# How Dinosaurs May Have Influenced Human Aging: A Scientific Perspective
Written on
Chapter 1: The Fascinating Connection Between Dinosaurs and Aging
Feeling the effects of aging? You might have dinosaurs to thank for that!
Photo by Matt Bennett on Unsplash
Many individuals desire to age more slowly and extend their lifespans. While humans are among the longest-living mammals, numerous reptiles and other species demonstrate significantly slower aging with minimal signs of deterioration.
So, what accounts for this difference? Why are we unable to reach lifespans of 200 years or more, and why does aging seem to occur so rapidly for us? According to Joao Pedro de Magalhaes, a renowned expert in this field, the aging processes of mammals, including humans, may have been significantly impacted by…dinosaurs!
How is this possible? Let's delve deeper into this theory!
Section 1.1: The Longevity Bottleneck Hypothesis
In the animal kingdom, we observe remarkable instances of repair and regeneration; however, these characteristics may not have been crucial for early mammals that existed during the Mesozoic Era, who were primarily focused on avoiding predation by dinosaurs.
Professor de Magalhaes argues that our mammalian ancestors likely occupied lower positions on the food chain during the Age of Dinosaurs. This circumstance required adaptations for survival that emphasized rapid reproduction. However, the energy demands of quick reproduction can detract from the energy needed for maintaining bodily functions. Over time, this trade-off can result in the accumulation of unrepaired cellular damage, ultimately leading to aging.
The prolonged evolutionary pressures of the Mesozoic Era, which lasted over 100 million years, may have lasting effects on the aging patterns we observe in humans and other mammals today. Specifically, these extensive evolutionary pressures likely led to the loss or deactivation of genes linked to longevity, such as those responsible for tissue regeneration and DNA repair.
Professor de Magalhaes refers to this idea as the ‘longevity bottleneck’ hypothesis. He suggests that the genetic imprint of the Mesozoic continues to influence the aging processes of modern mammals, which, despite their larger sizes and longer lifespans, age more rapidly than many reptiles.
Although this theory remains speculative, the ‘longevity bottleneck’ hypothesis opens up numerous fascinating research opportunities. One thought-provoking avenue to explore is the possibility that the higher rates of cancer observed in mammals, including humans, could have roots in our evolutionary past.
Section 1.2: The Legacy of Early Mammals
Early mammals, such as the rat-sized Liaoconodon hui, had to navigate the dangers posed by predatory dinosaurs like Sinotyrannus.
Epilogue: The Lasting Impact of Dinosaurs on Aging
Unlike certain reptiles and amphibians that show minimal signs of aging, mammals, including humans, follow a more distinct aging path. Professor Joao Pedro de Magalhaes’ theory provides a compelling link between the extended reign of dinosaurs and the aging patterns we see in mammals today. By examining the genetic legacies of the Mesozoic Era, this hypothesis sheds light on the evolutionary forces that have shaped the aging process over millions of years.
Notes
[1] Joao Pedro de Magalhaes is a Professor of Molecular Biogerontology at the Institute of Inflammation and Aging at the University of Birmingham.
[2] The Mesozoic Era, spanning from approximately 252 to 66 million years ago, is characterized by the dominance of archosaurian reptiles, including dinosaurs, and features a hot greenhouse climate along with the tectonic break-up of Pangaea. It is the middle of the three eras in Earth’s geological history: Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic.
Relevant Reads
- Could Humans Ever Turn Venomous? It's certainly not impossible...
- Humans Are Still Evolving — and There Is Screaming Evidence For it
Source: João Pedro de Magalhães, "The longevity bottleneck hypothesis: Could dinosaurs have shaped aging in present-day mammals?", BioEssays (2023). DOI: 10.1002/bies.202300098