Living for 900 years
by Carl Wieland
A few people reach around 120 years. We’re understanding more … but, with new research,
can we live longer? Fascinating new information about how and why we age casts fresh light on the
long lifespans of pre-Flood people.
In the book of Genesis, the Bible routinely records human lifespans which seem outrageously different
from our experience today. Adam lived to 930 years; Noah even longer, to 950 years (see graph below).
These long lifespans are not haphazardly distributed; they are systematically greater before the
Flood of Noah, and decline sharply afterwards.
These great ages are not presented in the Bible as if they are in any way extraordinary for their
times, let alone miraculous.
The lifespans recorded in the Bible, beginning with the pre-Flood patriarchs (plotted at date of
birth). Notice the pronounced drop in lifetimes following the Flood. This is evidence for something
very dramatic happening in world history.
Click here for larger
view
Many people are quick to scoff at such ages, claiming they are ‘biologically impossible’.
Today, even if they avoid all fatal diseases, humans will generally die of old age before they reach
much past 100. Even the very exceptional cases don’t make it much past 120 years.
However, a look at the evidence related to aging suggests that the apparent upper limit on today’s
average lifespans is not something that is ‘biologically inevitable’ as such
for humans or other multi-celled creatures.
Disease, diet, ‘wear and tear’ and other environmental factors undoubtedly play a part
in how long we live. However, it now appears that underlying all these are factors somehow written
into our genetic code, which determine what our ‘upper limit’ is. This is not really
surprising; most of us know of families in which nearly everyone lives to a ripe old age—and
the opposite, of course.
And although an average ‘upper limit’ seems to be ‘programmed’
into each species, breeding experiments have shown that this limit can be altered, even dramatically.
Experiments with fruitflies and worms have shown that extra longevity can be bred into and out of
these populations. So you can have two populations of the same fly, with one group living many times
longer than the other, on average. Even a genetic ‘switch’ involved in longevity has
been identified in one species of worm.
Why do we wear out?
Why is it that multi-celled creatures (like people) all eventually wear out and die? It
is not enough to simply say that there are physical laws which dictate that all fixed structures
will eventually wear out. This is true, but biological machinery has built-in ‘intelligence’ (programmed
into the DNA) which gives it the ability to repair itself.
That’s why single-celled creatures like bacteria don’t die of old age—they just
divide into two new copies, each of which divides into two more, and so on. [Note added in May 2009:
Actually, there is now abundant evidence that even single-celled creatures can suffer senescence—i.e.,
aging and death.] Beings like us have organs (e.g., liver, kidneys and so on) which are made up of
lots of individual cells. Why don’t these cells keep on dividing, repairing and renewing the
organ forever? If this were to happen, with worn-out cells replaced by newly manufactured ones, then
none of your ‘parts’ would wear out. Which of course means that you would never
wear out. You might be killed by a falling tree, or die of some infection, but you would never die
of old age.
Of course, this isn’t so. Our individual organs do wear out. The cells within them
can multiply for a while, but not forever. After a certain number of times, they simply stop dividing.
It is known that ordinary human cells will only divide some 80–90 times, then no more.
It appears that there is, on the tips of each of our chromosomes, a structure called a telomere.
Think of it as a counting device, with a number of beads on the end. Every time the cell divides,
it is as if a bead is snipped off, shortening the telomere (see section below).1 Once
all of the beads have gone, cell division can no longer take place. From then on, as each cell ‘runs
down’, it is not replaced by any new ones. So even if you avoid any sort of fatal accident
or disease, you will eventually succumb to failure of one or more organs.
The machinery by which cells divide is controlled by the instructions written on the DNA, the genetic
code. So it looks as if some pre-programmed genetic limit, while not all there is to aging, could
well be a big part of the story. In short, there is no known biological reason why lifespans of 900 years or more would be impossible if that genetic limit were set at a different point.
And there is reason to think that there could indeed be great variation in this genetic ‘upper
limit’. We have already seen that simply reshuffling gene frequencies through breeding selection
in fruitflies can drastically increase their lifespan.
The real question then becomes not, ‘How could they possibly live for so long?’, but
rather, ‘Why don’t we live that long any more?’
How do lifespans compare?
Ignoring death by accident or disease, different living things seem to be genetically programmed
to live for different average periods. Evidence is accumulating that such programs are not
completely fixed—selective breeding in some creatures has drastically increased the
average lifespan.
|
Noah’s new environment
Looking at the drop in lifespans after the Flood, it is natural to think that it must be related
to the world having changed so drastically. Evidence from the fossil record does suggest that carbon
dioxide (also possibly oxygen) levels were higher in the pre-Flood world. Many have suggested that
an atmospheric canopy of water vapour sheltered the pre-Flood world from cosmic radiation. However,
whether this is so or not, there is little evidence that aging is substantially influenced
by any of these factors.
The idea that the environment became so much more ‘toxic’ after the Flood as to slash
our lifespans by nearly eight centuries, to one-ninth of what they were, stumbles at one important
point. Noah was already over 600 years old when he stepped out of the Ark. But this allegedly much
more hostile environment did not cause him to rapidly wither and die in a few decades. Instead, he
lived for another 350 years, outstripping the age of even his ancestor Adam.
We don’t know whether environmental factors perhaps only cause problems in the developmental
phase of human life. However, one simple explanation of why Noah still lived for so long is that
Noah’s genetic make-up was what gave him the potential to live so long. And that perhaps most,
if not all, people before the Flood were programmed for much longer lifespans than we are programmed
for today.
So what happened? Remember that the whole population shrank to just a handful. There are well known
ways in which forms of genes (known as alleles), which could include any coding for longer lifespans,
can be eliminated from a population that has gone through such a ‘bottleneck’—down
to eight people (see box).
Other factors
If such genetic loss were the reason for the decline in lifespans, it may not be the only one. Harmful
mutations accumulating at higher rates may have played a part. Some of these mutations may have
caused a loss of the length of the telomere, for instance. After the Flood, the variety of plants
available for food was drastically reduced, perhaps one reason why God permitted man to eat meat
at that point. However, not even the most avid enthusiast for healthy eating would suggest that,
by simply changing our diet, we could live for 950 years today. Perhaps some of these other factors
are the reason for the continuing decline, lasting for centuries. Isaac lived to 180, Moses 120,
King David only 71 years. Interestingly, we are seeing an increase in lifespans today due to environmental
factors. However, I think it is likely that to live anywhere near as long as our ancestor Noah,
we would need some of his genetic factors.
Of course, the ultimate reason for all aging and death is the Curse on all creation recorded in Genesis
chapter 3. Adam was told that if he disobeyed God, ‘dying, you shall die’ [lit. Hebrew]. Adam immediately died spiritually,
and began to die physically on the very same day, just as we are all dying today.
Modern genetic research shows that we all inherit the inevitability of aging and death. When we look
at our encroaching wrinkles in the mirror, it should remind us of the awfulness of sin in the sight
of a holy God. And it should cause us immense thankfulness that God has provided a way of escape
from His own righteous judgement on sin, through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Living beyond your means
Some 30 years ago, a middle-aged lawyer in France struck a deal with a lady client in her 90s,
as follows. He gained ownership of her apartment, in return for a handsome monthly stipend.
She could live in it rent-free all her life. It seemed an obvious win-win; because of her
advanced age, he would surely end up with a very cheap purchase, and she would live out her
meagre allotment of remaining years with a high income.
To the lawyer’s great misfortune, his client, Jeanne Calment, was destined to become
the longest living person in modern history. She died in 1997 (with all faculties intact) at
the age of 122 years, 164 days. Her lawyer died of old age long before she did. He (and his
estate) ended up paying her the price of her apartment many times over.
Two French researchers have recently traced Calment’s genealogy back five generations
on both sides. Each of her ancestors had lived a remarkable 10.5 years longer, on average,
than the mean age at death of people in the same region. They concluded that how she lived
or what she ate was not the main factor in her great age, but that a rare constellation of
longevity genes must have come together in one individual. Obviously, she also happened to
avoid any misfortune which might have caused earlier death.
This is consistent with our thesis here there are genetic longevity factors. The availability
of a great array of these in our pre-Flood ancestors might well explain their long lifespans,
while loss of some could explain the subsequent drop.
Possible genetic combinations inherited by offspring.
Genetic loss after the Flood—a cause for dropping lifespans?
There is a well-known and simple phenomenon called ‘genetic drift’, through which
varying forms (alleles) of genes (stretches of DNA coding for various characteristics) can
become lost in small populations.
Genes come in pairs; you inherit one from your mother and one from your father. In the example
shown above diagrammatically, the ‘G’ form of the gene is present in father and
not in mother. Each of their children only has a 50–50 chance of inheriting the ‘G’ version
of that particular gene, as shown. Therefore the possibility that none of
the offspring will inherit this gene is not at all a remote one. (If they only have three
children, the chance is 1 in 8). In a situation in which the entire human race was reduced
down to Noah, his three sons and their wives, it is entirely feasible that some forms of
the genes present in Noah were not passed on. Since it now appears that much of aging is
under genetic control, loss of some of the genes for longevity may be the reason for the
drop post-Flood. Perhaps subsequent population bottlenecks (at Babel) contributed further
to this genetic elimination.2
The ‘capping’ at the end of each chromosome (called a telomere, from Greek τέλος telos = ‘end’ and μέρος merοs ‘part’)
is, like the capped tips of shoelaces, necessary to prevent the ends fraying. The telomere
shortens with each cell division—once the limit is reached, the cells can no longer divide.
This is probably only one way in which our limited lifespans are ‘programmed’ into
us. There is no biological reason at all why people could not live much longer than they do
at present, if they had the appropriate genetic makeup.
It has long been known that there are human cells that can keep on dividing forever—cancer cells. These appear not to have the built-in ‘switch’
which tells cells to stop dividing, so they keep on making copies of themselves. This is why
medical labs, which need to use human cell lines in their work, can be continually supplied
with cells which are all the ‘offspring’ of one unfortunate person’s cancer.
(Called HeLa cells, after Henrietta Lacks, the lady whose cancer it was). The HeLa cell line
is effectively ‘immortal’
(unless existing HeLa cells were to all be physically destroyed).
Recently, laboratory results based on an enzyme3 that
is involved with the replication of the telomere, have caused much excitement. Modified human
cell lines have divided many times past their limit. Some speculate that such manipulations
could cause people to live to much longer ages, providing they do not succumb to disease or
accident in the meantime. Aging is certain to be much more complex than these simplified discussions,
based on preliminary findings, might lead us to think. However, the evidence so far strongly
suggests that genetics plays a major part.
|
Related articles
Bibliography/further reading
- New Scientist: November 22, 1997, p. 7; January 3, 1998, p. 6; February 7, 1998, p.
14; February 28, 1998, p. 23.
- ‘Can science beat the body clock?’ Sunday Times (London) January 18, 1998,
p. 15.
- ‘Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of aging’, Nature 389:958–960,
1997.
- ‘Why do we age?’ U.S. News & World Report, August 18–25, 1997,
pp. 55–57.
- ‘Genetics of Aging’ Science 278(5337):407–411, 1997.
References and notes
- Simplified for brevity—there is a fluctuation in length, with a net
shortening. In our brain cells, the telomere does not shorten. Return to text.
- This assumes that there was probably considerable variation in lifespans
in the pre-Flood world, with some only programmed to live a maximum of say, 400 to 500 years. This
may be why Noah’s sons failed to match his great age. Return to text.
- This enzyme, called telomerase, was discovered in 1980 by the winner of
the 1998 Australia Prize, Prof. Elizabeth Blackburn. Without telomerase, cells cannot copy their ‘caps’.
Prof. Blackburn, along with Carol Greider and Jack Szostak, were awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for
the discovery of ‘how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase.’” Return
to text.
(Available in Spanish.)
| They say time is money. Well, this site provides over 30 years of information. That’s a lot of money and time. Would you support our efforts to keep this information coming for 30 more years?  | | |
|
