I know scientists can date the age of old bones through various methods, but is there a way they can find out the actual age that the human who's bones they dug up was when they died? I'm talking like a million year old skeleton here. If so, what are the details of the method?
for some odd reason, while the word "Ganya" was still just a thought-dropping in my head, I thought it'd only be four letters. But apparently it's five. yep.
ah thank you for the links raven. My primary crutch to gaining knowledge is my laziness
for some odd reason, while the word "Ganya" was still just a thought-dropping in my head, I thought it'd only be four letters. But apparently it's five. yep.
interesting. But, what happens if the conditions of the earth and the food eaten, as well as the lifestyles of the ancient humans was different than we expect? How can we be sure that our measurements are accurate when it comes to giving the approximate age of the recovered remains? Also, how can we be sure of the length of time it would take a person back then to mature, where the pelvis would have grown to the point we now know relates to, say 30 yrs old? Maybe back then, humans grew twice as fast, so the person was only 15 years old? Or maybe, twice as slow, so they were in fact 60?
Thierfore you telling me they remined in the state of a baby for almost more then 10 years, don't you think in this time the actual speed at which humans reproduced an grew in numbers on the Earth would have meant that only a small number would be around today!!!
Also being in a state of a baby and a child for upto almost a hundred years would mean more chances of humans dying from attacks from beasts and also from neglect!! Who would cater for a baby's every need for more then 10 years would this not drive the parents mad???
First hand information is always better then second hand information....
Would you wear someone elses worn out shoes???
Well, I've got a child, and generally she doesn't drive ME mad. However, there are those days....
Still, I'm just suggesting the possibility that the maturation of humans more than likely has not always been the same as it is now. If we've been evolving, then it's possible that once upon a time people DID take longer to mature. It's also possible that they matured much faster then we do now.
from the links you provided me guessing the age when they died, especially the older the person gets, boils down to guesswork based on what they see and know about living humans. Now it's perfectly reasonable to apply this to million year old bones too, however, it's not exact science, it's not proven, so let's not treat it like it is.
for some odd reason, while the word "Ganya" was still just a thought-dropping in my head, I thought it'd only be four letters. But apparently it's five. yep.
Sierradaddy said this in post #6 : Well, I've got a child, and generally she doesn't drive ME mad. However, there are those days....
Still, I'm just suggesting the possibility that the maturation of humans more than likely has not always been the same as it is now. If we've been evolving, then it's possible that once upon a time people DID take longer to mature. It's also possible that they matured much faster then we do now.
Just suggestions...
I had to do this, cuz it drives me CRAZY when I see it in other posts...
It's also possible that they matured much faster than we do now.
Dekka00 said this in post #7 : from the links you provided me guessing the age when they died, especially the older the person gets, boils down to guesswork based on what they see and know about living humans. Now it's perfectly reasonable to apply this to million year old bones too, however, it's not exact science, it's not proven, so let's not treat it like it is.
I agree with you Dekkah, but then the science of believing in human life expectancy to ever have been 900 years is far from any fact or science at all, it has even less evidence to back it up with the science of dating age from bones, therefore it would make more sense not to treat that information like it is!!!!
for some odd reason, while the word "Ganya" was still just a thought-dropping in my head, I thought it'd only be four letters. But apparently it's five. yep.
Interesting... Raven said the science of believing... Science attempts to PROVE specific educated guesses or hypotheses, so belief has nothing to do with scientific evaluation.
The belief of people living extended lifetimes compared with now DOES go with evolutionary theory, because all extended life would've been, is a specific characteristic, possibly caused by gene mutation. That goes along with evolutionary theory, and if we push the theory further, then it's very possible that such people DID die out because of the negative repercussions of living longer and possibly maturiing much slower as well.
Only thoughts here. I wonder about extended life myself, but I'm not so quick to dismiss the possibility of it having been a part of human history.
In fact extended life is limited by genetical factors. When genes are duplicated during cell replacement in the normal running of our metabolism, chromosoms loose a little part of their extremities. The more they replicate, the more they loose information on their tip, till they reach the end of the possibility to duplicate. This is the most advanced theory about aging. Extended life can be favored by anti-oxydants chemicals (vitamines, among other compounds) protecting the genome but mother nature has put a limit to our life expectancy. This limit is contained in the very source of our life itself.
JY, what if there was a specific sequence during mitosis that replenished the tips of chromosomes, or some event that PROTECTED them from being damaged or removed? Or at the very least, allowed for less of the tips of chromosomes to be lost?
What if there was some plentiful food or substance available to us during a specific period of time that was jam-packed with something quite similar to anti-oxidants?
Also, what is to say that the problem of loosing bits of genetic information during each cellular generation didn't spring up as part of a mutation in how our genes are replicated?
Just questions. Who can answer these, right? Just thought I'd pose them anyways.
Good questions anyway. You hit the nail on the head. Should a scientist be successful in replenishing the tips of chromosoms after replication, he / she very well may have found the key to immortality.
By the way, the parts of the chromosoms that are lost during replication are not operative ones - I mean, they are not bearing a code for proteins fabrication involved in the normal cycle of life. So the role of these tips remains to be fully accounted for. The fact that they are diminishing replication after replication, while replication is uneffective when these tips have disappeared, is however a clue that they are involved in the regulation of the process in some way. In other words - they are involved in our life expectancy.
Sierradaddy said this in post #13 : .. what if there was a specific sequence during mitosis that replenished the tips of chromosomes..
.. what if a subject's DNA could be modified artificially in a lab to re-add those massive structures and then replicated in a culture and finally infused back into the patient at key points in order to stimulate cellular replication of the "younger", healthier cells..
07-10-2004 01:04 AM
