'We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."
In the early 1980s a friend had a black Pekingnese dog -back then this was a very independent, low maintenance breed, unlike the overly deformed monstrosity that it is now- and the owners only knew when she was in heat because that would be the only time she would sneak out of the house to breed with dogs way bigger than her.
So not much evidence for genetics playing a role in total lifespan. Which is actually what you'd expect from a Darwinian standpoint. After all, once you've had your last kid natural selection doesn't much care about you anymore. After all no one is going to be inheriting genes from you anymore. So after 40-50 genetic inheritances are pretty much zip.
As a side note there is still fairly good evidence that the oldest people achieve that through great genetics. The key point being it isn't effectively inheritable genetics. Natural selection doesn't select for that so you have one person pop out in a family but then things revert back to the norm for their kids and grandkids.
"As a side note there is still fairly good evidence that the oldest people achieve that through great genetics."
Which sort of invalidates the entire premise. If genetics deals you a winning hand, it is a winning hand at every age.
The premise is the same in machinery: some things, built to survive extreme short-term conditions, last a ridiculously long time when not sorely taxed.
Radwaste
at November 10, 2018 9:49 AM
No Rad, that doesn't invalidate this study. There are lots of potential issues here. Notably that it is almost solely on Caucasians in the US at a time when there was relatively little physical mobility. But the old age outliers don't invalidate.
This as a study that looked for inheritable of longevity. They went through family lines and looked at how long you lived, how long your descendants lived, and tried to piece out which genes likely caused that. And in the end they found almost no correlation. Instead other factors that are also somewhat inheritable showed much higher correlation. They also showed that the people in the sample set self selected marriage in a way that correlated well with longevity. I.e. if you die at 60 your brother in law will also die around 60. The two of you don't share a lineage so genetics aren't the cause. Instead shared culture and status are far more indicative of lifespan.
As for the oldest people studies, honestly blaming things on genetics is a bit of a copout. Essentially the individual is a statistical outlier. They almost universally don't match behaviors that correlate well with long life and their economic class and status also don't match. So people blame genetics because that is the only thing they can think of. But no one knows which genes or why. One outlier doesn't correlate well genetically with another. You also have the failure of irritability issue. If your mom lived to 105 that means nothing for you. Inheriting her genes doesn't appear to improve your lifespan at all.
Like the machine example you brought up, they are that one machine where all the tolerances line up and it just work well. The design isn't necessarily different from any of the others. They are just that one lucky one that works.
Ben
at November 10, 2018 11:46 AM
It would be better to say this study invalidates genetics as the answer to the oldest people studies. When I wrote "fairly good evidence that the oldest people achieve that through great genetics." that was more honestly incorrect. Essentially those people are such statistical outliers that the only answer people have left is one off mutation or setup of genes. They don't correlate with any of the other metrics that usually indicate long life. And since there haven't been good ways to test for genetics in the past it became a catch all.
The fact that their longevity isn't inheritable is an issue with using genetics as an answer. So essentially no one knows why some people live much longer.
Let's start the weekend with this awful ad:
https://twitter.com/obianuju/status/1061024938042290177
Sixclaws at November 10, 2018 5:31 AM
And I thought my name was awful
https://twitter.com/petit_elefant/status/999404443345993728
Sixclaws at November 10, 2018 5:35 AM
Any port in a storm?
https://imgur.com/gallery/yk0fMFp
NSFW.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 10, 2018 5:37 AM
IRA,
In the early 1980s a friend had a black Pekingnese dog -back then this was a very independent, low maintenance breed, unlike the overly deformed monstrosity that it is now- and the owners only knew when she was in heat because that would be the only time she would sneak out of the house to breed with dogs way bigger than her.
Sixclaws at November 10, 2018 7:45 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/genetics-play-less-of-a-role-in-lifespan-than-we-thought/
So not much evidence for genetics playing a role in total lifespan. Which is actually what you'd expect from a Darwinian standpoint. After all, once you've had your last kid natural selection doesn't much care about you anymore. After all no one is going to be inheriting genes from you anymore. So after 40-50 genetic inheritances are pretty much zip.
As a side note there is still fairly good evidence that the oldest people achieve that through great genetics. The key point being it isn't effectively inheritable genetics. Natural selection doesn't select for that so you have one person pop out in a family but then things revert back to the norm for their kids and grandkids.
Ben at November 10, 2018 8:02 AM
You're just brainwashed -
https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/907676671379148800
Snoopy at November 10, 2018 9:25 AM
Former New Orleans EMS driver targets Trump supporters in FB post: 'Ya'll will die in my ambulance'
https://www.wdsu.com/article/former-new-orleans-ems-driver-targets-trump-supporters-in-fb-post-yall-will-die-in-my-ambulance/24896343
Snoopy at November 10, 2018 9:38 AM
"As a side note there is still fairly good evidence that the oldest people achieve that through great genetics."
Which sort of invalidates the entire premise. If genetics deals you a winning hand, it is a winning hand at every age.
The premise is the same in machinery: some things, built to survive extreme short-term conditions, last a ridiculously long time when not sorely taxed.
Radwaste at November 10, 2018 9:49 AM
No Rad, that doesn't invalidate this study. There are lots of potential issues here. Notably that it is almost solely on Caucasians in the US at a time when there was relatively little physical mobility. But the old age outliers don't invalidate.
This as a study that looked for inheritable of longevity. They went through family lines and looked at how long you lived, how long your descendants lived, and tried to piece out which genes likely caused that. And in the end they found almost no correlation. Instead other factors that are also somewhat inheritable showed much higher correlation. They also showed that the people in the sample set self selected marriage in a way that correlated well with longevity. I.e. if you die at 60 your brother in law will also die around 60. The two of you don't share a lineage so genetics aren't the cause. Instead shared culture and status are far more indicative of lifespan.
As for the oldest people studies, honestly blaming things on genetics is a bit of a copout. Essentially the individual is a statistical outlier. They almost universally don't match behaviors that correlate well with long life and their economic class and status also don't match. So people blame genetics because that is the only thing they can think of. But no one knows which genes or why. One outlier doesn't correlate well genetically with another. You also have the failure of irritability issue. If your mom lived to 105 that means nothing for you. Inheriting her genes doesn't appear to improve your lifespan at all.
Like the machine example you brought up, they are that one machine where all the tolerances line up and it just work well. The design isn't necessarily different from any of the others. They are just that one lucky one that works.
Ben at November 10, 2018 11:46 AM
It would be better to say this study invalidates genetics as the answer to the oldest people studies. When I wrote "fairly good evidence that the oldest people achieve that through great genetics." that was more honestly incorrect. Essentially those people are such statistical outliers that the only answer people have left is one off mutation or setup of genes. They don't correlate with any of the other metrics that usually indicate long life. And since there haven't been good ways to test for genetics in the past it became a catch all.
The fact that their longevity isn't inheritable is an issue with using genetics as an answer. So essentially no one knows why some people live much longer.
Ben at November 10, 2018 12:10 PM
Leave a comment