It pissed you off why? I was referring to the article, not your replies. The fact that the writter uses an unethical way to present his theory is what's laughable.

The phrase is not entirely correct, that's what I've been trying to say all along, even before you posted your link. Genetics could be a factor in the aging process, but only to a certain extent. I've also said it's possible to further the life span via alternative means such as the regeneration of the DNA itself to some earlier states (stem regeneration). The scenario that we could live further and further beyond 150-200 years is not entirely impossible, but it cannot be achieved if we only focus the issue on trying to manipulate our genome to do it itself, since there's a natural limit to it. 

What the author described was sex-linked inheritance just like the inheritance of characteristics such as skin pigmentation, hair colour and even iris pigmentation. Those cases all are sex-linked inheritance which is not autossomical per se. In sex-linked inheritance both parents could have a gene that has been repressed for a large number of generation and via recombination it can gain expression again. In the case of autossomical inheritance, if the capital G gene was part of an allele that was methylated to avoid expression in any generation and if that trait has been passed down by either father or mother, then that characteristic has a very limited probability of it beign expressed again, unless some external input (metabolism, hormonal signalling, cancerous malformation, etc.) presses the DNA for it's expression.

A gene or genes is moot. Again, DNA is conservative, whatever genes our ancestors had, we still have them. They might not be expressed, they might be methylated, there might have been an acylation of the histones surrounding those genes to prevent binding of the DNA polymerase and a plethora of other reasons as to why a particular gene or set of genes aren't expressed.

Genetics program cell death and determine the aging of the cell, but it's a very big leap in judgment to say that it also controls the entire life span of an individual, whatever species it is. We simply have no data to determine it and every recent study in vertebrates (the studies of enhancing life-spans on nematods and fruit flies have no relevance in vertebrates, since the metabolical and genetical pathways are too different to elate any relationship between them without accounting for external factors) show that it's a conjunction of metabolical, genetical and external factors that play a role in our lifespan. 

And with that I rest my case

Well, it kinda does when it comes to the ghost thing.

At that point in my life I was living in a monastary and had been without any intoxication for over 3 years including coffee, garlic onions etc. Celibate (no flirting, touching...talking ), vegetarian and bla bla bla...

Since I reverted back to my current lifestyle I haven't had any of that...

Did those practices include abstinence from food (and sometimes water) for certain periods of time, and meditation?

Our current metabolic needs are dictated by what's defined in our DNA, that's the common rule. Metabolical pathways on the other hand are the ones that influentiate the DNA expression. Say for example that you're in lack of glucose in your blood. Usually you would ingest sugar or anything containing suger and your body would break down the components to make glucose, but what if you cannot access sugar? Your body then begins a metabolical process called glycogenolysis, in which it breaks down excess glycogen in your adipose tissue to make the necessary glucose. This metabolical process is triggered by a rising level of the hormones glucagon and epinephrine, which via signal transduction it promotes the expression of the proteins necessary for that metabolical process. 
If our metabolical needs change throughout the generations, then the DNA adapts to the new pathways that those metabolical needs produce, "saving" the required protein codes in our DNA. This is a very morose and long process, usually taking dozen of thousands of years and many hundred generations to produce such an effect in our DNA (which has been proved via bacterial studies since metabolism is one of the most primal mechanisms in any cell/tissue/organ/living being).

In the case of sex-linked inheritance, the probability between offspring of a gene dissapearing or re-apperaring is counted as factor in the same generation. So if the probability is 1/8, the chance for genotype doesn't code for that gene is 1/572. If it's the case of complete dissapearence (which would be an extreme case, as that would require nothing short of the deletion of the entire gene sequence, it's promoters and every mechanism to replicate that gene - remember, DNA is conservative and the DNA polymerase has the ability to proof-read and repair the gap in DNA) then the chance is about 1/2x10^8 (the value of meiosis recombination rate via crossover from both the parental and maternal strands which can repair the missing gene).

When I talk about regeneration of the DNA, I mean a complete restoration to the initial point of the strands, as if your cells were in their early division forms (as if you had still the body of a child). That's something that the DNA machinery can't accomplish, given the pile up of mutations and loss of function from the repair systems over each division. 

I'm sorry if I explained myself wrong. I didn't mean wasted time as in it was pointless, I mean that it takes me quite a lot to reply since I'm also working and this thread has taken up all of my scarce free time. That's how much attention i'm putting to it, since usually I wouldn't even bother. The problem with the link is not the detail, lacking or not, is the approach to the scientific method. Once again, as a scientist you're ethically bound to principles that you should never break. One of those principles is to never manipulate your data to fit any theory that suits your need. Data and results are empiric. If that data doesn't prove you're right or doesn't fit the model you were theorizing then you correct that model and admit that you were wrong. You do not go looking for small tidbits that could probably support your model if you changed this and that data, that's wrong, unscientific, unethical, it hinders scientific debate and progress. 

That's why articles such as that one would never be allowed in any scientific debate, not because it's linked to creationism, but because it's tampered and takes huge leaps in judgment to fit some of the data into a very theorized model which has no scientific basis other than what's written in the bible. If the same article was made by Wiccan advocates (I'm a Wiccan) and used the same leaps of judgment, incorrect scientific procedures and was based on models written in a Book of Shadows or in ancient Celtic scripts then I would still call out on it and it would still cause the same reaction within me. 

I'm glad you'll do research into the subject. I do not claim to have all the answers and to be honest, I've still got much to learn on the field since I'm just starting in it properly, so I stick only to the basic data that I can give. I like that people form their own opinion based on their findings instead of just accepting everything as it is, that's what led me into my field

I also appreciate you taking your time to listen and asking the hard questions. Not only  it made me think back on some elements that were beginning to go a bit rusty in my memory, but also made me ponder a bit about that theory, so now I have new ideas to muster about.

err - are you insinuating that fasting and meditation affects a person's objectivity/judgement in a negative way?

I'm not sure if that's what you are getting at, but I've heard that before and I have the following to say about it: These comments come from people who have either never done these things (properly) or do not understand the principles behind them (at all). The converse is in fact true - meditation sobers the mind (slowly and gradually) and fasting makes one detached from the body (a concept the average person has no knowledge about).

But yes, I got up between 3:30 and 4am every morning, and followed a pretty rigorous program that included at least 2 hours of meditation before the sun comes up. I haven't done that in a very long time, but I have fond memories of the incredible sobriety one gains by having spent the quietest hours of the day in concentration while the rest of the world sleeps - a sunrise has never looked as beautiful.

Fasting; well yeah. (roughly) Twice a month fasting from grains for a day is mandatory (not a big deal at all), but any additional fasting (no food, no water etc.) is up to the individual. It is a tremendously powerful practice if done with the right mentality. I would say I did on average one complete fast per month. The best days for this are worked out according to the moon calender. Once I did 2 days dry fast, but that was too hectic. Actually, fasting from food is surprisingly easy if you can disassociate your mind from it, but lack of water really fries the brain out... The one night (after a dry fast day) I dreamt of jumping in a waterfal and drinking it all - when that happens you know that the practice should be given up since your mind is succumbing to the desires of your body...

In any case, not sure what you're getting at really; just thought I'd come out of the closet so to speak

EDIT: If you were just asking out of curiousity then I might add that a major part of my day was spent in study. Probably at least 3-4 hours every day. That included studying philosophy (Vedic in particular, but also aaalll the others including how different religiouns actually ended up with their philosophies and what they really mean),learning Sanskrit grammar, memorizing scripture and also just reading some lighter things etc. I was astounded to learn what the Mormon's actually believe - it is shocking when you actually get to the real core of their philosophy :-/ *waves peace sign at possible mormons here*

Fasting and meditation (for prolongued periods of time) are practices used to induce hallucinations. That's why I asked.

And you were at a Mormon monastery? Is there even such a thing???

I'm just reposting this post. Since the people who believe in Noah's ark are focusing on some sort of Genetic Science fiction story, which I should add was NOT MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.  You would think that something that important would have been mentioned? Has anyone pointed out that the very idea of arguing in favour of Noah's Ark is A) Primitive Thinking, or B) Borderline retarded?

Use your head: A 700 year old man (this guy isn't even in his 50's anymore) building a collosal ship capable of, not just supporting breeding populations, but the ecosystems required for them to live in (remember, Fresh and Salt water environments would be destroyed too, and all of those freshwater fish and other organisms have to go back into the correct ponds and lakes). Not to mention, they fit all of this on a 135 meter long wooden Ark, which is  dwarfed in size by today's modern Cruise ships, which they struggle to get 3000 people on let alone millions of animals and all the required ecosystems and food sources.

"Fasting and meditation (for prolongued periods of time) are practices used to induce hallucinations."

That is not true at all.

The purpose of meditation is to control the mind. The nature of the mind (or manah) is chancala (flickering). This becomes most apparant when we remove our senses from their respective sense objects and enter a state of meditation. Only then are we confronted by the reality that our mind has a nature of its own and is not very obedient to its observer. Of course a philosophical framework where the nature of the mind is something seperate from the body is a necessary starting point. There are several results of (proper) meditation and hallucinations are most certainly not among them: sobriety, increased happiness, decrease of erratic behaviour and even improved health and mental functioning are among the material benefits. What to speak of higher things that are aimed for...

As I stated in the recent physics fiasco threads about the 'faster than light' neutrinos, a person should really not make such strong statements about things he knows little to nothing about.

"...The researchers found that the meditators showed a pronounced shift in activity to the left frontal lobe. In other words, they were calmer and happier than before. The study will be published in the next issue of Psychosomatic Medicine." http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation

There are numerous studies that have shown the benefits of meditation (Phd studies included). Nowhere does the desire to experience hallucinations enter the picture whatsoever.

In fact  the practitioner would be of the opinion (see I can be diplomatic) that meditation is a means to see things as they are - i.e. NOT tinged with the illusiory perception of your limited sense.

As for fasting - it is a practical way of becoming less dependent on the pleasures the body gives its user. A regulated way to learn that you are seperate from the body. This is a type of discipline hardly understood by the common man.

I also feel compelled to add that these 'astral adventures' I referred to had nothing to do with my practice and these things are not recommended since they are also on the sensory platform. This never happened (in my case) during any of my practice - only when I took a quick nap from 6:45-7 am some days. I literally couldn't physically manage the practice every day, so some concessions were allowed - its hard, especially when its freezing winter and you've been awake since 3/3:30 with less than 5 hours sleep.

I never said I was a Mormon (?). I said I studied different philosophies and the basis of Mormonism shocked me when I learnt what is actually the purpose.

In any case, you don't really care - except to find some things to ridicule - so I'll leave it at that.

OT: @OP HOW can you say this is not a religious thread when you inherentlty assume the existence of the garden of Eden!? Makes no sense whatsoever.