If evolution exists with the goal of survival, why does it still produce only mortal organisms?

Perhaps they could be dangerous to themselves by reaching a perfect mind, through accumulated experiences;

or evolution is simply an incomplete theory, and this life is a some kind of matrix,

where players leave the game after their subscription ends, thereby freeing up a slot for others.

Apr 03 · 8 months ago · 👍 Homer

9 Comments ↓

It's why humans have remained largely the same, since we started having societies, as we effectively have disabled evolution.

Looks reasonable!

My recent conclusion is that society is not a kind of global mind, but rather a pathway to stupidity.

If you mean mortality with respect to old age the answer is, it doesn't. Bacteria do not age. Aging is a quirk of having linear chromosomes that get shorter with every cell division. In the animal kingdom, the Immortal Jellyfish can undergo transdifferentiation, reverting old cells to young. Your reproductive cells also reverse this damage, but they have half the DNA of normal cells. So why does this glitch still exist? Because animals get old enough to reproduce. It has an advantage as well. It's a mechanism to stop cancer. If cells become disregulated, they divide endlessly. This prevents it. Persistent cancer is also immortal. The other quirk of age is DNA damage from existing. This is how cancer happens.

When cloning was first starting, one of the weird things they noticed is that the clones died young. It's like taking cells from a 30 year old. They're already aged and cloning a person from age 30 results in a 30 year old baby. They might make it to 40 or 50 years old. This is why reproductive cells need to reverse this shortening of chromosomes. Cancer can tap into this power and turn back the clock. Cancer that fails to tap into this power ages itself out of existence.

Evolution doesn't goal seek. It is a filter of "not good enough." Exist long enough to reproduce? Congratulations, you made it to "good enough." This takes place on the population scale and not the individual scale. A perfectly suited individual organism may still die young due to bad luck. Meteor impact, struck by lightning, lucky predator, etc.

Cancer can also be seen as when the police (the government's immune system) kills its own citizens (body cells)

The process tends to be visible at the level of the species, not individuals.

Actually, as Dawkins pointed out in 'The Selfish Gene' the real competition is among the genes; successful ones are practically immortal.

Bodies are just armored trucks designed to get banged up but last long enough till the next round.

In fact, if our bodies were immortal, the process would grind to a halt. Volatility drives the system.

The lifespan fine tunes the adaptation rate. Mutations only occur across generations, and the olds have to go to make room.

Of course there's no biological reason why the olds have to go. There is an evolutionary benefit though.

@darkghost, overpopulation is inevitable if new generations keep coming and old ones are still around. That could wipe out gene pools with immortal individuals. But more to the point, once the reproduction is done, what happens to the useless flesh is not relevant, so let it turn decrepit and fizzle out when all the telomere slack is conveniently used up.

That would be the evolutionary advantage in action. Biologically, there's no reason telomeres can't be repaired and people live forever. Or at least longer while being riddled with cancer.

Yes, I see what you mean.