From: CurtAdams (CurtAdams@aol.com)
Date: Sun Jan 18 1998 - 18:33:35 MST
In a message dated 1/18/98 5:17:10 PM, warrl@mail.blarg.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, CurtAdams wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Yes, but my point, in some post, was that whole-body levels of
>> > telomerase are probably already close to optimal. If the gains
>> > from increasing telomerase exceeded the risks, evolution would
>> > already have cranked it up. In order to get big gains from
>
>What is the definition of "optimal" and who/what produced this
>definition?
The definition of "optimal" would be: that level of telomerase
which produces longest expected lifespan in a natural (presumably
hunter-gatherer here) environment.
>and who/what produced this definition?
Defining it as "optimal" is me. The idea that, with a few
specified exceptions, any particular gene in a continuously
reproducing species will have evolved to be close
to maximizing expected lifespan is a fairly well-established
tenet of the evolutionary biology of life histories.
>Is this definition still acceptable?
Up to the reader.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:29 MST