Talk:Biological immortality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Marketing sites

message: 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)
replies: text: The comment made for the reverted change by User:66.191.144.82   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Invincibility and Immortality

message: 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)
thread_title: Cancer Cells Immortal?

message: 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)
thread_title: First "Citation Needed" comment on page

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jargon, and poorly written at that 

message: 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)
thread_title: Cell Lines section re-write

message: 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)
thread_title:  plants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Others however, feel that true immortality can be achieved. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diet bit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Biological immortality vs. [[negligible senescence]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect link to another article. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Newly discovered immortal creature 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How to expand the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Biological immortality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101224051228/https://acrobat.com/ to https://acrobat.com/#d=MAgyT1rkdwono-lQL6thBQ
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114221609/http://websites.afar.org:80/site/PageServer?pagename=IA_b_sene_home to http://websites.afar.org/site/PageServer?pagename=IA_b_sene_home
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060915054241/http://www.genomicsproteomics.com:80/index.aspx?ID=69329 to http://www.genomicsproteomics.com/index.aspx?ID=69329
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://67-20-95-176.bluehost.com/Hayflick.NatureNotImmortal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040814160109/http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=3426 to http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=3426
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211101926/http://www.lobsters.org/tlcbio/biology3.html to http://www.lobsters.org/tlcbio/biology3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517050007/http://www.brainpreservation.org/content/technology-prize to http://brainpreservation.org/content/technology-prize
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://websites.afar.org/site/PageServer?pagename=IA_b_sene_home
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.genomicsproteomics.com/index.aspx?ID=69329
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  kings holly lives more than 40,000 years 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sea Anemones Should Be Added to the List 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Immortality 

message: They do age with time indeed. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1D7:21AA:C97F:8A43 (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Negligibly_senescent_organisms   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Skywatcher68 That's outdated info from like more than 10 years ago. Here is the official source. I'm glad to have this discussion here. Scientific knowledge is updated over time as new research is done. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:20C4:4B8E:C6A1:FB75 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see you proposing updates at Talk:Naked mole-rat. Any particular reason?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much work. I do what I can. This is a volunteer project, so other people can do it if they're interested. I'm more concerned about the change in this article. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:3DCF:E727:8A97:41E0 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: In fact, the deleted sentence is more appropriate in the naked mole-rat article. It's relevant info over there. Someone else can add it in if interested. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:3DCF:E727:8A97:41E0 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked mole-rat