Obviously, I can’t. I just thought they lived longer than a few thousand years. That’s all.
Bear in mind that immortality is an evolutionary dead end. Species that don’t die can’t evolve.
? AFAIK, sexual selection pressures could still influence genetic changes in younger members of the species even if older members lived forever. As long as there was habitat space for the additional members to expand into, that is.
Remember, there are two ways to be reproductively ineffective in a sexually reproducing species: die before you manage to get any, or survive but don’t get any anyway.
Yeah, but if you never die, why would you want to evolve?
It seems kinda unnecessary. 
I’m pretty sure N American trees like Oaks, Walnut, Elm, Maple all die within a few hundred years. Thats just how their growth cycle works. They grow big relatively fast and then die.
The only trees that live thousands of years are the sequoias in California and some species of the rain forest trees near the equator. National Geo did an article on the sequoias last year. They grow very slowly but live thousands of years.
so… you’re saying that there were immortals that died because they didn’t evolve? 
iinm, one of the reasons we die is because our genes are actually coded to shut things down after awhile, is this correct? if so, are there any living things without such a code, who would live indefinitely if there are no incidents? are trees one of them?
Eh, Bristlecones?
But there never is, is there? Habitat space is *always *limited. And this means that the younger generation will be in competition with the older, and lose, on account of being smaller and weaker. After a while, members of the species that breed less will have an evolutionary advantage, as reproduction wastes energy. This, of course, is bad news when the environment changes or a new competitor arises, as fewer descendants means less of a chance of an advantageous mutation.
Incidentally, by “immortality” I meant the non-aging type of immortality, not the can’t-die type of immortality. Elves, not Valar.
Nope, some arid and high-altitude trees live very long as well - Bristlecone pines beat sequoias, and olives come to mind as particularly long-lived. But there’s quite a spread, actually. Except the olives, a lot of those seem to be conifers.
I don’t see any rain-forest examples offhand, BTW.
Sorta, but not really. Genes aren’t intentionally “coded” for anything, obviously. They just kinda happen, and the ones that don’t get their organisms wiped into extinction stick around longer. Species that live a really long time, with long generation intervals, can’t adapt to change very quickly and get wiped out easily. Species with long lives and short generation intervals end up with the older organisms hogging resources (in the case of trees, space and sunlight) from the younger ones, so they effectively end up with long generation intervals anyway while wasting even more resources on non-surviving offspring.
Long life is beneficial up to a certain point, then becomes detrimental, like pretty much every other trait.
so trees have this “code” too? my impression was that they simply got too big to sustain.
That’s exactly right. From a genetic viewpoint trees are immortal. All cells are totipotent, essentially nascent germ cells. They can’t die due to genetic aging.
Trees have a finite lifespan because they have to grow continuously. As the old conductive vessels become non-functional, the tree has to produce a new layer just under the bark. But because the tissue can *only *be produced just under the bark, the tree has to increase in circumference every year.
The absolute limit to how big a tree is how long it can sustain that diameter increase. At some point the girth of tree gets so big that the amount of energy needed to lay down just a single layer of conducting cells 1/10th of a millimeter thick is greater than the amount of energy the leaves can provide. At that point the tree starts to die. It might take centuries from that point of senescence to death, but once started it is inevitable.
In practical terms, death occurs at far smaller sizes than the theoretical limit because as the layers of new growth become increasingly thinner, the conductive system becomes increasingly inefficient. At some point, there just aren’t enough layers of cells being added to allow the tree to effectively transport water.
Many tree species circumvent that limitation by reproducing new new shoot from the old root system, but that’s really just asexual reproduction, not immortality.
thanks. i think that answers the OP.
Beavers. I blame it on the beavers.
Nit pick: about 200k years. We’re babies, as a species.
Hey I’ll be the one making those decisions around here. :dubious:
Thanks everyone. I think that answers the OP.
From a biological stance, there’s no difference. Same contiguous organism, same genetics.
The OP may enjoy this article about bristlecone pines. It’s not only a great read but also delves into how they live and how they die.
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/ross-andersen-bristlecone-pines-anthropocene/
Cecil speaks: Do trees die of old age?