Even if it can't be reversed because it's a limitation of the cells, you can just replace them with new cells. I mean literally new cells, not divided cells from existing ones. Not all at once mind you (so it's not risky), just one at a time over a longer period. I mean we can inject DNA, maybe in future we can even construct cells directly with nanobots. The difference between nanobots and cells is that nanobots are smart/intelligent -- because they can be governed (via EM waves) by a central computer with lots of processing power. Cells are "individualistic" that's why they're "dumb".
Of course, this is all speculation, I'm not saying that we'll necessarily be immortal with 100% guarantees, however, "logically" and "mathematically" what he said makes zero sense and he hasn't provided a single logical/mathematical argument of it.
On the subject of evolution, it has no brain or mind of its own, at least in the normal view of it. It only "cares" about extending its genes or DNA or whatever it is. In a sense, this is immortality of the genes. It's like immortality of an operating system, but not the user data or other software. (that is the goal of reproduction, we know it fails at this as well due to mutations)
If it can do that by passing down memories (data), then you can be sure it would've chosen that path long ago, via natural selection, since it's a much more superior process, so naturally, it would've been superior at "survival". But it can't, apparently, due to biological limitations or whatever.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum