Talk:Essay: Regenerative ability of early humans

Dear Reader, This is the first draft of this essay. All contributions would be very much appreciated. The "biblical support" section needs more examples, I only added the most obvious ones, and I am sure there are many more. Regards, --TSpencer 17:25, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Loss of a finger or a limb isn't necessarily "likely" after such a long period of time. You could use this as an argument for organ regeneration, however. Liver damage, gastrointestinal damage and heart damage are all very fatal problems in our society today. That would also question how exactly they died if they're organs could regenerate, though. -- Jeff W. Lauttamus_Discussion 10:33, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

That's a great point! I will make sure it is included in the essay. For the death of early humans, even if we allow for regenerative abilities superior to that of the Axolotl, I think massive trauma to essential organs would be as lethal as it is today. If we take the example of the Axolotl, we can also see that regeneration is not a miracle cure against decay associated with age. --TSpencer 10:52, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

That would be assuming that all of these men essentially died of blunt-force trauma. In the case of Methuselah, I think the Bible basically states that he "closed his eyes and died" because all things must die (there's a citation in Genesis for that quote ... I'll try and find it). I'm a bit shady on that ... maybe he died in the flood. An interesting take, nonetheless. -- Jeff W. Lauttamus_Discussion 10:59, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

• Given that the Bible is not precise about ages (we're not sure if in his thirtieth year means when he was 30 years old or when he was going to celebrate his 30th birthday), it's reasonable to suppose that Metuselah's death happened in the year of the Deluge, like Noah's father Lamech. But the convergence of death-ages around 900 years suggests that 900 was a natural life limit - the only two exceptions were Enoch (who didn't die naturally) and Lamech (who probably died in the Deluge). BTW, in biology, creatures that don't die naturally tend to grow until they can no longer function adequately - mass grows by the cube of the size, efficiency grows by its square - and tend to die of starvation (sorry, no sources). Sunda62 13:52, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

  PS: that law is called Galileo's square-cube law, but I found no reliable source to quote it here. Sunda62 14:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

  PPS: without a reliable source, I found a tongue-in-cheek source: Why giant monsters (in Japanese sci-fi movies) can't exist. Sunda62 14:05, 7 April 2010 (EDT)

Your remark that there seems to be a natural life limit is interesting. I do not know what you mean by "creatures that don't die naturally tend to grow" indefinitely, could you explain? If we look at the Axolotl for example, specimens are limited to a fairly reasonable size and lifespan. On a related note, I do not think a regenerative ability would necessarily remove the harmful (and ultimately lethal) consequences of old age. Regards, --TSpencer 09:09, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

• Unfortunately, I can't quote reliable sources, but I remember that I read somewhere that lifeforms without a biological time-bomb tend to grow until the square-cube law kills them. This article Crocodilian Biology Database, at www.flmnh.ufl.edu discusses this theory that alligators grow forever. The biological time-bomb is a good thing for the species, because it allows old and big speciments to leave and give space to the new generation. Sunda62 09:33, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

In order to observe that indefinite growth, we would need to find a lifeform without a "biological time-bomb". The only one I can think of is the Turritopsis Nutricula and it does not grow indefinitely. The article on crocodiles says that they "reach a maximum size where growth stops or becomes extremely slow in old age". We would also expect the presence of gigantic, fossil human skeletons. This brings to mind the theory that Neanderthal fossils are the remains of the first humans, whose facial bones would have grown for centuries. Regards, --TSpencer 09:50, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

Most Jellyfish are short lived, but all of the sessile cnidarians are immortal, however they reproduce by budding and that helps them dodge the cube-square law. I'm still not sure I agree with your analysis of this study, however you may also want to look for a dinosaur expert who has been saying that as many as 1/3rd of the kinds of dinosaurs that we find are just juveniles and not new kinds. He has done extensive work looking at the structure of the growing bone and might have something you could use. --JimPT 11:33, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

I'll try to search for that dinosaur expert you mentioned. If you do not agree with my analysis of the study, could you tell me which specific points you object to? Regards, --TSpencer 07:59, 9 April 2010 (EDT)