On 10 Sep 98 16:55:54 GMT, bae at cs.toronto.edu (Beverly Erlebacher)
>You might as well pack it in, Aubrey. These guys have latched onto
>the telomere theory and have become True Believers. They will defend
No we have NOT. Some of us on this news group believe that the
telomeric theory of aging is a correct theory that applies to human
aging but we are NOT "true believers".
We believe that there is a very good possibility that telomere
shortening is a strong factor in the human aging process but if
evidence did come along that demonstrated that telomere loss has NO
effect in aging then we would abondon the Telomeric Theory of Aging.
The problem is we already have evidence that telomeric loss DOES
INDEED have an effect on the aging of at least "some" different
tissues/cells in the human body.
>it against all its Evil or Deluded Enemies, all contrary evidence, etc.
>They may not understand it, but they Believe it.
If evidence was provided that showed that telomere loss has NO EFFECT
WHATSOEVER on aging, and the evidence came from a reputable source,
then we would no longer "believe" it. But, at least so far, no such
evidence refuting the telomeric theory of aging has been produced AND
there is evidence that telomere loss DOES INDEED have AT LEAST a few
effects on the aging of certain types of tissues/cells.
>>You would be further ahead to just drop this and discuss science with
>people who understand what a theory is in science. Dropping sci.life-extension
>from the newsgroups line might accomplish this.
Why do you want him to drop sci.life-extension? This is a very good
and informative news group.
Even though we disagree have a great day and take care.