Quote:

---

OK. Do you know of any fossil evidence which shows pre-adamic(pre-4000 bc)creatures aging? It doesnt sound like the length of telomers is something that would readily fossilize.

In other words, where did you get the idea that there is evidence of aging in fossil records before 4000 bc? (Of course embryo to adult wouldnt be the type of aging required)

---

You are almost implying we would need a timemachine to see such things, but nevertheless I don't really see your point with the last part of your post. Fossils are evidence of death aren't they? Growth is the result of processing food and aging. Aren't bones indicators of aging too then? Why wouldn't be the aging from embryo to adult required as a type of aging? There are some species that are seemingly immortal, but off course can be killed. There are also species that live way longer than us humans, but off course we all know the annoying one-day-flies . In short I don't think aging is really thát relevant for evolution, only the fact that shorter lives will speed up evolution, but they all die at one point. It would only be an argument if you could find a species that's really 100% immortal and can't be killed either. Otherwise it doesn't proof anything.
Yes, not everything get's fossilized, I don't like it either but often there are indirect indicators. Aging involves the cell reproduction limit, well even bones need cells to reproduce to be able to grow as far as I know, so if this limit is different, or not there at all, we would undoubtably see it. Did we ever find things that grow till infinity?

Cheers