If humans are a product of evolution, why do we age and die and why are we not immune to illnesses like colds?
373830
We die because we sexually reproduce: if we did not die then we would die from overpopulation and overcompetition. If we did not sexually reproduce, then there would be no variation, and thus evolution could not occur and we would all die out if environmental conditions.\n\nWe age because time passes. We senesce (that is, become old) because our body becomes less capable of maintaining homeostasis.\n\nWe are not immune to viruses because they constantly change all the time. There are hundreds of strains of the cold virus because they are evolving all the time as well. Sickness is an immune response to a pathogen in an attempt to get it out of the system. If we did not get "sick" (high fever, etc.), the virus would proliferate in our system and we would eventually die anyway.\n\nHope that helped a little.
78327
Because we were smart enough to learn how to keep ourselves warm with out fur.\n\nGod this is going to take a long time if I try to explain the whole thing, but here goes!\n\nWe shouldn't have lasted as long as we have. The human race is weak, small, and not good at defending itself, but it is very very smart.\n\nWe don't have any poisons claws or anything to defend ourselves with, so we created weapons.\n\nNotice that gorillas walk with their knees together, and that they are harder to knock over. Notice that humans walk with their knees apart, and fall over easily.\n\nPeople were smart enough that they learned to keep them selves warm, therefore eliminating the need for fur. Notice that people still have "fur" in some places. Pubic hair, to keep from chaffing when we walk, hair on our heads to keep them warm.\n\nBasivly I guess I'm saying since we're so smart evolution took away our hair. If monkeys had figured out how to make furry jackets I'm sure they wouldn't have fur either.\n\nNone of this is written in stone anywhere. This is just what I gathered from a few AP science classes. And they are a really bad explanation at that. I could try to explain better, but I have to go.
168402
Viruses are difficult because they mutate. We don't even have the cure for the flue because of the virus keeps changing. \n\nWhen there are more survivors, our bodies will have more resistance like baboons. They are immune to this virus.
390845
Evolution isn't something that happens instantly, it is a slow process that takes a long time. Humans actually have only been around for a few thousand years and "civilized" humans have only been around for 10,000 years. In fact, hominids (upright walking apes that are all extinct except for humans) have only been around for less than 2 million years. We are evolving slowly but by the time we radically change, we will not notice because the change would have been very very slow.
1172039
We are constantly evolving. If you look at statistics over the last hundred years, people are getting taller. (Go into an old, old home - the stairs will be smaller - people were smaller.)\n\nEvery time that DNA replicates, there is a possibility for an error. These can be positive or negative, but it the error is transmitted to the next generation, it will make changes in person. These changes are EVOLUTION. \n\nUnfortunately, the survival of the fittest isn't accurate anymore, as people with defects are now living long enough to reproduce and making faulty copies of their DNA. \n\nWe will continue to change, slowly, but evolution is happening all around us, and in us, everyday.
1098346
Truth is, we are still Evolving, but evolution is a slow process barring environmental disasters (think Chernobyl or the meteor impact that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs).\n\nThe last two big DNA changes with humanity occurred 10,000 and 4,000 years ago, if _Science News_ articles are to be believed.  They were mainly dietary, involved changes to the digestive system so that mannose (tree nut sugars), lactose (milk sugars) and other plant and animal simple sugars could be digested by the human digestive system.\n\nAnd this was in the absence of either civilization (which may or may not slow down pro-survival pressures) or pollution (which may speed them up).\n\nBefore that?  You have to look at some of the dietary and bloodstream changes between ancestral Africans (bitter-taster versus non-taster, and the platelet changes responsible for sickle-cell anemia) and others that occurred in part to confer extra resistance to malaria.\n\nNot that any of this matters if you refuse to believe in physical evidence gathered by genetic research or paleontology....if you willfully refuse to heed reason nothing *will* convince you.  Not a flame, a statement of human nature, really, sad as it is.
362754
We re not genetically encoded with a predisposition to evolve, bt a predisposition to survive.\nTherefore any advantageous features that allow survival would be retained...an accumulation of these factors result in evolution, and is done purely on the basis of chance/mutations hence it taking millions of years to occur.\nIt does not prove the existence of God as science doesnt prove anything just supports hypothesis, but supports the evidence of chance and survival of the fittest.\nt\nps if u like u can say how this amazing coincidence that all these "chances" have culminated in striking concordance to produce the human, which has such a minute probability...may have something to do with the wonders of god...if u want ;)
711322
It seems to be an ongoing battle. As mankind evolves, so do our skills against fighting illness. But as we get better at making drugs to fight these bugs the bugs are  fighting back and getting more resistant until we reach a point (sometime soon, i feel) where we are going to have to depend on our immune system - like we did wayyyyyyy back in the day!
201746
No. It's more likely that the life expectancy is somewhat like ours - a balance between amount of children/year and/or lifetime versus likelihood of death before mature age. An animal that doesn't die within a thousand years would have very few kids and live in a very static world. The reason for why we die so "often" here is because of changes. Changes in weather, temperature, predators, availability of food, diseases etc. If we didn't die there would be a big chance of extinction due to either famine or low odds of mutations protecting the being from the change.
22321
This is an issue that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Being sort of closet theoretical evolutionist, I wonder just how poorly equipped our species is becoming with each medical/genetic advance we discover and then apply.\n\nYour question implies the direct application of genetic engineering and manipulation to the human race -- which is an area where there is a lot more potential for than has actually been applied, thus far. I propose that our plight has been cultivated by the application of much more mundane medicine -- to be honest, mundane might not be the best choice of words here because many of these advances are truly grandiose. However, for every modern advance that has come down the way, we surely have done nothing but weaken the genetics of our species.\n\nThink about every time an antibiotic is administered? Yes, we are helping that person overcome an infection that he/she was otherwise ill equipped to rid themselves of via their own immune system. But look where that’s got us. After only a few generations of using – and grossly misusing – antibiotics, these same organisms we were able to fight off have developed resistance to. Now, not only are these bacteria back weeding out the less genetically fit folks among us, there are literally orders of magnitude more of such people susceptible to infection because they have been able to propagate these deficiencies through procreation. In this instance, saving thousands of people of lives over the years may ultimately cost millions of other theirs. You have to ask yourself: Which situation is better.\n\nWhat you have to truly realize is that is it more correct to think and apply our medical abilities on the individual. We are able to heal many diseases and disorders that, even as recent as 50 years ago, would have never even been detected, let alone treatable. But there are a litany more that, even though they aren't curable, they are able to be treated and controlled to the point that become nothing more than chronic inconveniences -- whereas in prior times, these diseases and disorders would have been lethal. Every time we have been able to sustain a person's life beyond that which the technologies of prior years could have, we are allowing those people the opportunity to procreate. Because we don't treat these disorders and genetic susceptibilities to diseases at the genetic level, the offspring of these individuals still carry these "deficiencies.” And thus pass them along for future generations. This is great for the coffers of the medical establishment – acting as ready-made population in need of their services, but it is definitely polluting our gene pool with lesser-fit alleles that would have been eliminated by the process of natural selection. If medicine wanted to truly live up to its credo of: To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them; and to never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest, maybe the medical field should take in consideration what they are doing to the species – something that Hippocrates could not have even contemplated let alone include in his oath.\n\nWhere we humans miss the boat at is thinking that we are always one step ahead of nature. What we are realizing is that’s probably a huge miscalculation. We need to take a step back and reconsider our objectives. Is medicine’s and science’s ultimate goal to help individuals within the species or to help the species?
40940
Colds are caught when a virus that our bodies aren't used to enter our immune system. If the immune system can't fight it off, your body lets it take it's course, but at the same time fights all the germs that it can handle until there is nothing left of the virus. You never catch the same virus though.
1042798
The current understanding of the biology of aging and disease is still quite limited, to the point that we probably won't see any major breakthroughs in the next century. There have been some studies in model organisms (such as the nematode and the fruit fly) that suggest that there are genes that regulate aging. However, this is not well understood in these organisms, and very poorly understood in humans. There are human cell lines (cells that grow in growth medium) that are "immortalized," that is, they continue dividing apparently forever, but these are a far cry from an organism put together like you or I. These cells often come from cancerous tumors and have extremely disrupted genotypes, such that basically all they can do is grow and divide. \n\nNot only do we understand little about the aging process itself, but any hopes of human genetic engineering depend on the ability to change a person's genetic complement. This, of course, is remarkably difficult in adults, who have countless cells that would have to be changed. Some "gene therapy" techniques have been tried in humans, including viral vector-based gene delivery systems. These show some promise, but there haven't been any major breakthroughs. An alternative is to try to engineer an organism from the very beginning; that is, to manipulate a zygote. However, this is widely considered to be unethical, at least in the case of humans.\n\nMy opinion is that through genetic technology, we will make better and more effective cures and preventative therapies, which will have the potential of increasing the length and quality of our life. Overcoming death is a completely different story (and a very interesting question for philosophy and religion!).
325191
Actually it makes perfect sense.  Things naturally pair together, whether it be by gravity, magnetism, parasitism or whatever reason.  eventually enough atoms will link together for convienience to form a protein, enough protiens will link together to form a cell, then we have life.  cells will then pair together to form tissues, which will pair with other tissues to increase their survival rate giving us more complex organisms.  See the steps yet?  Following that we get to higher functioning organisms.  An organism's cells reproduce millions of times in that organisms lifetime and every time the DNA is replicated there is a chance for a mistake.  How many typos do you make typing a paper?  This is where variation comes from.  Evolution and extinction come from natural selection.  As the world changes things have to adapt those that don't die. If they didn't die we wouldn't call it evolution.
1110389
Species do not evolve, individuals show variation and sometimes that variation is pro reproductive, (not necessarily pro long and happy life)  In that case a pool of individuals with that trait grows and reinforces it.  Such variation tends to be absorbed in a large mobile population and cause no long term divergence, so our own mobility and global success works against a new variety of human emerging.  \n\nOne can anticipate however that our science will progress far faster then any normal evolution and in a short time a group of therapies will be available that will offer longer life, greater vitality and sexual enjoyment, improved health in general and whatever appearance is desired.  The trend to these things already exists.  The factor that will isolate this group of advantaged humans may already exist as well, since it is likely that such biological tinkering will be available only to those who can afford it.  We may see the very rich diverging as a virtual new type of human in the next fifty years, followed by the middle class in places like America.  The difference in lifespan between a wealthy nation and a third world one is now twenty five years or more, it may stretch to a century.  A pretty big issue putting wealth and experience against endless numbers...
83068
people dont die form "old age" theres always a body part/organ/function that goes causing death.
820475
The common cold is transmitted from person to person, it is not caused by being cold.  Although there is some research that suggests that being cold leaves you more open to catching a cold.  There are two main theories:\n\n1) Although not entirely understood, the theory is that when you get cold your blood concentrates around your vital organs in order to keep them warm.  This means that your extremities become very cold, in particular your nose.  The theory goes that your nose acts like a first line of defense and can reduce the chances of the virus making its way to your respiratory tract.  When your cold the blood supply to the nose is reduced and this first line of defense is lost.\n\n2) Being cold weakens your immune system so you are more likely to develop the symptoms of a cold.
603237
Its not evolution, that is for sure. The evolutionist idea of natural selection is flawed from the beginning. The idea that we evolved into this superior human who have to deal with feelings of emotion, need large amounts of food and water to survive, require a male and female to reproduce and the list goes on. If natural selection is true then humans would have stopped long before now when we didn't need so much food and water; when we could split ourselves because there was no gender and no one had to think about taking care of a child. A human child is one of the most dependent offspring. Without the care of parents the child would die. This does not seem to fit the the theory of natural selection. Genesis 1:27 explains it good.