Hello, many are familiar with the fact that there's two major theories of aging which is..
1. That there is an evolutionarily adaptive "death program(s)" that somehow determines the optimum lifespan of an organism and due to selective pressures that has developed over our evolutionary history. (Suggested by people such as August Weismann)
2. That it is caused by slow wear and tear of internal and external usage of human's bodies. And that our own bodies tries to compensate and export the damage but it isn't enough on its own (Like the view held by SENS and Aubrey De Grey)
However I concluded upon this possibility (that converges upon both the theories):
That after reaching a certain adult age the "wear and tear" process could simply be a passive mechanism in which evolution exerts it's selective pressures (specifically upon sexually reproducing species) (And passive because the body no longer implements the robust repair mechanisms to the same extent as it once did)
Since these selective pressures are mild (but possibly existent) in sexually reproductive organisms, and likely negligible in asexual organisms. This also explains why the asexual organisms show much less if not negligible senescence. An example being: http://www.devbio.bi...du/?page_id=491
Since the forces towards decay and degeneration are ever present in organisms, seems unlikely evolution would use an ACTIVE program to limit the lifespan. Why "invest" in such an active program if all it needs to do is only ensure the body's repair mechanisms robustness to a certain point but less and less after that point. (which naturally leads to decay and faltering of the body) (despite being passive it's still an adaptation because evolutionarily it's purposeful neglect)
Although this is a different Theory , the way to treat or reverse aging would be a very similar approach as that of SENS and other maintenance approaches.
However this Theory does address why asexual organisms with less selective pressures on lifespan(debatable) such as the Hydra show presumably negligible senescence. And also it doesn't conflict with the logic behind the evolutionary adaptation theory.
What do others think about this? Any feedback is appreciated.
Edited by Never_Ending, 12 January 2016 - 05:36 PM.