Talk:Biological immortality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marketing sites[edit]

The link to neo-tech.com does not seem to be a scientific document. It is more a religious/philsophical document. It may be written by a scientist but how does that relate to the strict scientific definition that this page is run through? Ansell 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an external link. What's the big deal? It's about the philosophical and business side of biological immortality. I see no reason to remove it. RJII 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that the article reads as a scientific article. And that wikipedia is not an advertising site for companies, especially when there products are so unrelated to the site. There is no need to have their special philsophical POV to be able to discuss the scientific ramifications of biological immortality. As there is no need to have their business advertised in the links. Ansell 22:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invincibility and Immortality[edit]

The point of the comments restricting the meaning of immortality is to make it clear that the "immortality" is being used by biologists in a narrow sense. --Ben Best 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment made for the reverted change by User:66.191.144.82 [1] was "Immortality should not be confused with Invincibility, being immortal does not make one invincible",yet the phrases deleted from the article were phrases that emphasized this very point. --Ben Best 22:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The typical dictionary definition of immortality (such as Wiktionary:Immortality) is quite terse, such as "The condition of not being susceptible to death". As this does not indicate any particular causes of death to which the described is not susceptible, it could be assumed, under a strict reading, that an immortal being could not be killed through any means. However, as definitions of immortality are frequently vague, and more explicit terms such as "invincible" and "invulnerable" exist, which state that the described cannot be destroyed, wounded, or injured, the term "immortal" is most commonly understood to mean that the described will not die of natural causes. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a word in the English language that is frequently defined "cannot be killed by any means". In any case, while "immortal" could be considered to be so defined, it is generally not. Thus, the sentence 'Any "immortal" cell or organism can be killed by physical destruction.' seems redundant. On first reading it, I thought, as I'm sure our anonymous contributor 66.191.144.82 also did, "Of course it could still be killed, it's only immortal, not invincible!". -- Rablari Dash 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "biological immortality" is a technical term referring to cell biology and the phenomenon of escaping cellular senescence (often by telomerase). It is a poorly designed piece of jargon, and leads to lots of misunderstanding, including in this Wikipedia article. This point was made slightly more clear when I did a re-write of the article in October 2005, but I could have done a better job then, and the point is now lost. Suggestions? Should I try another re-write? --Ben Best 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeez people. Let's say you upload your mind into a nanotech body created for you by a genie, are you any less mortal than a nonscenescent meatspace person? Duh, of course not, since you would still end up just as dead in the event of your mind being sufficiently erased or your magical na-nu-tech body destroyed. Now stop cluttering up the article. 72.235.10.209 (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Cells Immortal?[edit]

Aren't cancer cells immortal? I remember this from biology class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.154.61 (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, like other cells they either die in the traditional way or divide into two new cells (which some people consider an immortality of sorts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.119.187 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That's not true. Cancer cells do not die in the traditional way, and some maintain telomere length with telomerase, rendering them, effectively, immortal. --Stevehim (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Cancer cells are biologically immortal in that they are not limited in their mitosis by the Hayflick limit which normally apllies to non-cancerous cells, this is what makes them so dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.232.92 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First "Citation Needed" comment on page[edit]

Why is a citation required for the statement that any cell or organism is capable of being destroyed physically? This is very obviously true. To take an example, any physical object with substructure may be destroyed by excessive heat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon, and poorly written at that[edit]

The leading par of an article is the most important one, because it is here that the reader will decide if he/she is capable of understanding it, and it is also here that he/she will likely become confused concerning the remainder. The first par of "Biological Immortality" is a copybook example of this: an unnecessary use of jargon, combined with opaque phrases, together with a good deal of simply incorrect English makes for a potent farrago which is destined to turn readers off and / or confuse them. Look at the example below:

Biological immortality can be defined as the absence of a sustained increase in rate of mortality as a function of chronological age. A cell or organism that does not experience, or at some future point will cease aging, is biologically immortal. However this definition of immortality was challenged in the new "Handbook of the Biology of Aging",[1] because the increase in rate of mortality as a function of chronological age may be negligible at extremely old ages (late-life mortality plateau). But even though the rate of mortality ceases to increase in old age, those rates are very high[2] (e.g., 50% chance of surviving another year at age 110 or 115 years of age).


Some examples of how not to write an introduction:

Firstly, consider the sentence: “A cell or organism that does not experience, or at some future point will cease aging, is biologically immortal.” This is not acceptable English. It’s not a matter of debate: any book on English usage would describe it as grammatically incorrect. You should have written: “A cell or organism that does not age, or which at some point in its life will cease to age, is one which is deemed to be biologically immortal”.

Secondly, consider the sentence which immediately follows it. There should be a comma after “however”, and a careful writer would have written “has been challenged” not “was challenged”. Nor is it clear why the challenge, as it is described here, contradicts the definition that has just come before. Neither is it apparent that this fairly arcane dissent must needs be presented right here in the first paragraph, or in fact anywhere in a brief and general article of this nature.

Secondly, the use of the phrase “is a function of” is one which would confuse many non-mathematical readers. There is no need to invoke what is essentially a technical and little-known term in a context that does not absolutely require it. In non-mathematical usage, the terms “depends / is dependant on” or “is a consequence of” or “results in” or “causes / is caused by”, or "determines / is determined by”, are all ones which convey precisely the correct meaning, and utilizing words with which all general readers would be perfectly familiar.

I can’t be the only fastidious writer in the whole joint. There are hordes of writers out there who churn out great big indigestible chunks of geek boy indulgence with its characteristic features: a poor command of English usage, an inflated desire to show off one’s academic expertise by the use of jargon, and a complete disregard for the level of knowledge that we would expect a reader of a free encyclopedia might have. When I read a well-written article on a subject, it is like someone switching on a light at every sentence. Graceful and carefully written sentences expound upon the material with the patience and skill of a good teacher. Apposite examples follow lucid expositon which follow cogent illustrations. Where are the editors who would come to this dog’s breakfast of an exposition, and turn it into a thing of light and beauty? In its place, all we seem to get are more and more quibbles. I can’t be the only editor around about these parts who gives a damn. Do I REALLY have to come back here and fix THIS article up, as well as the three million like it? Sigh, because I guess I will…. Myles325a (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What jargon?

If you don't know what mortality and chronological mean, then you probably wouldn't be interested in reading about biological immortality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.198.84 (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Lines section re-write[edit]

Can someone please re-write the cell lines section so that someone without a degree in cellular biology and/or medicine can understand it? Thanks.

Kronos o (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click the embedded links if you want to know what the big words mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.198.84 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plants[edit]

Are any plants considered "biologically immortal"?

In particular, the articles list of long-living organisms and maximum lifespan#In plants mention several currently-living trees that are each over 3,000 years old. Are those trees considered "biologically immortal", or is there some reason to expect that those trees will eventually die of old age? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others however, feel that true immortality can be achieved.[edit]

Just because religious nuts believe in it doesn't mean it's relevant. People have all kinds of crazy opinions. So what. Their opinions should not be included in an encyclopedia, unless mentioned as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.198.84 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tardigrades?[edit]

Hi! Why are tardigrades in here? Sure, they're tough, but the tardigrade page says that they live from 3-30 months. That's definitely not biological immortality. Can I just remove the section? Or is there some evidence that particular tardigrades don't age? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that during their "frozen state" that they can go into, they are indeed immortal, living thousands of years. http://incrediblebeings.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/tardigrade-the-immortal/ .
However, if they never go into that state in their lifespans, they live less than a year. So "in theory", yes, it is immortal, but practically it isn't. Mr. Anon515 23:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diet bit[edit]

The diet bit is bad. I am not much of a Wikipedia user so I decided to leave it there, but I am tempted to delete it outright. There is no scientific knowledge and it seems more like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.163.250.68 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. As far as i'm aware there is litle scientific evidence to support the paleolithic diet as profoundly better than modern diets for human health. The only reference for this section claims that humans can achieve biological immortality - rather implausible - and even it only talks about what proponents of the paleo diet argue, rather than stating it as fact as this section does. Statements like "Foods that became available after the Neolithic such as grains, dairy, and processed foods do not help" are at the very least gross simplifications, and probably not true at all. Thewebb (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biological immortality vs. negligible senescence[edit]

An explanation of the differences between the two could help clear up the misunderstandings that might otherwise arise. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biological immortality is a misnomer. If you die of physical trauma or infectious diseases then biology has failed to keep you alive. Staying alive is the basis of immortality. Biological immortality is also a bit redundant unless we're comparing it to some nonbiological immortality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.93.117 (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with the above comment. Although I recently added a section describing the idea that technological interventions might bring about "biological immortality" (much of this subject is either at least contentious or regarded as outright pseudoscience by the contemporary establishment), the term itself is extremely problematic. As the above user implies, cessation of aging is *not* the same thing as "immortality", and frankly, it's hard to conceive of any meaningful way to contextualize "immortality" in the natural universe unless we're talking about "immortal souls" (ie supernatural). I think that when the term is no longer merely an expedient with which to refer to cell lines, it's essentially being abused. If technology allowed by our understanding of the laws of physics facilitates an end to aging, it will not then facilitate "immortality". Unfortunately, the term has been appropriated, misnomer or no. Taurus (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link to another article.[edit]

In the Jelly fish section, the link to the article Turritopsis nutricula should be replaced with a link to the article Turritopsis dohrnii. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion in this section of the talk page has been done but it's not good enough. When people are reading a Wikipedia article and they click a link to another article, they want a full long article on that topic. The Jellyfish section should only mention Turritopsis dohrnii and not mention Turritopsis nutricula because people can't predict the future of which of those 2 links will get them a full long article. There's no harm in it. A link to the article Turritopsis nutricula can be found in the article Turritopsis dohrnii. Blackbombchu (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newly discovered immortal creature[edit]

The Organisms section should inclue a section "Flat worms" and under it should be a link to the article Planarian. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to expand the article[edit]

The article should include http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/442287/Peter-Pan-girl-s-DNA-may-hold-key-to-immortality as a reference and add information from that reference. Blackbombchu (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BioViva has just announced results from their gene editing experiment on their CEO Elizabeth Parrish. Read this article at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45947/title/First-Data-from-Anti-Aging-Gene-Therapy/ and add information from that source. I am reluctant to edit the article directly since I am new at this subject and I don't want to create extra work for volunteer editors. However, some mention of the company's results needs to be inserted in the article. Leaving it up to those who are better informed than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruples98 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biological immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biological immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biological immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kings holly lives more than 40,000 years[edit]

I read the kings holly lives more than 40,000 years. Should this be in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7001:400:3526:88A0:5723:F775 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clonal colonies, such as this species of tree, seem to be a different class of organism in this regard. See List of oldest trees where it states "no individual part of a clonal colony is alive (in the sense of active metabolism) for more than a very small fraction of the life of the entire clone". While the Great Basin bristlecone pine is listed in the Biological Immortality article, note that it says "One member of this species, at 5,068 years old, is the oldest known living non-clonal organism on Earth". So, there is a difference between clonal and non-clonal life. 75.174.192.62 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Comment: I restored the disputed text that has been in place since September 2018. The anonymous IP made a bold edit, which was reverted. Per WP:BRD, this should be resolved through discussion. However, for policy reasons (WP:COI, WP:NOR) that were cited, I did not restore the primary source in question, which appears to be another issue in and of itself. Also, to be clear, I don't have a personal interest in this topic. I'm here because Joanna brought it to my attention as she wanted an outside perspective. As always, I believe contentious issues such as these should be resolved through discussion. I have worked with Joanna in the past and have found her to be a diligent and credible WP editor. I have also seen works of the other two editors (MrOllie and I am One of Many) from a distance and I believe them to be just as dedicated and sincere in their efforts in wanting to improve this article. You guys are all veterans. You can work it out. Play nice ;). danielkueh (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This page does not take a NPOV. The possibility of biological immortality is not a consensus position in the scientific community, and criticism should be included for balance. I have tried to do this by adding the text below, but it has repeatedly been deleted.

To achieve the more limited goal of halting the increase in mortality rate with age, a solution must be found to the fact that any intervention to remove senescent cells that creates competition among cells will increase age-related mortality from cancer.[1][2]

Some deletions failed to give grounds. One stated that the reference does not support the claim made - but it does. One complained about a primary source, so I added a second commentary source. Final, COI grounds were cited, since I am an author of the primary source. Note that self-citing is not forbidden WP:SELFCITE. The policy is:

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.

I believe that the single sentence I have added conforms to these guidelines, and the community editing this page currently has a WP:NPOV problem of failing to include all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. A WP:NOR problem was also cited, but I don't see how this is the case, because the PNAS paper cited does make the claims, i.e. self-citing is not original research. I'd like to hear a broader set of editors chime in.Joannamasel (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Joannna Masel's editing over the years, and I can vouch for her seriousness as an Wikipedian; her edits are always accurate, admirably concise, and reliably cited. She is correct about the policy matters above; it does not seem there is any actual Conflict of Interest here, nor any Self-Publicity, nor Original Research (as the material is cited to both primary and secondary sources), so it appears the issue is mere discomfort that a scientist should be citing her own work, something that is not forbidden though of course it can sometimes indicate breaches of the policies mentioned. Probably we should just accept her edits here, but I don't have detailed knowledge of the domain. The text makes sense in terms of general biology, and Danielkueh's restoration of the text with the 2ndry Günter P. Wagner source is a good start - he's an extremely well-known biologist, quite independent of Masel. Personally I'd also restore the 1ry source as it is what the 2ndry one is talking about, but I think we should have consensus on that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should generally avoid primary sourced criticism. Without a secondary source we don't have context to establish if the critical view belongs to a minority or not, needed per WP:UNDUE. I have no particular issue with the secondary sourced version. It would be much better if Joanna Masel would leave it to someone else to restore self-cites after someone else has removed them. - MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want news stories as secondary sources, there is a long list at https://pnas.altmetric.com/details/28136871/news. You can take a well-known source like Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/live-longer-stop-aging-process-mathematically-impossible-697003 or a smaller source that did more homework and goes more indepth like Singularity Hub https://singularityhub.com/2017/11/07/eternal-life-is-mathematically-impossible-says-new-aging-theory/ I see the advantage of requiring secondary sources to resolve a dispute on consensus/notability, but I don't understand the argument for removing primary sources.Joannamasel (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nelson, Paul; Masel, Joanna (5 December 2017). "Intercellular competition and the inevitability of multicellular aging". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (49): 12982–12987. doi:10.1073/pnas.1618854114. PMC 5724245. PMID 29087299.
  2. ^ Wagner, Günter P. (5 December 2017). "The power of negative [theoretical] results". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (49): 12851–12852. doi:10.1073/pnas.1718862114.

Animal studies[edit]

@Max Exon: 13:37, May 10, 2021 I only wanted to point out that you should settle down your dispute over here. Even though the sources you have provided are relatively fresh (2019/2016) I don't agree with MrOllie on that animal studies are prohibited. Relatively to WP:RSCONTEXT it's ok. What you have added in referenced diff is related to human health only remotely and doesn't fall under WP:BMI. I would suggest to shorten these claims anyway though as such studies are often speculative and are discouraged to use over here. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Davronov, Animal studies clearly do not meet WP:MEDRS. I know you disagree with this, but please do not misinform new editors about our policies and guidelines. Even leaving that aside, the section we're talking about is "Attempts to engineer biological immortality in humans". Anything in that section is manifestly a statement about human health. Animal studies are obviously not useful there. - MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Per WP:MEDANIMAL, if we're using trials that make claims about humans from animal subjects, it's much, much preferred that we use secondary literature reviews. Especially since this is an area with many fringe theories, we want to avoid (potentially cherrypicked) information from single studies. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: Stop ignoring other policies and misinterpreting/misapplying WP:MEDRS. I don't see what piece of text WP:MEDANIMAL applies to relatively to the recent changes done here.
in that section is ... about human health Let's see what Max Exon has to say about that.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section contains sentences like this: scientists at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging and the Mayo Clinic employed genetic and pharmacological approaches to ablate pro-aging senescent cells, extending healthy lifespan of mice by over 25%. The startup Unity Biotechnology is further developing this strategy in human clinical trials. The "in humans" section of the subheader title also means that, by definition, WP:MEDANIMAL will apply to this section. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingedserif: Seems safe to remove. Unless someone upgrades it to a better source of course. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: Animal trials is also informative so I don't think overusing the concept of WP:MEDRS in this context is good.Max Exon (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Max[reply]
@Wingedserif: "In 2016, scientists at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging and the Mayo Clinic employed genetic and pharmacological approaches to ablate pro-aging senescent cells, extending healthy lifespan of mice by over 25%. The startup Unity Biotechnology is further developing this strategy in human clinical trials." This sentence should be removed since it has nothing to do with *immortality*. It doesn't have any potential for immortality since it can't reverse aging, only delays it a bit. Max Exon (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Max[reply]
Max Exon, WP:MEDRS isn't optional, it is a guideline that enjoys project-wide consensus and should be followed everywhere. Additionally, SENS is fringe science (there was an RFC related to this at the main SENS article quite recently), so we cannot present their views uncritically per WP:PROFRINGE. I've removed the whole section for now, it can be restored if and when some sort of consensus is arrived at on the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Anemones Should Be Added to the List[edit]

Sea anenomes have also been identified as being biologically immortal. They are immune to aging just like several other species that have been identified here. References: Article here (https://scitechdaily.com/forever-young-scientists-reveal-the-secret-to-a-strange-animals-eternal-youth/) and published paper here (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124722012025). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.75.30 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality[edit]

Immortality refers to such a being which simply cannot die. Biologically immortal beings aren't really immortal as they can die. So calling it actual 'immortality' would be wrong and it can create a misconception that these species simply cannot die, even from any natural causes. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Biological immortality" is the WP:COMMONNAME. There is no space for confusion here. It's already stated that they can still die from other causes. I don't see what's the issue here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the issue. While it most likely won't create any kind of issue among scientists and learned people, people who are less literate about it may confuse it with actual concept of immortality. It is a common name, I get it. I am not asking for some kind of reformation to the name here. It is stated that they can still die from other causes. But some people might miss that. I got my attention to this topic after I locally heard some people say that some species cannot die in anyway with the examples being some biologically immortal species such as hydra. So, I think that further pointing out that biological immortality isn't actual immortality and these species are still mortal may be necessary. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but this article doesn't deal with the philosophical and religious concept of immortality. It deals with a scientific fact. It's also already explained in the article how it received its name among biologists. I doubt a reader would miss information in the lead because that's actually the first thing that they read on a Wikipedia article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biological_immortality&oldid=1216993406"