Another website, The International Longevity Organization (pdf) declares that Most gerontologists believe there is no such gene (that causes aging) in most species, because a gene that promotes aging would most likely decrease reproductive fitness and therefore would be subject to negative selection. On the website, they waive the p53 gene off as a tumor suppressing gene.
However, the Boston University website (pdf) has a very different view and suggests a genetic biological clock (telomere length, telomerase function) and various classes of aging genes, including the p53. But it doesnt suggest how such genes might have been naturally selected.
There is also this websites explanation for the evolution of aging and death:
So much for my research. Im curious now what your position is as to how aging and death evolved by natural selection and what we should expect to see in the fossil record to substantiate it.
Evolutionary models of aging are supported by population studies and by molecular biology.
There is obviously a selection bias toward the reproductive years in a lifespan. Mortality is also a tradeoff against cancer. The programmed cell death you allude to is part of a tightly controlled network of genes that guard against damage to cells that would lead to uncontrolled growth. These are two effects fall under the antagonistic pleiotropic models. And they make perfect sense. But there is greater support for the model that aging is a result of mutational and cellular damage. It's a surprise that we live as long as we do and the pleiotropic effects that may contribute to cellular and organismal senescence don't control lifespan as much as the simple inability of stress and mutational repair mechanisms to extend lifespan.