Very small amounts of climate change, which are perceptible over a period of only a couple hundred years, can have a serious effect on both the tree and the competing species around it. A tree living over a couple centuries would need to have been able to adapt to those changes, plus endure any other isolated event such as a forest fire or disease or human environmental alterations.
Depends what you define as an individual organism, but there are some clonal colonies, like this one of quaking aspen, that are very old. 80,000 years in this case. Sure, there isn’t any part of it that is anywhere near that old, but then no living part in any tree is very old.
While there’s lots of talk here about the long-lived tree varieties, I thought I’d offer up an example of a pretty short-lived one: Red Alder. The site says 40 to 60 years is the expected life span. A lot of people up here call them the “weeds of the forest” because they spring up quickly (especially in disturbed/cleared areas) and then die off in a time span that even humans can appreciate. From the ones behind my house, I can tell you that plenty of them don’t even hit 30 years old.
Giles’ post, and Blake’s elaborations (for which I thank you both), made me think sharper on cell death and organism death.
It seems odd to me that the prime (?) reason for an organism to shuffle off is unstoppable growing. Which is different from a single cell going pathological from cancer. What other species has that factor?
It seems that for metabolic and physical reasons, size proportioning is the vast norm decided upon by nature. The old “elephants would catch fire, crumple its bones, not be able to sustain circulation” thing if they keep scaling up.
Sadly the Bristlecones are now threatenedby white pine blister rust and beetles that have moved to higher elevations as the temperature rises.
That’s bad news because a lot of their longevity is due to the fact that they grow at altitudes that are inhospitable to insects and things that would kill them. But the article I linked to a few posts up says they’re finding bristlecone saplings higher than ever, so maybe they can escape their new problems.
How do you know the earth is billions of years old? Do you believe everything you hear?
Every radiometric dating method is based on inherent assumptions.
So, how old is the Earth, Mr. Smarty Pants?
My statement speaks for itself. Its up to the people that support deep time to provide evidence supporting their claims, which are tax-funded and in the curriculum of the public schools.
Sounds like a good subject for an entirely different thread
I tried that:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=658167&highlight=jesus+illuminati
Lets just say this site turned out to be extremely biased.
But you’re back for more anyway, huh? That’s the spirit! Jolly good show!
MODERATOR NOTE.
reef shark. You’re derailing the thread. Stop it.
No warning issued.
samclem, moderator