The Origins Of DeathAlthough most people think of aging as one of the most immutable and inescapable facts of life there is increasing scientific evidence and theoretical support for the idea that aging will eventually be much more medically treatable than previously thought.
Darwin\'s Dilemna
Darwin's theory of evolution says that essentially everything that distinguishes a man from a microbe is the result of natural selection. Yet Darwin's theory also says that animals and humans should not age. For more than 140 years, scientists have been torn between believing that aging is an evolved adaptation and part of an animal's design resulting from natural selection, despite Darwin's theory, or believing that it was not an adaptation despite extensive and growing evidence that it was. Traditional, currently highly respected, "non-adaptive" theories of aging, developed mostly in the 1950s, tend to be very pessimistic regarding the possibility of successful major medical intervention in the aging process, thus discouraging anti-aging research. "Adaptive" theories, proposed in 1882 and now revived by a growing number of theorists suggest that aging is functionally more like a universal genetic disease and is therefore potentially highly treatable. Intervening discoveries including modern genetics and the discovery of aging genes provide increased support for the adaptive theories. Increasing understanding of the actual mechanics of inheritance and evolution including the digital nature of the genetic code suggest that Darwin's theory itself needs some adjustment.
The Evolution of Aging
I am glad that at least someone else also challenges some of these stupid theories which confuse mankind. Ageing and death are part of life, for without them our spiritual elemnt cannot progress.
Originally posted by Philege:
I am glad that at least someone else also challenges some of these stupid theories which confuse mankind. Aging and death are part of life, for without them our spiritual element cannot progress.
During his more than 30 years at NASA?s Goddard Space Flight Center, Theodore Goldsmith held many different positions mainly specializing in the design, development, and management of digital data systems for NASA scientific spacecraft such as the International Ultraviolet Explorer, International Sun-Earth Explorer, Space Shuttle, and the Hubble Space Telescope. He has been a computer programmer, digital systems engineer, microcircuit designer, and project manager and is a recipient of NASA?s Exceptional Service Medal. In 1995 he became interested in the digital aspects of genetics and has written numerous articles about genetics, evolution theory, and aging theory. Goldsmith has a degree in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the CEO of a small Internet company. He lives with his wife in Annapolis, Maryland.
Daniel 5:26"God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it."
--Jesus Christ
Matthew 10:30"But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."
--Jesus Christ
Look when that poor sheep 'Dolly' was cloned. No doubt the idea foremost in the mind of the scientists who cloned her was that this was a means to stay young. Wasn't it funny that before long they found that the cloned 'Dolly' was actually the same age as the original Dolly. What a shocker (Just to emphasize my point)There are many good reasons why we age, one of which is so that we can die and go back to God (Read Ecclesiastes Chapter 12) from whom we came. For those who believe in reincarnation when we are ready for a new lesson we return again, then die and return. See what I mean by the spiritual element. Death is by no means the end, as modern scientist would have us believe but is merely the beginning of another form of life (Beyond the scope of people with certain IQs because like Jesus said, one needs the mind of a little child in order to understand)
Philege! YOU MORON! Ageing and death are NOT part of life, they are merely another product of universal laws and will (or maybe not) one day be possible to overcome. THROUGH SCIENCE.
Oh another personal attack, Rob, I just luv it.You and Science can go **** in the lake for all I care
If that's what you think then why on earth are you on a science web site? Get lost, go and join godagogo or something.
Originally posted by Garry Denke:
Yet Darwin's theory also says that animals and humans should not age.
Where does it say that?
Rob, please note you are on the "Origins Forum"
Did you miss the Forum you wanted?
jw
?What is the origin of death??
My first thought is ?life? is the origin. No life = no death.
So why does life culminate in death? As a language issue it is the natural termination of what we call life- which brings up the question of whether if creatures lived forever we would call it ?life?. What would we call creatures that never died? Alive implies there is an opposite, such as with rocks. But we do not refer to rock as being dead because they never lived (that we know of).
So, for me, the origin of death is a poorly evolved creature that never learned to replace all of its cells as they wore out. If there was a properly defined millions of year?s evolution we should have done better.
From the creationists perspective it is the means by which we get a chance to do better the next time around by being reborn- only to die again and again and again ??.
jjw
The origin of death?! In universal terms, death doesn?t exist. It's simply a change in the arrangement of particles.
Originally posted by Rob:
The origin of death?! In universal terms, death doesn?t exist. It's simply a change in the arrangement of particles.
Absolutely. Too bad humans are cursed with self-consciousness.
BTW - I find that flaming and such is a waste of time. If we all were in a bar together talking face to face, we wouldn't act up like that.
VB
Rob and Bellator:
When your mparticles change and you no longer exist where do they go? Are they re-assembled and put forth as some other particle object or simply dispersed to spread knowledeg in the wind?
jjw
what's an mparticle? I am assuming it's just another word for a particle. If it is, then here is your answer: They are indeed re-assembled as something completely different.
What you said about spreading knowlege in the wind is nonsence. If you were to put your pocket-watch at the center of a nuclear explosion the particles would not be dispersed to spread the time in the wind.
Rob discussing anything intelligent with jjw004 is still-borne. jjw has as little interest in learning as does the invisible purple rhinoceros in making himself visible.
Consider this question he just asked: "When your mparticles change and you no longer exist where do they go?"
The question is pure nonsense. Cells in our bodies die all the time from the moment of conception on ... where do they go? This is not an intellectual challenge for anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
I know. They get recycled. They get made into other cells in the embryo. Which then die and get recycled. Like aluminum cans, only neater.
Humans are like waterfalls, you always see the same waterfall but you never see the same water.
Rob said:
The origin of death?! In universal terms, death doesn?t exist. It's simply a change in the arrangement of particles.
Jjw asked Rob, in essence, where do the particles go?
DA offers that jjw004 is less than lucid, still-born.
Jjw rep:
DA, I am flattered that I appear to disgust you so much. You and your purple Rhinoceros have never offered anything constructive to this Forum that I have seen so your methods are self evident. Uncle Al can be caustic at times but he offers reasons and links to information- what do you offer?
jjw
I offer a buffer between you and anyone reading your random thoughts and thinking they contain substance.
The truth, with respect to this thread, is that you are no more capable of defining death than you are life: No one can because there is no universally accepted definition of either word. Not in science, not in theology, not in philosophy.
But death, as we know it as applied to sexually reproducing organisms, is an essential component of evolution. In fact one of the strongest arguments in favour of evolution is death. Feel free to forever and prove Darwin wrong if you wish. Others have tried. None of succeeded.
DA says:
I offer a buffer between you (meaning jjw) and anyone reading your random thoughts and thinking they contain substance.
Jjw Response:
That is possibly a partially correct statement. I check just about all of you posts and replies. In a post you make sense. In replies you are antagonistic, insulting, demeaning and sloppy about the content of your reply. It appears you want to be every body?s buffer for everything. A frustrated moderator. In another reply I saw where you offered a connection with a University. Are you the ?Instructor? for Adult Education at the University of Washington? If so, congratulations.
jjw
Yes I teach at the University of Washington. Have also been an advisor at UC Berkeley and lecture at a number of colleges around the country each year.
Perhaps the reason I seem antagonistic in replies is that I rarely reply except to refute rubbish. Take, for example, Protobon's claim that protons are little pyramids. Laughable but I didn't say a word about it as I have no idea what they truly are. But his claim that Lithium could have any other number of protons than 3 is preposterous nonsense and he most obviously confused protons with neutrons and lacks even a middle school level understanding of chemistry. To that I take umbrage.
Though, to keep my integrity, I must confess that I have been intentionally baiting our three moderators to do what the job title says. Likely they will dump me and keep the garbage ... but who can say ... every once in awhile the animals teach a trick or two to the zookeepers.
I think part of the problem may be the definition of what can be discussed on the science board.
'This is the place to leave pithy comments and share your scientific insights with the rest of the great unwashed readership. Play nice, stick to science and science related topics.'
A tighter definition of what constitutes an acceptable thread may be in order.
'science and science related topics'.
What doesn't that cover?
Dic.com's definition of science:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
a. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
b. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
The problem here is that almost anything can fit in there somewhere.
It may be better to limit threads to subjects on what we would call hard science. As in DA Morgan's yard stick of the kind of science that has been peer reviewed, and posts must be supported where possible by references to experiments etc.
Another board could deal with Popular Science.
Another with Origens and the Science/Religion debate (which is more of a philosophical discipline - if I can be so grand).
Another could deal with Meta-science & Quackery.
You could even go to the extent of having a social sciences board - (even if it?s not science as far as I am concerned) - a psychology board - evolution etc.
Then everyone would find a home and people would hopefully exist in SAGG a little more harmoniously.
So in effect we almost have an hierarchy from 'science proper' down to 'crackpot science'.
When a post threatens to take a thread down a level, either delete it or use it to start a new thread in the appropriate board.
All posts that add no value, and merely insult people should have no place here and should be deleted. People should join politics if they want that sort of entertainment.
As I post the occasional funny comment - and despite the fact that I am generally the only one who thinks it's funny (along the same lines as Cansouth probably sees the sense in what he writes), humorous posts should be okay - they are light relief and when in the spirit of the topic, don't really detract from what is being discussed. And like many of you, I have come to have a strange regard for many people here and some of the harmless off-beat comments and interactions are of great value to me.
I wonder if this is all too much work for the moderators - probably.
Then why not make new moderators - Board Champions. For example, make DA a moderator on the hard science board if he has time. If Rob wants to moderate the popular science board, no problem.
I have said it before that I love SAGG. I am so glad I found it, there are some excellent people here with a lot of knowledge to share ? and not forgetting that it?s just good to connect with people.
Please let's protect it from the trolls, and don?t let them ruin it for others.
Blacknad.
You could just change the title of the origins board to meta-science/philosophy.
Or why not something more accurate like "blather" or "drivel"?
DA Morgan seems to be totally committed to censorship of others. One descends to this level if one has nothing intellectual to offer.
Gregg Wilson
...or if one is surrounded by morons. (notice the people that need to be censored, eg, Philege)
DA Morgan has taught me a lot. Well, to be honest, he has actually taught me what of which I believed is and is-not true, and told me about good sources of knowlege.
Hi Rob:
You and DA must be in contact other than what we see on this Forum.
You said: "The origin of death?! In universal terms, death doesn?t exist. It's simply a change in the arrangement of particles."
DA intercepted my question to call me names. That is very educational and teacher like!?
The question is fair. If you contend life forms simply change the arrangement of their particles then you should have a why and wherefore. Are they re-arranged into something new and real again? The answer could be very enlightening.
jjw
"Yet Darwin's theory also says that animals and humans should not age."
No it doesn't.
"If you contend life forms simply change the arrangement of their particles then you should have a why and wherefore. Are they re-arranged into something new and real again? The answer could be very enlightening."
A why and wherefore, what the hell do you think scientists are trying to do?! The answer, I can assure you, will not be meaningful, emotional, ethical rubbish. So it would be very enlightening indeed, for YOU.
Thank you Rob for your reply.
It is much as I expected. The particles may just return to dust from which some say they started.
Any way you failed to include some of your favorite words like moron and idiot and I find that refreshing.
I am busy finishing a project and will not be here for a while to seek more of your insights.
Cheers,
jjw