Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Box Elder, MD, United States

Goldsmith T.C.,Azinet LLC
Biochemistry (Moscow) | Year: 2012

The programmed vs. non-programmed aging controversy has now existed in some form for at least 150 years. For much of the XX century, it was almost universally believed that evolution theory prohibited programmed (adaptive) aging in mammals and there was little direct experimental or observational evidence favoring it. More recently, multiple new evolutionary mechanics concepts that support programmed aging and steadily increasing direct evidence favoring it overwhelmingly support the existence of programmed aging in humans and other organisms. This issue is important because the different theories suggest very different mechanisms for the aging process that in turn suggest very different paths toward treating and preventing age-related diseases. © 2012 Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. Source


Goldsmith T.C.,Azinet LLC
Biochemistry (Moscow) | Year: 2013

Until recently, non-programmed theories of biological aging were popular because of the widespread perception that the evolution process could not support the development and retention of programmed aging in mammals. However, newer evolutionary mechanics theories including group selection, kin selection, and evolvability theory support mammal programmed aging, and multiple programmed aging theories have been published based on the new mechanics. Some proponents of non-programmed aging still contend that their non-programmed theories are superior despite the new mechanics concepts. However, as summarized here, programmed theories provide a vastly better fit to empirical evidence and do not suffer from multiple implausible assumptions that are required by non-programmed theories. This issue is important because programmed theories suggest very different mechanisms for the aging process and therefore different mechanisms behind highly age-related diseases and conditions such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke. © 2013 Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. Source


Modern programmed (adaptive) theories of biological aging contend that organisms including mammals have generally evolved mechanisms that purposely limit their lifespans in order to obtain an evolutionary benefit. Modern non-programmed theories contend that mammal aging generally results from natural deteriorative processes, and that lifespan differences between species are explained by differences in the degree to which they resist those processes. Originally proposed in the 19th century, programmed aging in mammals has historically been widely summarily rejected as obviously incompatible with the mechanics of the evolution process. However, relatively recent and continuing developments described here have dramatically changed this situation, and programmed mammal aging now has a better evolutionary basis than non-programmed aging. Resolution of this issue is critically important to medical research because the two theories predict that very different biological mechanisms are ultimately responsible for age-related diseases and conditions. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2014. Source


Goldsmith T.C.,Azinet LLC
Current Aging Science | Year: 2015

There are two modern evolutionary theories of mammal senescence: Programmed theories contend that mammals purposely limit their lifespans because doing so creates an evolutionary advantage. Non-programmed theories contend that each mammal specie only needs a particular lifespan and therefore only evolved and retained the capability for attaining that lifespan. Arguments over the evolutionary nature of aging have now existed for more than 150 years and for reasons described here may never be definitively resolved. The programmed/ non-programmed question is critical to medical research because the theories have grossly different predictions regarding the biological mechanisms associated with the aging process and therefore, the nature of age-related diseases and conditions. This article describes and compares two approaches for avoiding the need to obtain resolution on the evolutionary basis of senescence in order to identify and characterize the biological mechanisms responsible for aging and therefore the nature of highly age-related diseases. © 2015 Bentham Science Publishers. Source


Goldsmith T.C.,Azinet LLC
Current Aging Science | Year: 2015

For more than 150 years there has been some level of scientific argument regarding whether aging in humans and other mammals is purposely genetically programmed because living too long produces an evolutionary disadvantage, or whether aging in mammals is non-programmed because there is no such disadvantage. Although for many decades it was very widely thought that programmed aging in mammals was theoretically impossible, new evolutionary mechanics theories and new discoveries support programmed mammal aging as well as programmed lifespan limitation in non-mammals. The emergence of modern programmed aging theories has created a schism in the bioscience community regarding the programmed/ non-programmed issue. Because the two theories have radically different predictions regarding the fundamental nature of aging and consequently the nature of highly age-related diseases like cancer, stroke, and heart disease, resolving this issue is critical to medical research. This article summarizes the evolutionary mechanics basis of modern programmed and non-programmed aging theories, describes some of the many ancillary circumstances that continue to prevent resolution of this issue, and recommends steps that could be taken to rapidly resolve the programmed/ non-programmed conundrum. © 2015 Bentham Science Publishers. Source

Discover hidden collaborations