The problem I have is, you're continually shifting the goalposts. You bring up irrelevant analogies, arguably, your explanation of 4 billion year old cells is highly misleading in itself, because you're poorly conflating a literal take on a cell, versus its cohabitation in an entirely new entity. This is essentially grandpa's axe, or in philosophical circles, the paradox of the ship of Theseus. While this applies to a single human, because our body structure does renew itself, I think it's going to an absurd level of detail, a technicality if you will. We don't go around changing our names after a predetermined amount of time because the majority of our cells are new, ergo we are still the same person.
You haven't refuted anything I've said, except that you've made the distinction that not all cells wear out, fair enough, but in the context of what was being discussed, it's irrelevant, because obviously, the cells that contribute to aging and are necessary in sustaining a single entities life, clearly do wear out. The point I'm making is, we're hitting the natural limit of how long we can live. You have failed to make any point which states otherwise.
The fallacy I referred to is a false analogy. All your analogies really have no bearing to what I've said. But you've also used false dichotomies, and fallacies of division. You've brought up all these issues, such as stem cell injections, but failed to recognise that I never made any points with respect to what you've taken umbrage upon. In other words, you're arguing with nothing, because everything you've said is irrelevant, or pointless, or off topic; whatever.