81–84 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
… in spite of being around for millennia.
The scientific method came around 1600s. Statistics existed in 1662. Science itself has not existed for a millenia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scientific method came around 1600s. Statistics existed in 1662. Science itself has not existed for a millenia.
Longevity research has, though. Philosophers stone, fountain of youth, these are the same things we seek today, through new means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK, the question of why our lifespan is so different from other mammals is still open. And one quite possible answer is still that our aging happens by a slightly different mechanism.
The lifespan of humans is not completely different from other mammals. The lifespan of humans is less than twice that of our closest relatives, and probably there is no coincidence in the fact that about the same ratio exists between the maturity age of humans and that of apes. Aging in humans does not seem to have any qualitative difference, it just happens slower, like also the maturity.
Besides, the apes in general age in an unusual way. All take too long to mature compared to their lifespan, and all have too long a lifespan compared to their size (the mammals have a rough correlation between lifespan and size). Yes, we are merely at the extreme of that weirdness, not in a new category of weirdness. But it still means we are different from mice in some way.
Like the joke says, if you're a mouse and still have cancer, diabetes, or Alzheimer's, you need a new agent.