Aging is programmed! (A response to Kowald-Kirkwood " Can aging be programmed? A critical literature review " )

Substantial and growing empirical evidence suggests that senescence in mammals is genetically programmed. However, for more than a century programmed aging was widely considered to be theoretically impossible because of the nature of the evolution process. This has resulted in multiple competing non-programmed theories that struggle to explain observations without violating Darwinian evolutionary mechanics dogma. More recently advances in genetics have exposed major complexities in the evolution process some of which specifically enable adaptive programmed aging. Proponents now contend that programmed aging theories clearly represent the best science on mammal senescence. However, some proponents of non-programmed theories continue to argue the merits of non-programmed aging and non-programmed theories are still more popular. This issue is important because the different theories point in very different directions regarding the fundamental nature of mammal aging and therefore research directions toward treating age-related human diseases. This article is a response to a recent article criticizing programmed aging theories and describes major deficiencies in the analysis presented in that article