Re: News: Is Aging an Accident of Evolution?

On Aug 6, 9:23 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron O wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:27 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron O wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:45 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron O wrote:
On Aug 3, 11:07 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron O wrote:
On Aug 1, 8:35 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron O wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:51 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <Isrkk.16904$mh5.12...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
SNIP::
Only if you also gather data on humans kept under optimal living
conditions. But at least you have gone from assertion to agnosticism.
That's progress.-
This is a sort of strange thing to say for someone that probably knows
that they are holding the short end of the stick.  I made an assertion
based on what I had heard and read about lifespans of birds.  It turns
out that the data was real.  Not only that, but we are talking about
limited populations under study and likely unsatisfactory environments
that these animals lived in  most of their lives, simply out of
ignorance.  Just 40 years ago animal breeding in zoos and aviaries was
pretty much in its infancy.  They likely didn't even know what a good
diet for a lot of these animals was.  The were treated as disposable
display objects until things like the endangered species act limited
their supply.
How long was the expected lifespan of those poor red eared turtles
that used to be ubiquitous in pet shops in the 1960's and early
1970's?  Probably months, but we had one that just died two years ago
and lived for around 40 years in a decent sized goldfish pond.  How
many had that chance?  This turtle would hibernate in the winter even
in Southern California.  It would disappear every winter and reappear
in the spring.
These animals were not treated this way out of a vindictive nature it
was out of ignorance.
Given this reality, my bet is that estimated livespans for these
animals will increase significantly.  You might say that human
environments haven't been the best, and modern medical technology is
lengthening lifespans, but it isn't the same deal.  We are talking
about comparing mostly solitary confinment with inadequate housing and
diet to adequate living conditions.  Something that middle class
humans would have been enjoying for well over 100 years to get that
estimate for humans.
You have no estimate for average lifespan of any bird that's longer than
for humans. You have no stated maximum age for any bird that's longer
than the maximum age for humans. You in fact have nothing other than a
belief that if we knew much more than we know now it would turn out the
way you want.
I still don't understand why you are so frantically defending this
claim, since it has nothing to do with your initial point.
Beats me what has gotten you so bent out of shape.  If there is anyone
frantically defending their position it is you.  Just the fact that
you have to stoop to such verbage should say something.
I simply stated what I had heard, and it turned out to be fairly
accurate.
But it didn't. You have no support for this claim. A list of web sites
is no support. Look at them closely and you will find mostly
undocumented claims, and the documented ones are extremes for single
individuals.
Blah, Blah, the evidence isn't good enough.  Where have we heard that
before?
Are you saying that all such claims are wrong? That the evidence is
always good enough?

No.  Where did you get that idea?

It's the only assumption that would give your little taunt any force.

No. An alternative assumption is that such claims are wrong with a
certain frequency, and in some cases you have other data that would
indicate that they are most likely wrong in this instance.


I actually chuckled at the post before this one.  It is true that we
do not have enough information to make a definite call, but we do have
enough to claim that I was probably right.
Exactly what evidence are you pointing to here? The list of web sites?
If you look at the web sites themselves, there isn't much hard
information, and what there is doesn't support your claim. But if you
would be specific, we might discuss it.

Yes.  Plus the fact that we know how these animals were treated and
that the numbers are based on thousands of trials and not hundreds of
millions.

I note that you have not been specific. The point about number of trials
is reasonably valid, but it still doesn't tell us much.

What is there to be specific about? You have to admit that the
paucity of data works in my favor because of other known factors.


That might not be saying
much, but it is reality.  The data isn't going to get any better and
all you can do is keep claiming that the cup is half empty.  That will
get you no where.  I'll be the first to admit that I could still be
wrong.  Heck, say that we could figure that I'd be right 55% of the
time.  I could still be wrong almost half the time.
Yes, and if you were right 1% of the time, you'd be wrong 99% of the
time. If.

Yes, but you probably agree with me even if you don't want to admit
it, and 55% isn't 1%.  All you can do is pooh pooh the data and hope
that it goes away.  What will it accomplish?  Nothing, pretty much
sums it up.  Who cares if I am wrong?  What will it matter if you are
right?

I merely point out that if you pull a number out of your ass, it's no
better than any number you could have pulled out.

Yep, but I'd bet that you agree that I am probably right even if you
can't admit it for some reason.

You can make these judgements too. You aren't brain dead. So what
will it matter if you are right. I realize that it doesn't matter
much at all if I am right. What does your nay saying accomplish?


Even you admit that I could back off and just claim age by body
weight, but that is already known.  There are NIH grants utilizing
birds for aging studies for that reason.  The fact is that I do not
have to.  We can argue about this forever and it won't change.  That
is what I found amusing.
I'm afraid the point of that paragraph was opaque. Mostly due to unclear
antecedents for the pronouns.

Live with it.

Why do you post if not in an attempt to communicate something?

What a hypocrite.


I have admitted that we don't have the data yet, so I don't
know what is your complaint about that.  You seem to be stuck on
something, but I don't know what it is.  From my point of view, any
bird that lived over 100 years under the conditions that they were
likely raised during that time is pretty good evidence that the
original assertion is true.  Do you have any type of counter?
Yes. I deny that your evidence is evidence. It's anecdotal at best, web
hearsay at worst.
Poor guy.  As a scientist are you one of the guys that has to wait
forever for the perfect data set before acting on anything?  Science
deals with imperfect data all the time.  You have to if you are on the
leading edge of any field of study.  What you have to do is make some
decision on when you have sufficient data to proceed.  If I were
interested in this subject and could figure out a good way to work on
the issue in my lifetime I would take this data as sufficient to go
with and build on.
Perhaps you would. I wouldn't. The data we have do not support your
claim. It isn't just that there's not enough. What there is doesn't
support your claim.

You can repeat that all that you want to, but my gut feeling is that
you really don't believe it yourself.  Why make excuses and do this
sort of thing when you don't have to?  What does it matter?  Just give
one good reason for it.  Naysaying isn't a good reason.  Am I going to
write it up in a paper?  Do lives depend on it?

Your gut feeling is wrong. And if you're asking why I post to TO, well
why do you?

I didn't ask why you post to TO. Why nay say when it doesn't mean
much at all? So what is your gut feeling about whether some birds
live longer than humans? Probably pretty close to mine, but you might
hedge a bit, so what? It isn't going to get you anywhere.


In science, you have to not only be able to understand the data, but
at some point you have to have the initiative to pursue some line of
research based on what you know.  If it is at all interesting you
never know enough, or someone has probably already gotten there ahead
of you and you don't know it.
What you need to be doing in a case like this is trying to determine
if there is some means available to clear up the matter, not cover it
over.  Nay sayers are a dime a dozen.  Creationists should be enough
evidence that it doesn't take much to be negative.  There is always
going to be something wrong, some limit to our knowledge.  Not only
that, but we are just at the level of speculation here.  This isn't
rocket science, and millions of dollars and human lives don't depend
on it.
Let me know when you're done pontificating, and I'll start reading again.

One good reason for why the data has to be better than it is.

Was that a question?

You ignored it above.

One good reason for nay saying this issue. What is it going to
accomplish in the face of the data and the argument? Pretty much
nothing sums it up. I realize that. Do you?




I
haven't seen it.  Just the fact that we don't have an accurate
estimate for these birds average lifespans should tell you something,
but it obviously can't for some reason.
Yes, it tells me that we don't have an accurate estimate. That doesn't
mean you get to project your favorite belief onto our lack of knowledge.
Nope, but I do have some data, that I don't have to project anything
on.  It speaks for itself.  "Project" Pagano is good at that too.
Frantic, read your own posts.  What was frantic about my reply?  I
just recapped the current situation.  Just because you don't like
where it leads, doesn't make it frantic.
We can agree that some large birds have lifespans comparable to those of
humans. I don't see any data that let you make a stronger claim than
that. I have no particular ax to grind here, just a respect for evidence.-
So, it doesn't matter and there was no reason to get frantic over it.
Just a case of nay saying for no good reason.
I consider a respect for evidence to be

...

read more »-

Ron Okimoto

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: News: Is Aging an Accident of Evolution?
    ... based on what I had heard and read about lifespans of birds. ... estimate for humans. ... Blah, Blah, the evidence isn't good enough. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: News: Is Aging an Accident of Evolution?
    ... based on what I had heard and read about lifespans of birds. ... estimate for humans. ... Blah, Blah, the evidence isn't good enough. ... birds for aging studies for that reason. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: News: Is Aging an Accident of Evolution?
    ... based on what I had heard and read about lifespans of birds. ... estimate for humans. ... Exactly what evidence are you pointing to here? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: News: Is Aging an Accident of Evolution?
    ... based on what I had heard and read about lifespans of birds. ... estimate for humans. ... Exactly what evidence are you pointing to here? ... birds for aging studies for that reason. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Equine Cognitive ability
    ... And, judging by these posts, many humans have the same ... this is all supposition - we have no way of knowing if animals can 'reason'. ... conclusions borne of hard objective evidence, so are really on the same ... What's the evidence for horses/animals being able to reason? ...
    (rec.equestrian)