduction is the goal. Try learning what you're talking about before you talk, lou'll look like less of a moron that way.

Also, http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/formulas/page.html

The answer is pretty close to the expected lifespan for a shrew. Now lets do it for an elephant.
An elephant's heart is huge, and beats only 25 times per minute. Filling in 25 for the variable h and dividing gives an answer of 76.1 years. Again, the answer is typically correct for the lifetime of an elephant.

People are mammals. Do you think it will work? Let's see what happens.
The standard heartrate for a normal healthy human is about 60 beats per minute. When you fill this value in for h, it doesn't seem to work. The answer turns out to be 31.7 years. What went wrong? Human lifetimes are around 70-80 years, aren't they?

Actually, the formula works just fine. But it will predict the lifespan of a mammal living in the wild. Humans don't live in the wild; most of us don't have to hunt for or gather our food every day, and we don't have any natural predators. Moreover, we have technology and medicines to keep us healthy and free from disease, and a plentiful diet.
However, we didn't always have these life-extending amenities. Before the advent of civilization, say before about 15,000 BC, the average lifetime of a human was about 30 years! In fact, even up until New Testament biblical times (2000 years ago) or so, it still wasn't much longer than 30-40 years. So the formula works for humans too, as long as they are living in a situation where they don't have modern technology. Primitive cultures still exist today where there is little or no contact with the outside world, and the average lifetime of their members isn't much more than 30-40 years.

Now do you feel even more stupid?

old comment by The L

Someone clearly knows NOTHING about how evolution works.

The goal isn't to live forever--the goal is to live long enough to pass on your genes. Humans can certainly have kids by 30, so there was never a real incentive for lengthening the lifespan, especially back when we were all married off at puberty. It's only taken a few thousand years to up that to 70, because civilized life and access to antibiotics mean that more people can live longer. The fact that we no longer have to fight off wild animals left and right just to survive helps too.

And lifespans in the hundreds didn't exist outside your stupid book, Watchmen. (Whoever watches this Watchman needs to keep him away from the damned computer.)

old comment by Dr. Novakaine

"Second law of thermaldynamics (never could spell that) says what?"

Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't say anything, it sits at its desk with its hands over its mouth trying desperately not to burst out laughing at the inane things you people say.

Anyway, disregarding your wrongheaded notions about SLoT, it has nothing to do with lifespan anyway. Lifespan is more a function of various body mechanics, many of which most likely have some relationship to genes (which genes in particular are not necessarily known in all cases, however) and some of which are environmental, which is very important. Here's the key thing: it doesn't matter how many genetic mutations you make, if environmental factors are working against you you're not going to survive. This puts maximum lifespan on the back-burner, while more immediately beneficial mutations that allow better survival in less optimal conditions come more quickly. So, the reason we haven't mutated a gene to live longer is because we've been busy mutating to live at all.

In fact, I would say that the jump from 30s to 70s is more a result of human adaptation than genetic changes. We've made conditions more optimal for ourselves, and thus allow ourselves to get closer to our maximum lifespan. This is why most animals in captivity live longer than they do in the wild; conditions are more favorable in captivity, so it's easier for the creatures to hit their maximum lifespan, while in the wild, they are more likely to be killed by other creatures, diseases, or just poor conditions. If we keep ourselves close to optimal over a long period of time, I would venture that we would see an actual maximum lifespan change - it would, however, take a very long time.

Then again, I doubt you're going to care about any of this, since a big old book written before most people knew anything about this stuff told you people lived for centuries.

old comment by dg

Human *average* lifespan has increased, dramatically. Human *maximum* lifespan - not really. Sure, the record for oldest person has gone up, but that's largely driven by larger populations and better record, giving a much, much larger pool of people with verifiable ages.

@Mister Spak: It's not quite that straightforward. You only get a human average lifespan of ~30 by including infant mortality -- which the numbers for other animals generally don't include. Even in the Paleolithic, if you survived your first few years, you'd be looking at closer to 60 than 30. (Though the life expectancy numbers from that long ago are based on REALLY shaky assumptions, and were probably higher than usually given, since most diseases didn't yet exist -- most come from domestic animals.)

That formula *doesn't* really work for humans, and that's been used as grist for several science fiction stories.

old comment by Giveitaday

[iYou'd think, though, that through millions of evolution that the human race would somehow mutate a gene that would produce a race that would have a longer than 70 year life span.]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Next time instead of putting your foot straight into your mouth you should maybe research the subject first.

I mean isn't "survival" the goal?

Evolution has no "goal". What you seem to be trying to refer to is reprduction, the point isn't to live as long as possible, it's to live long enough to reproduce.

Actually, it used to be in the hundreds and now has dwindled down to the 70's

No, you have a book that says people lived for hundreds of years, there is absolutely no credible evidence that people actually lived to those ages, in fact all scientific evidence points to the opposite being the case, with lifespans considerably shorter than the are today.

Let's speak worldwide and not old west days

The rest of us are. You however are talking about myths and fantasies.

old comment by Moondog

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy (disorder) will increase in a closed system, because there are vastly more possible disordered states than ordered states. My apartment will get messier and messier without my spending time and energy to clean it up. It can apply to the arrangement of atoms as much as to the arrangement of my stuff. All the atoms of all the gasses in the Earth's atmosphere could at one instant be in the space of one room as they bounce around, but the odds against it are nearly infinite. Filling the space around the Earth increases entropy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a favorite with fundies. But what, exactly, does it have to do with evolution?

Watchmen #fundie topix.com

76 comments

Confused?