Why has Evolution limited the human lifespan to approx. +/- 75 years?

As far as I know, science has established that there is some sort of kill switch in our DNA, not allowing us live beyond 120 years (and even this age we hardly reach)

But you claim that the longer a species had on this planet the longer it will live. Really? Crocodiles have been here as long as giant turtles, if not longer, but they do not live 120 years.
So something seems not to add up here.

There's nothing sudden about it. This has been going on for billions of years. When genes benefit from longer life-spans they encode for longer life-spans. It's not a conscious process. It's blind, merciless evolution at work.

This might be true, but you still do not explain why in our scenario this memory of how long we are allowed to live, came about and was limited to a certain age and why this age was "chosen" instead of giving us some extra time on this planet.

Short?
Look at some other mammals. Cats, dogs... their lives can be called 'short'. I'd be more curious as to why there's so much variation in life span between mammalian species.

kiilin us off early allows for more luxurious holidays for the ruling class... think of the $$$ if we were in retirement all them years

It is very curious why humans live three times longer than they should.

I still do not get it. How did the genes know that it would be beneficial to limit our lifespan to avoid a future problem?
And how did this super genes then compute and arrive at the conclusion that the lifespan must be terminated at around 75 years if we want to avoid an overcrowded planet, say in 1 million years, calculated from the date these genes worried for the first time about a future,overcrowded planet if our lifespan is not capped?

Doesn't evolution work exactly opposite the way you state it?

Shouldn't the problem of overpopulation arise first so that through the epic fight of the survival of the fittest the gene pool most beneficial for a species would get passed along future generations?

Good point indeed, since according to evolution we are nothing special, just another form of mammal.
Let us hear how evolution explains the huge variation of life spans in mammals an how evolution could compute the most beneficial life span for all life forms. (since all life forms seem to have a pre-determined life span.

It's only a perceived variation; i.e. relativity. Smaller animals have faster heartbeats. If you were the size of a cricket, your life span would be perceived as comparable to a human. In fact, here is what crickets hear when they chirp to each other at night. The chirps were slowed down to be in-line with the heart rate of a cricket.

Genes have no thought of future problems or overpopulation.
Again, it's not a conscious process. They don't give a damn if there may be 50 billion people on the planet 100 years from now all wearing purple hats because they only calculate end results. I think that's what genes basically are, biological computing machines looking at the bottom line, EXTENDING themselves as far as possible.

Faster metabolisms, maybe, but my cat's heart rate isn't 4 times faster than mine. Hers is pretty low for a cat actually and her respiration is at the very low end of the scale as well. She might get lucky and live to 20 but I plan to live to 85.

There has to be differences in the cells.

"It's only a perceived variation; i.e. relativity. Smaller animals have faster heartbeats. If you were the size of a cricket,your lifespan would be perceived as comparable to a human."

It's more than that.

We have three times the number of heartbeats we're entitled to, as compared to other animals.

So in order to calculate anything, you must be aware of the problem you need to compute.

So genes suddenly became aware that there might be a risk of overpopulation and thus calculated down to the bottom line.

Can you please explain the process behind it, how genes were able to compute out of all life spans available that 75 years is more beneficial than say 100 years?

In order to calculate a life span wouldn't these genes have to know future birth rates of an industrial society, be aware of the impact of wars and pandemics on population growth and a trillion of other factors in order to arrive at a number which makes sense?
Who gave this information mentioned above to our little biological computing machines?

on a global scale only 8 % of the population is age 65 and older , there is some rude awakenings coming for the senior citizens of the franchised world.

no more being part of the 20 % of the patients sucking down 80 % of the healthcare resoruces. cause healthcare as you think of it is going away.

What has this to do with my initial question? But maybe you can answer it?

An overcrowded planet is propaganda so the elite can justify your elimination.
You could fit the world's entire population within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.
I don't know if you've ever taken that drive between L.A. (pop. 4,000,000; 21,000,0000 csma) to Vegas (Pop. 1,500,000 csma), but it's all empty between these two population centers).
When are mutations ever good? If you had a mutation, you'd have a problem. Evolution is a religion that can't save you, or the world.

So is "civilization" man's way of escaping the tyrannicaly grasp of the evolutionary forces? We are capable of being free from the laws of evolution, from the sole goal of propogating our DNA? That would suggest there is something else at work-- something non-biological that would allow an escape from evolutionary forces.

You're missing the point, God made that determination.

Genesis 6:3 King James Version (KJV)And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Sin, introduced into the world introduced death (Gen. 3). Now, man's bad foods, vaccinations, medications, and other stresses have even cut that short.

Quit worshiping evolution? It has nothing to do with the answer to your question.

Future problems and possible overpopulation have absolutely nothing to do with it. Evolution is not a conscious process.

Genes constantly bang against the walls and limitations of reality and biological successes and failures and propagate themselves. That is all.

No, you couldn't.
They couldn't be fed, housed or clothed and they would quickly kill each other off.

This anti-abortion factoid is complete nonsense.

Do you really believe the eye mutated to see, over millions of years. How did this mutation decide it wanted to see?
I submit irreducible complexity, which dictates all the parts have to be present to be the sum total of the part (in other words, every part is dependent on the other part).

A mouse trap needs all of its parts, right now, to be a mouse trap.

The amout of information needed to produce an eye can't be left to chance. The eye would never formed, if one were to take into account the infinitesimally small statistical probability. The first law of information is, that it came from somewhere, or better yet, someone (a designer).

The nanotechnology that is integrated into a living cell is beyond irredicible complexity. Darwin never saw the innards of a cell, he chalked them (cells) up as being a jelly-like balls (or cytoplasm). I'm sure he would've had more doubts theories, had he known. He was already pretty doubtful that his theory would live much beyond his death, after having known about the Cambrian Explosion, and the like.

A larvae can become a catepillar, then a butterfly, in a matter of months, but we believe it took millions of years to produce intelligent life, animals, and plants.

A case for Christ, gents....

OP you misunderstand evolution. First, forget "survivalof the fittest" it is a pop meme to distill the idea but misses the point and confuses. It should be "survival of the best suited".

Secondly, you ask the wrong question. Why have we come to live so long, using resources of the next generations? We live long than comparable mammals. Some have pointed this out, you seem to want to ignore it.

Also, when noting the lifespan of the turtle you remark we are superior - how and why do you say that? By most measures we are inferior to other mammals, which are often faster, stronger than us. We excel in only one area.

There in lies the answer probably, our longevity allows us to pass on knowledge for longer and further. And we might just be quite lucky, especially today in the west, removing early death due to conflict and illnesses.

Sir, I have lemon tree in my backyard that has an endless yield. I can't give them away fast enough.
Now, if Monsanto, and the likes, have their way, it's just a matter of time before we have no food.
Trust me, when I tell you, that God can provide more than enough, if man just gets out of the way

it's an average, not a boundary...dumbass

create something from nothing...i think not

"Irreducible complexity" CREATIONIST horseshit debunked:

How would evolution "know" of longer telomers and the consequences there of?
Since evolution has no intelligence and cannot make wise and logical decisions, the fact that older males have longer telomers cannot lead for evolution to intervene and cut the lifespan short This can only be the outcome of the survival of the fittest.

Lady in the video: " And then you just add a lens and see now we have an eye, step by step from pigmentation to fully developed.

Isn't evolution simple? You just add here and there and voila, you get a functional organ. Why bother about the need to also develop a new brain, able to compute the million times increased information flowing from an advance eye through the nerves (oh, we also need to adapt the nerve cells to be able to transport the increased data stream etc.. and all of that has to occur at the exact same time.

No, evolution is a breeze, we just need to add parts here and there according to the video (of course our smart lady does not explain how it works that an organism suddenly decides to add a few parts..so I have decided to do the same:

I will start with a pigmented area on the back of my head, add an indentation plus a lens and make me a nice third eye on the back of my head. Why bother about brain adaptation, nerve-brain interface, all necessary to create a visual picture in my head. I will let you know tomorrow how my third eye works.
And should nothing happen, aside from wishful thinking, we have a million years to add all the parts. The magic of long time periods will surely make evolution work.

What would evolution be without long time periods?

I am only glad that all the animals which came to live during the Cambrian explosion in a short period of time had no clue about evolution, they might not exist had they believed in evolution.

Once again you mistake concequence with purpose. Evolution does not have purpose or the ability to choose with intent. These "end caps" are an adaptation which allow the extension of the lifespan of a individual. NOT a way of limiting it. Living a longer life increases the chances of reproduction and therefore the chances of survival of a species.

Why then, do we, on average, live until 75 and not 400 ? because we are not able to at the moment and there has not been a selection towards individuals with the longest life span.

Lifespan is, in a way, a safety net for the inability to reproduce. (perhaps due to famine, disease or lack of mates) However since humans are very succesfull at reproducing, there is no real need to have individual live much longer lives than 75.

Does that answer your question ?

To that i should add that parenting (which is a trade mark of the human species) is more succesfull if the parents are around long enough to guide the young until they are fit parents themselves. That puts the required life span of a human at approximatly 50 - 80 years, which is why you are now asking this question.

What part of "pass on that advantage to their progeny" do you not understand?

Once a human reaches menopause, nothing in their life will have a genetic impact on their direct progeny.



(I do have to add, that since humanity is a social animal, there is possible evolutionary advantage to the breeding pool from healthy post-breeding individuals. So selection remains operative, but within the limits that those individuals perform a useful surface to the social group as a whole).