Slashdot Mirror
Ask Aubrey de Grey About Longevity Research
There may be such a thing as a conventional scientist -- but Aubrey de Grey is not one. Instead, biogerontologist de Grey has spent much of the last 20 years investigating the science of aging by considering the aging process as a multifaceted disease whose manifestations can be mitigated, rather than an inevitability to merely accept. That might not be unusual in itself, but de Grey believes that by addressing the causes and symptoms of aging, human life can be extended to at least 1000 years — a stance has earned him accolades and contempt in various degrees. (He might not especially mind being called names like "rogue" and "maverick," though.) De Grey is also chairman and chief science officer of The Methuselah Foundation, whose M-Prize for extending the lifespan of mice has been mentioned on Slashdot before. Ask de Grey about his research below; he'll answer the top-rated questions, and we'll publish them in this space. The usual Slashdot interview rules apply — so ask all the questions you'd like, but please confine yourself to one per post.
It's sheer idiocy and superstition that we treat aging as if it's a disease that needs to be treated.
....We see no evidence of such a global flood....
If you can name ONE place on this entire planet that was NOT covered with water at one time, then you could say there was not a global flood. If you look at a globe even today, you would see that three fourths of this planet is covered with water even still. If you flattened out the earth, it would be covered uniformly to over a mile with water. We know that the land masses of Earth are still moving up and down and along the surface. Apparently, this movement was much greater in the past.
Furthermore, the quantities of water in the mantle of the earth could far exceed that in the crust and the oceans combined. There is some evidence of this here:
http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html
Since it is rather difficult to put seismometers on the bottom of the oceans, the evidence is confined mostly to the parts of the mantle which underlies the large land the masses of the earth. There is no reason to believe that the mantle which underlies the oceans contains proportionately less water. The Bible mentions to sources of water for the flood. One was from above in the form of rain and the other was from below. We are told that the fountains of the great deep broke open and flooded the Earth. It is of course speculation to determine what may have caused all that water or a significant portion of it to well up out of the mantle and then a return. If a sponge saturated with water is squeezed, the water will come out of it, but returned once the pressure is eased. It is possible, although unknown and unknowable, that a large gravitational object, such as a planet sized body passed close to the earth, putting the gravitational squeeze on the planet. In short, there is evidence that there was indeed a worldwide flood. It is certainly not impossible, judging from the amount of water available.
There is no way to make a fossil by any known as slow, gradual process. When an organism dies, it immediately begins to decay never making a fossil. To make a fossil, all microorganisms also must be immediately killed. Only a sudden catastrophe can do this.
It is clear to me that you have never read the biblical account of the flood even once. If you had, you would have noticed that Noah did not go out to collect animals and that the word species is not used.
We humans intensely dislike sudden events beyond our control, rather thinking that current processes can always be extrapolated into the past. We know from events, such as the eruption of Mount St. Helens, that geological processes, specifically petrification can take place in a very short amount of time. The Toutle River carved a miniature version of the Grand Canyon in hours, as the snow waters melted by the eruption raged through the canyon, obliterating everything in its path and transporting millions of tons of silt, rock, trees and other things in its way.
How do historians judge the accuracy or fiction of ancient records? Can written historical accounts, no matter where they appear be trusted? Did Alexander the great really live? Were the Roman emperors, such as Nero or Caligula as terrible and corrupt as we read in historical accounts? How credible are the witnesses that wrote these things? There are people today who will deny even the relatively recent history, such as the Holocaust of World War II.
(...Our lifespans, like those of all organisms, are a result of the ability of their DNA to copy itself reliably...)
The lifetime of any organism is determined by the number of times its cells can divide before apoptosis, that is cell death occurs. DNA contains code which tells each cell when to die. In humans, a complete turnover of cells occurs about every seven years. When this code fails or is corrupted, cells divide without limit and that is what we call cancer.
(...The Bible is no more historically accurate...)
So far at least, the Bible is 100% correct in the accuracy of its historical p
All theory is gray