What's the evolutionary advantage of death?

>evolutionary advantage
Lrn2evolution fgt pls

there are species (lobsters for example) that dont age actually.

it's working on it, just waiting for the right kind of cancer

Hold my drink

10,000 years ago almost nobody lived to the age of ~50 because of disease, famine, injuries, etc. So people whose genes would make them get Alzheimers at 70 didn't have many fewer children than other people, since most of them were dead by 70 anyway.

This is also why Asians live longer than whites and Asian women stay attractive for longer, etc. - they had agriculture for longer (while whites were still hunting boars), which made them more likely to survive until old age, so there was selection pressure towards health in old age.

Not dying is hard.
You are a copier.
If you are a successful copier, your genes will live on.
Once you have copied yourself, evolutional pressure to keep you living further is gone.
p.s.
To succeed, it is not enough to have a kid - the proof of the pudding is when the kid becomes a copier too. That is the source of fussing about grandkids.

...

>Asian women stay attractive for longer
Wut? Are we talking about Asia on Earth?

>What's the evolutionary advantage of death?
adaption, a single organism can only adapt to a certain degree, so we need to reproduce, only the strong survive etc, basically what every living organism wants is to keep the Information stored in their DNA around forever, no matter the cost, so we pass our genes to individuals more adapted to the ever changing world than we are

No, they aren't at all. They live short lives and have many successive generations. Some can withstand the elements better than others, but that's only due to the sheer amount of generations they're able to pass down adaptative traits to.

and the rate of life and reproduction this occurs at*

Exactly. 'Life' is indifferent concerning matters other than survival and reproduction. Nature does compensate for death by maximizing survival or reproduction, but that is all.

Has nothing to do with overpopulation. The Telos of all organisms is population growth as much as possible. While this has variation in r and k reproduction strategy, it's end goal is the same. Humans have no remaining natural predators on this planet, at the current time, and our population is growing exponentially.

Ming (clam) Ming ( c. 1499 – 2006)

507 years old and killed by the scientists studying it by accident. kek.

What's the evolutionary advantage of retards who watch too much TV asking retarded questions?

>2017
>still being a pathetic mortal

immortal-jellyfish.com/

>overpopulation?

No such thing.

>exponentially

You need to look that up and understand what it means before using it again. It can't be applied to a population.

Aging is a biological glitch dating back to Permian times. Notice reptiles can live until their mass kills them.

there was little need to, most people would die of disease or be eaten by saber tooth tigers within 50 years even if they were biologically immortal

It can't be applied to a population where resources are finite, but it can be in a model where resources are infinite.

>No such thing
Overpopulation is when the population of a species grows so large there are not enough resources to sustain them, and there is then a mass starvation which drops the population.

>r and k reproduction strategy
stopped reading

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endolith#Survival
10,000 years... Close enough.

...

Nature hasn't gotten rid of it, we're evolving right now to lengthen our telegrams with the CRISPS project, dumbass.

Why would nature "get rid of it?" How does death not existing help propagate genes better?

There was no evolutionary incentive to evolve countermeasures against aging because 99% would die within a certain time anyway.

>What's the evolutionary advantage of death?
Death is actually the main engine of evolution.
You are confusing the advantages for single individuals with the advantages for the species as a whole.
A better question would be why some species are so long lived compared to others, like a shark which can reach 400years.
Whatever the reason we know it's biologically possible, maybe we could one day replicate that on ourselves.
Minus the shark teeth, preferably.

mice live for two years, bats for 30

they are around the same size, eat similar diets, have similar metabolisms

the difference?

bats can fly and avoid most predators, while mice generally die en masse.

the evolutionary pressure on mice to increase their lifespan is nil, while bats have an incentive because most of them die of old age anyway.

death is where evo points go only when you are dominating the game.

some animals and plants live up to 10 000 of years and some actually never get old. Why can't we?

Because there is no serious study of the evolution of senescence happening. The focus is on memes like cryogenics and transhumanism instead.

you overpopulation fags are a religion i fucking swear

Death is the principal mechanism of evolution.

This

>10 000
Source? And don't tell me unicellular life.

>Death happens due to shortening of telomeres as we age
no it doesn't

ahaha

Evolution only removes things which prevent something from breeding. That's it. There's not a 'conscious' decision to push things upward and into perfection; only to lose things which prevent reproduction.

If you breed before you die, no reason to lose it. Also entropy

>breed
>die
>your offspring dies because there's nobody to care for them
great insights there mr biologist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
Pando is a clonal colony of aspen trees. They're all connected via their root system, so they're one organism. They've been estimated to be 80,000 years old.

Because as people have already pointed out in this thread, it would not help create stronger genes.
Hypothetically, let's say we lived a few thousand years and could continue to reproduce during this time. The genetics of an offspring from this thousand year old person would be lacking in things such as a strong immune system, because the parents of this thousand year old person had their immune system catered to the diseases from back then.
To put it another way, the more reproductive and death cycles humanity has, the better chance of healthy mutations, thus speeding up the constant correction of evolution.

Heres my question, if there was constant growth of population to the point we ran out of food, then a starvation, then our population started to grow again, how would that be beneficial to humans or humanity? You can't deny that resources do run out, especially before farming when we relied on the natural reproductive cycles of animals and plants. And I guess that's what we are talking about? It would take millions of years to expand our life span to a few thousand years if we started now.

It's not? [citation needed]
Yeah, I'm sure is just a strange coincidence that serious degradation of telomeres really sets in when we start loosing the ability to reproduce.

Bodies degrade over time, and natural selection. Why breed if you can just live forever?

Human evolution is a meme. Babies who should have died are treated, and their degenerate genes are passed along

Sure, it's a meme now, within the last 1-200 years.
But if we are talking about living for a few thousand years, or even a few hundred years, we should be talking about why we didn't evolve to be that way, not how can we make it happen.
Because I doubt we will make it happen. We have actually extended the life spans of humans very little with our modern medical technology, we have only extended our average life span by so much, because as you pointed out, less babies die.

Can I ask, why the fuck is OP so afraid of death?

>Dark ages

Which god?
Why that particular god?
Define your favourite god.
Provide evidence for your favourite god.

Remember, this is a science board.

>Yeah, I'm sure is just a strange coincidence that serious degradation of telomeres really sets in when we start loosing the ability to reproduce.
Deaths due to "old alge" in humans is usually due to complications of atherosclerosis or cancer, none of which is related to shortened telomeres.

Cringe

...

A hotwife with her caged cuck hubby and a massive BBC

A hotwife with her caged cuck hubby and a massive BBC

A hotwife with her caged cuck hubby and a massive BBC

A hotwife with her caged cuck hubby and a massive BBC

A hotwife with her caged cuck hubby and a massive BBC

A hotwife with her caged cuck hubby and a massive BBC

A hotwife with her caged cuck hubby and a massive BBC

Atherosclerosis is not related to telomeres, but cancer can be. Shortened telomeres increases the likelihood of cancer, as a telomere is a buffer to the crucial DNA. Once the telomere has disappeared due to cell division, the division is more likely to destroy the crucial DNA, resulting in more frequent mutations.

Perhaps cancer can be, but the statement that "death happens due to shortening of telomeres" is just wrong in the vast vast vast majority of cases.

>Yeah, I'm sure is just a strange coincidence that serious degradation of telomeres really sets in when we start loosing the ability to reproduce.
I'm sure it's just a strange coincidence that mice have telomeres >10 times as long as humans yet live much less. They even express telomerase in somatic cells if not mistaken.