Massive snakes like anacondas, reticulated pythons and such are partly arboreal when small. When bigger, they can't really climb or hide in trees. Same thing for giant monitors. Komodo dragons are arboreal when small, and live a different lifestyle once large. They're kind of like different species, inhabiting different ecological niches.
Although the ones that were big got extinct so maybe you have a point...
If iteration was important, sexual maturity would occur drastically younger in birds and mammals, and you'd have tons of offspring to maximize iteration. Reptiles are the ones that have tons of children.
>If iteration was important, sexual maturity would occur drastically younger in birds and mammals, and you'd have tons of offspring to maximize iteration
There are always antagonist selective pressures, e.g. selective pressures towards longer childhoods and fewer offspring when parental investment requirements grow.
This assumes there is some sort of reasoning going on in natural selection. What would lead to mutations that promote aging being selection per se, when the effects of aging are only experienced after reproductive age? That's not ruling out that mutations that cause aging aren't selected for, but they should give some short-term advantage.
“It sounds dramatic to say that they don’t age at all, but basically their likelihood of dying does not change with age once they’re past reproduction,” says Reinke."
In humans, kids are born well below the age when we see the worst effects of aging. The old do not play much of a role in natural selection. It seems likely that aging or lack of it is more of an accident, then.
It's more likely that those animals descended from an ancestor that didn't 'age' in the conventional sense _and_ had slow, unrestricted growth. Those two traits are not necessarily related.
Not sure if I agree with the 'specialized' moniker. All creatures are specialized to their ecological niche. Humans are kind of an exception.
What may have been selected for is fast and adaptable organisms. Why bother with 'aging' if you can tolerate damage over time, in exchange for more efficient organisms in the short term? You only need to repair enough to ensure the organism will reproduce (and maybe help care for the offspring for a while).
Humans are actually pretty good in that aspect compared to many animals. Probably because it takes a while before we are able to reproduce.
Random mutations can easily cause problems/chop some time off your lifespan.
The question is, do individuals within the species benefit from longer life spans? To what extant are age related problems contributors to the deaths of individuals within a species?
I would guess that a higher percentage of turtles at a reproductive age die of age related disease than reproductively mature rats. I would guess that turtles are much better at withstanding the passage of time, because time is a much more significant killer of turtles.
Similarly, flying birds and bats tend to live longer than mammals of similar body mass, probably because predation is a less significant contributor to their mortality (and thus issues such as age, relatively more significant). Primates may be an exception, but they're also rather good at avoiding predators.
Not that I've ever heard this theory before. But logically it seems plausible.
If you don't age and can stop growing at optimum size, then that's potentially a huge evolutionary advantage. And since even “marginally better” can often be selected given enough pressure, it's hard to imagine why growing older is so prevalent.