I hope you are feeling better than last time you wrote.
The GRG-list seems to have “gone to sleep” in recent weeks. (Come on Members; participate!)
I have a couple of brief comments on a couple of your statements (below) which I hope you won’t regard as silly.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:44 AM, L. Stephen Coles M.D. Ph.D. wrote:
To Members and Friends of the Los Angeles Gerontology
Research Group:”Compared with Growth and
Development, Aging (Entropy) Is a Comparatively Weak Force”Summary:
1. If aging is a stochastic (time random), inevitable (inexorable),
constant (continuous), relentless process that chips away at us from day
why are no (non-progeric) children born old
Steve, I would argue that no children (babies?) are born “old” because there are rate-limiting processes at work. In other words, whilst in utero, the foetus is subject both to its own internal developmental mechanism and to influences from the mother (hormonal?) and there are certain rates beyond which it cannot age. Thus, even babies with progeria do not begin their accelerated “aging” until after they have been born. So, I am arguing that aging is NOT a stochastic, constant process UNTIL after birth and (usually) UNTIL after normal developmental processes have run their course (around age 20 or so). THEN true aging begins….
and why do we get old and die
according to a precise exponential (Gompertzian) curve as a function
of chronological age (and gender)?
Answer: Compared with the growth and development of complex multicellular
organisms starting from a single cell, net/net — intrinsic aging is
informationally-disorganizing process of very fine granularity (operating
the molecular level — from nanometers to microns) secondary to thermal
Brownian) Motion (entropy), and it’s not on the radar compared with
growth, even though it’s present well before birth.
Which suggests that, given the application of energy in the right places, at the right times, it might be reversible.
2. Aging is weak in the same sense as gravity is weak compared with
electomagnetism in cosmology; yet it’s gravity that shapes the observable
(i.e., the gross distribution of trillions of stars in an elaborate web
of trillions of galaxies).