This is, to a degree, what happens. However, a species that ages has an advantage in that new individuals, with perhaps better characteristics in the face of new circumstances, have access to more resources.
I do wonder whether there is a point where the lost experience of other individuals weighs heavier than physically better adapted individuals. In a way, culture serves as a way to preserve information that would be lost by aging.
> new individuals, with perhaps better characteristics in the face of new circumstances, have access to more resources.
Another way to interpret this would be “increased diversity.” Which is a selection advantage in an environment that experiences change. While organisms don’t have “clocks” they do have different rates of aging, implying a biological control. And species that live longer tend to hold on to longer genomes. This tends to mean that short lived species hold diversity in their population while Long lived species hold diversity in every genome. Both operate as fitness advantages, and seem to imply that aging is a biological quality.
So that would be like killing a program and respawning a new process instead for some benefit like reclaiming memory or speed (like I do with browser tabs).
I know evolution doesn't work that way, but definitely sounds like an interesting thought.
> So that would be like killing a program and respawning a new process instead for some
> benefit like reclaiming memory or speed ...
>
> I know evolution doesn't work that way,
Sure its better now but that's how the early versions of Evolution worked (sorry couldn't resist !).
I'm not sure what class of error this is, but it's a common reasoning mistake in discussions on evolution.
By your same logic, you could pick any species at all and call their traits "the winning strategy for long-term survival" as long as you live contemporaneously with them.
There are known species that don't seem to exhibit planned senescence--the naked mole rat is a commonly discussed example. Check the Wikipedia page for biological immortality[1] for more examples and info.
The article essentially claims that ageing is likely a result of interacting thermodynamic processes. If so, then without specific preventative measures, organisms will "age".
The discussion at this level is pretty hand-wavy. So without introducing more rigor, the best we can say is probably something like this: there hasn't been strong selective pressure in the past to develop anti-ageing strategies.
Exactly. Some tortoises as well can live a few hundred years, as well as wales, urchins, sharks, quahog clams, and as someone else mentioned– jellyfish.
Though you won't see any of them developing rockets and space-stations. To what extent that is an evolutionary advantage on our part I'll leave to general consensus.
