Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Uranusistormy t1_j4c1grs wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Breakthrough milestone in understanding the reversal of aging by duffmanhb

I don't know anything about him but I studied biochemistry and I'm very interested in thermodynamics. The cell isn't a closed system. This allows it reverse its internal entropy at the expense of increasing entropy in its surroundings with a net increase in entropy of the universe. For example glucose is converted to CO2, an increase in entropy, and this entropy used to provide free energy that the cell uses to repair itself and make proteins. As the cell ages it is less able to do this. We don't know why but it is evidently related to genetics. As this decreased regulation increases the cell is able to function less and less until it dies. Take this and scale it up to a person and it manifests as ageing. You were conflating the person's use of 'getting older' with 'growing up', when they were speaking about getting old.

It's not hard to understand.

1

[deleted] t1_j4cpli7 wrote

Well I’m a fucking scientist with a PhD from an R1 university and Aubrey de Grey is the most iconic gerontology theorist in the world. Not sure why measuring dicks is relevant, the concepts are plain enough to speak for themselves.

You’re still just not getting it. Not sure why, I guess you’re either not actually reading the posts or just dim.

Anyway, I explained it four times, and you’re still not grasping the core idea of the distinction between the levels and timeframes of separate but connected/nested processes.

It would be like confusing the idea of why an oven needs fuel to maintain a constant temperature above ambient temperature vs the idea that in order to raise or lower the temperature of the oven you need to change the fuel consumption rate. in this analogy, raising the temp is analogous to growth/development and lowering the temperature is analogous to aging. It’s not a perfect analogy, but the parallel is strong enough that it should be self evident now why metabolism and aging are different.

Ok, that’s now five different explanations of the same core concept.

If you can’t see why a flow of inputs is different from a stock whose level either grows, shrinks, or remains static as a function of the flow’s rate, well, you’re just too dense for me to help you understand the difference between metabolism and aging, and why entropy applies to the former but not the latter.

1

Uranusistormy t1_j4hdqlc wrote

Well it's unfortunate that you have such a poor grasp of thermo despite spending 8 years working toward a PhD, but I guess you'd be the secon\\d idiot on reddit that I've seen arguing incorrectly about the thermodynamics of the cell. I suggest you go and review first year physical chemistry. You remind me of a clown similar to you over on r/biochemistry arguing against the other users about whether the cell is a closed system.It's also a little funny that you resort to insults because you get so easily flustered explaining your misunderstandings with poor analogies. No one is confusing the difference between metablism and ageing. However you seem to be confused about the difference between cell growth and ageing. Cells grown and maintain themselves. This requires free energy which is derived from the decrease of free energy in molecules like glucose, producing simpler CO2. This results in an increase in the entropy of the surrouning environment and a decrease within the cell. As cells age the ability of the cell to maintain itself decreases, barring senescence we don't know the precise mechanism of why, but it results in increased entropy within the cell. Eventually the cell is unable to maintain itself and dies afterwhich it rapidly increases in internal entropy to a point equivalent to it's surroundings.

,,iMpErfecT uPkeEp/mAinTEnance mEchaNisms'' occur because the cell increasingly loses its ability to resist the increase of internal entropy. That is ageing. That is quite different from growth and development which occurs, not because of dysregulation, but because of normal, regulated gene expression, with no notable change in internal entropy. I find it amazing that you think 'imperfect maintenance of the organism’s existing structures' lead to maturation from an infant to a teenager. And that normal growth is equivalent to a 40 year old growing into a 90 year old with liver spots and cancer.

If you would give a comparison like the development of larger muscles during puberty to the onset of diabetes or male pattern baldness then I could see where you're coming from and say that is probably an example of antagonistic pleiotropy but instead you liken it to hearing loss and back pain.

Here's a paper that discusses it further. I'm guessing you won't read cuz you seem like the type to only read you own research and laugh at your own jokes. Here's a notewrothy quote: "The mechanistic linkbetween entropy generation and pathogenesis has been confirmedin metabolic diseases (simple obesity, diabetes, metabolic hypertension".

And here's a list of other research showing the link between ageing and entropy.

You yourself said exactly what I've been trying to explain in your first comment:

>Aging is a product of imperfect upkeep/maintenance mechanisms.
>
>Entropy is why maintenance is required in the first place

Then you go on and contradict yourself repeatedly.

Actually it's also kinda funny you said 'entropy is disorder' in a debate while unironically calling yourself a scientist. Or that you described a closed system as only being able to maintain its internal entropy, when, by definition, it will maintain the same entropy or increase it. What a joke.

1

[deleted] t1_j4ivvmq wrote

Lol at the dumbfuckery. Your last paragraph is not even coherent. You’re embarrassing yourself, and I’m not going to explain the difference between a stock and a flow a sixth time.

Others can read and understand the explanations I gave. They’re trivially simple. You’re just a moron who got called out and is now doubling down on everything you didn’t understand the first five times around. Your blather about internal cellular processes shows you don’t have any clue what level of analysis is even relevant.

1

Uranusistormy t1_j4iye6l wrote

Not coherent? Nah you just can't read or perhaps English just isn't your native. And did you look at how you spoke or your own analogies? Idiots like you who can't reason or admit they are wrong or resort to ad hominem attack when in a debate hold back scientific progress. Let's hope you never try to publish research cuz I can bet you'd resort to character assassinations and smear campaigns when your papers don't pass peer review. Just stick to bench work. 👍

I'm embarrassing myself.......on reddit......where users are anonymous........ah boy.

1