# Does longer lifespan = smarter animals? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-longer-lifespan-smarter-animals/332431 "2005-11-23T16:13:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-longer-lifespan-smarter-animals/332431/41 "2005-11-25T05:06:15Z")
> [@Go You Big Red Fire Engine](#): > > In all natural systems there are deviations. Picking humans (or even just a different sex within a species) as an example in a natural system is not a scientific thing to do. > [@](#): > > Many? So, 8%? Oh wait, I guess you were just basing that figure of Western culture which is full of medical treatment artificially extending the life of some humans. so let me get this straight; Number of people currently alive today, current ages. Fail to take into account deaths that occur not involving heart failure due to “max number of hearbeats” instead of things like disease, also likely fail to take into account similar deaths in other species populations, take said data, form a graph with body mass and log BMR, and state, as fact, that all mammals have invariable around 1.5 billion heartbeats in them. When in fact I have shown that many humans have twice that. But I am the one doing bad science? Hah! ---
**Author:** ![Go\_You\_Big\_Red\_Fire\_Engine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eada6e/32.png) [@Go\_You\_Big\_Red\_Fire\_Engine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_You_Big_Red_Fire_Engine)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-longer-lifespan-smarter-animals/332431/42 "2005-11-25T05:51:05Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > So it isn’t Invariable then huh (your link claims it is)? Medicine and healthy living changes the INVARIANT 1.5 billion heart beats. You know, not changing. My link claims it is approximately invariant. > [@](#): > > I don’t see anybody with a PhD, do you have one? So having a PhD makes one inculpable? A PhD is an automatic win in a debate? I see, your kind make me sick. Well I dare say I have a lot more faith in the people who wrote those articles than I do your opinion and what you think is “poking holes”. Oh wait, I forgot, you’re an undergrad and you read _Nature_. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Of course I do. Even undergraduates have to write papers. I read Nature as well as the International Journal of biochemistry and cell biology, which is supplied by my work study, and which atm, I am a biochemistry major. I am not some guy off the road with no knowledge of science. Well, the fact that you keep on stating it as if it supports your argument tends to actually discredit your argument. > [@](#): > > You have provided nothing in terms of evidence. Just some wacky claim that after 1.5 billion heartbeats, a human keels over and dies. Which I have pointed out is untrue. You have been unable to address this point. Oh I’m sorry, I thought you were capable of reading. Silly me. Read the literature, then come back and stop asking me for evidence. I’ve provided you with plenty of evidence. > [@](#): > > It seems impossible that these `universal' quarter-power scaling laws and the invariant quantities associated with them could be coincidental, independent phenomena, each a `special’ case reflecting its own unique independent dynamics and organisation. Of course every individual organism, biological species and ecological assemblage is unique, reflecting differences in genetic make-up, ontogenetic pathways, environmental conditions and evolutionary history. So, in the absence of any additional physical constraints, one might have expected that different organisms, or at least each groups of related organisms inhabiting similar environments, might exhibit different size-related patterns of variation in structure and function. The fact that they do not - that the data almost always closely approximate a power law, emblematic of self-similarity, across a broad range of size and diversity - raises challenging questions. > [@](#): > > So other mammals follow a nice logrithmic scale of body size and BMR correlation, expressed in a general sense about populations. That in no way means what you claimed above, which I will quote you again There’s a similar relationship but to a different power for heartbeats. If you read the fucking literature, you [would know this.](http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/208/9/1575/FIG3) > [@](#): > > If, by approximate, you mean, a mouse has 600 million heartbeats, and a human has 3 billion. Yeah, real approximate. Cite? Because my calculations bring them a lot closer together. > [@](#): > > As for using Google and Cecil, well, I don’t go do major research in scholarly journals everytime some loon spouts off patently untrue garbage. YMMV, but I imagine you spend a lot of time in the library if that is the case. Well I would like it if you understood what you were arguing against before you argued it, but hey, maybe I just have high standards of students. It’s an established scientific theory, if someone like you could easily pick it apart, why haven’t others? And, on preview: > [@](#): > > When in fact I have shown that many humans have twice that. Wow! Why don’t you forward on your brilliant maths to them right now and show them wrong! No, I really want you to write a paper clearly detailing a better theory. And submit it to _Science_. > [@](#): > > Number of people currently alive today, current ages. Fail to take into account deaths that occur not involving heart failure due to “max number of hearbeats” instead of things like disease, also likely fail to take into account similar deaths in other species populations, take said data, form a graph with body mass and log BMR, and state, as fact, that all mammals have invariable around 1.5 billion heartbeats in them. On _average_ mammals have approximately 1.5 billion heartbeats. Did you take the data? Do you know how it was experimentally obtained? Again, it becomes obvious you have not read the articles provided. If you had, you would realise the correlation between heart rate and body mass doesn’t have a lot to do with BMR. Go on, why don’t you send in your rebuttal article to _Science_? If you’re so damned sure allometry is **completely** wrong, why let those measly scientists publish articles on it? Damn those Biophysicists, what do they know? ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-longer-lifespan-smarter-animals/332431/43 "2005-11-25T15:07:04Z")
> [@Go You Big Red Fire Engine](#): > > Cite? Because my calculations bring them a lot closer together. Care to share those calculations? Especially the ones that bring human heartrate lower? Oh wait, you have a PhD so Cecil and all those “google” links must be wrong, change the date to fit the theory, typical. Yes, I do have links: Average lifespan of a mouse, [18 months](http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Mus_musculus.html) (in wild). Average heartrate for a mouse is about [600 bpm](http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/other/mouse_facts3.shtml). Calculations: 473,040,000 heartbeats. I already showed my math, which was exactly similar to Cecils. But you know better than cecil right? I mean you are such an amazing Grad student, right? > [@](#): > > Well I would like it if you understood what you were arguing against before you argued it, but hey, maybe I just have high standards of students. It’s an established scientific theory, if someone like you could easily pick it apart, why haven’t others? If you tell me the physical nature of why exactly the sky is Mauve, I don’t need to read your scientific literature, since I KNOW for a freaking fact without scholarly articles that the sky is not mauve. Just as I know from simple calculations that your theory is not accurate. > [@](#): > > Go on, why don’t you send in your rebuttal article to _Science_? Why bother, you seem to be the only person supporting this claim. That and your “Journal.” Certainly hasn’t been mentioned in any of my classes. On Average all mammals have 1.5 billion heartbeats isn’t the same thing as saying that “All mammals have approximately the same number of heartbeats per lifetime.” If you can’t see that, then you need to go back to school. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_You\_Big\_Red\_Fire\_Engine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/eada6e/32.png) [@Go\_You\_Big\_Red\_Fire\_Engine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_You_Big_Red_Fire_Engine)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-longer-lifespan-smarter-animals/332431/44 "2005-11-25T22:01:25Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > Care to share those calculations? Especially the ones that bring human heartrate lower? Oh wait, you have a PhD so Cecil and all those “google” links must be wrong, change the date to fit the theory, typical. > > Yes, I do have links: > > Average lifespan of a mouse, [18 months](http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Mus_musculus.html) (in wild). Average heartrate for a mouse is about [600 bpm](http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/other/mouse_facts3.shtml). Calculations: 473,040,000 heartbeats. Go on, send that in. I’m sure they’d love to hear about your wonderful proof. Even if the number isn’t correct, it doesn’t prove the theory wrong. And I got half of 1.5 billion, it’s not hard to find a cite that claims a mouse’s heart beat is 700bpm and it lives for 2 years. > [@](#): > > I already showed my math, which was exactly similar to Cecils. But you know better than cecil right? I mean you are such an amazing Grad student, right? I’m not a grad student. See, unlike you, I haven’t been spouting off my education as if it lends something to the argument. As far as I am concerned, Cecil is just another person, if he was never wrong, we wouldn’t have the “Comments on Cecil’s Column” forum. > [@](#): > > If you tell me the physical nature of why exactly the sky is Mauve, I don’t need to read your scientific literature, since I KNOW for a freaking fact without scholarly articles that the sky is not mauve. Just as I know from simple calculations that your theory is not accurate. Well I think all those scholarly articles would have a hard time getting published if they were as illegitamate as you say. You’re like one of those Creation Scientists, sure, they can pick apart most people’s arguments, but that doesn’t mean they’re right. > [@](#): > > Why bother, you seem to be the only person supporting this claim. That and your “Journal.” Certainly hasn’t been mentioned in any of my classes. Well I haven’t learned about the Russian Revolution in any of my classes, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. > [@](#): > > On Average all mammals have 1.5 billion heartbeats isn’t the same thing as saying that “All mammals have approximately the same number of heartbeats per lifetime.” If you can’t see that, then you need to go back to school. And you can’t postulate what that number is? Or is it some magical number that doesn’t exist? ---
**Author:** ![Rico](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rico/32/3582_2.png) [@Rico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rico)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2005, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-longer-lifespan-smarter-animals/332431/45 "2005-11-25T23:35:59Z")
\ Now, now, children…this is GQ, not the Pit or GD. I think this thread would have a much longer life and maybe smarter posters if we moved it to GD. Keep it civil, now. All of you. Moved. \ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-longer-lifespan-smarter-animals/332431.md?page=2)