|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Why has Evolution limited the human lifespan to approx. +/- 75 years?
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Tekunda |
|
Post Content
|
The theory of evolution is the theory of the survival of the fittest. No superior entity regulates evolution. Evolution itself is blind, deaf and dumb and all what we see today is the outcome of the survival of the fittest.
So why was it so beneficial for humans not to live much longer than 75 years ?(of course there are exceptions, we all know that, on either side of the scale).
Why was the outcome of the terrible fight of the survival of the fittest not 120 years or 200 years, or maybe just 25 years? If dumb giant turtles in "their survival of the fittest fight" were "granted 120+ years" shouldn't superior human beings live a little longer?
And since all factors of existence were bound by the law of the survival of the fittest, in order for 75 years to become established as the most beneficial age for humans, there must have been a fight between human gene groups who died at a huge difference in age.
By that I mean there must have been gene pools who were able to reach 200, 300, 400 years and other gene pools who only reached 20, 25, 50.
Only if there is a huge variety can the war of survival of the fittest start. But never were humans found to live much older than 75 in general. (aside from a few exceptions in Siberia etc. but even here 120 was the max.)
If age was never subjected to this war, human age was pre-determined, but we all know that since evolution has no intelligence of its own, this is not possible.
So how can Evolution explain that our statistical lifespan of +/- 75 years turned out to be the winner in this war of survival?
Quoting: Tekunda You are very correct in stating that evolution is blind deaf and dumb. Evolution is a nothing more than a game of chance and skill/adaptability. Therefore the question "why is it so benficial for humans not to live much longer than 75 years ?" is flawed and should be reversed to "why is it beneficial for humans to live to 75 and above ?" in the same genre the next question is also usefull.. "why does the sperm of older males contain longer telomers? " (telomers : long pieces of dna which get shorter and shorted during the life span of a single "specimen" and allow a longer life span without damage to vital dna.) Hope this helps in you quest of understanding human evolution. 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. In our scenario it would mean that there should have been even far older human males than 75, who eventually lost the survival fight due to their inferior telomers. This is the only way for evolution to establish anything. But did we have male gene pools which great differences in age (and thus telomers) who "battled this out", where the Methusalem males lost out in the fight of survival? I have not heard of it, other than in the Bible, which is no fact book for evolution. So my initial question remains unanswere!
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
