lmfao lmfao
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm
Quote:Human species 'may split in two'
Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.
The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.
People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Race 'ironed out'
But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.
Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.
However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.
Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.
Receding chins
Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.
Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.
There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.
Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.
The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.
"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry.
He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.
i dont see why its that unplausible. perhaps not exactly as they've outlined it, but its happened before. unless you dont believe in evolution :shhh: its pretty rediculous to think the human species will be exactly the same hundreds of thousands of years from now (that is if we havent blown ourselves to bits first).
niuhuskie84 Wrote:i dont see why its that unplausible. perhaps not exactly as they've outlined it, but its happened before. unless you dont believe in evolution :shhh: its pretty rediculous to think the human species will be exactly the same hundreds of thousands of years from now.
Of course it won't be the same, but the change will not be because of evolution, but instead it will be more self induced. People will be taller. Why? Because we keep pumping ourselves full of growth hormones. Puberty will strike earlier. Why? It's those darned growth harmones again. Sure there will be changes and mutations, but it won't be evolution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm
Quote:Human species 'may split in two'
Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.
What part of the DNC does he not understand?
Quote:The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.
People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Race 'ironed out'
But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.
There is no mention of genetic engineering. Honestly, I have been expecting this for a few years. But not through "natural" selection, but rather genetic enhancement.
I really believe that in less than 100 years, you will have a genetically enhanced class of "ideal" people, who may turn into tyrants over those whose parents went the "natural" route for conception/birth.
Only I'm not sure that's far-fetched. I would like to see ethicists start dealing with it now.
I remember 45 years people predicting the human of the future would have a stunted left leg, caused by the rising use of automatic transmissions...
OptimisticOwl Wrote:I remember 45 years people predicting the human of the future would have a stunted left leg, caused by the rising use of automatic transmissions...
How Lamarkian.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Quote:People will be taller. Why? Because we keep pumping ourselves full of growth hormones. Puberty will strike earlier. Why? It's those darned growth harmones again.
I didn't realize that the Norwegians were taking growth hormones back in the 30s.
I learned something else that was interesting. When Ponce De Leon landed in FL, he was 4'11" and was met by Native Americans that were 6' +. Also, that particular tribe had a crazy long lifespan in comparison to the Europeans. Where they different species? Or were they affected by different mutations? Which group was in it's more natural state? My guess is that the Native Americans were more natural and that the Europeans had been influenced negatively by mutations.
Just to get really sci-fi wild, in 100,000 years humanity will have more than likely colonised at least a few planets. We'll take whatever we can get our hands onto. That alone could cause evolutionary changes.
Fanatical Wrote:Just to get really sci-fi wild, in 100,000 years humanity will have more than likely colonised at least a few planets. We'll take whatever we can get our hands onto. That alone could cause evolutionary changes.
more like 300 years. ;-)
Tulsaman Wrote:Fanatical Wrote:Just to get really sci-fi wild, in 100,000 years humanity will have more than likely colonised at least a few planets. We'll take whatever we can get our hands onto. That alone could cause evolutionary changes.
more like 300 years. ;-)
seriously, think about it the time between the wright brothers and the space shuttle. its the blink of an eye.
Ya'll are getting off topic.
Seriously, if humans force "evolution" by genetically engineered alterations, does it really count as evolution?
GrayBeard Wrote:Ya'll are getting off topic.
Seriously, if humans force "evolution" by genetically engineered alterations, does it really count as evolution?
sure, although it would be slightly different from the darwin view of it. you can look at evolution in terms of culture in very much the same way.
but yea, if you take darwins stance, i believe it pertains specifically to nature evolving to survive. not just pumping yourself up with roids.
GrayBeard Wrote:Ya'll are getting off topic.
Seriously, if humans force "evolution" by genetically engineered alterations, does it really count as evolution?
Well since evolution advocates are always changning the definition to suit their needs, I guess it's probably "yes".
niuhuskie84 Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:Ya'll are getting off topic.
Seriously, if humans force "evolution" by genetically engineered alterations, does it really count as evolution?
sure, although it would be slightly different from the darwin view of it. you can look at evolution in terms of culture in very much the same way.
Then it wouldn't be a natural thing, but instead something that was created.
That would be a synthetic evolution rather than a natural evolution
GrayBeard Wrote:niuhuskie84 Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:Ya'll are getting off topic.
Seriously, if humans force "evolution" by genetically engineered alterations, does it really count as evolution?
sure, although it would be slightly different from the darwin view of it. you can look at evolution in terms of culture in very much the same way.
Then it wouldn't be a natural thing, but instead something that was created.
right, but what i'm saying is there are different views of evolution. it seems like we're comparing apples and oranges. theres a vast difference between a generation getting bigger because they're all taking hormones, and a generation getting bigger because they need to adapt to reach food thats higher up.
GrayBeard Wrote:Ya'll are getting off topic.
Seriously, if humans force "evolution" by genetically engineered alterations, does it really count as evolution?
Darwin's book title is: "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", not by genetically engineered alterations.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but your kids should probably look like you in some way. If they don't - that should be a clue that something is wrong. Genetics works (not saying that this guy isn't a crackpot).
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:I remember 45 years people predicting the human of the future would have a stunted left leg, caused by the rising use of automatic transmissions...
How Lamarkian.
Well, there was another school of thought that said legs were going to disappear altogether since we ride everywhere.
And that our eyes would lose the ability to see color because we were spending so much time looking at (black-and-white) TV.
DrTorch Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:Ya'll are getting off topic.
Seriously, if humans force "evolution" by genetically engineered alterations, does it really count as evolution?
Well since evolution advocates are always changning the definition to suit their needs, I guess it's probably "yes".
As opposed to Religion which of course has never altered their writings to fit their own personal needs.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:I remember 45 years people predicting the human of the future would have a stunted left leg, caused by the rising use of automatic transmissions...
How Lamarkian.
Well, there was another school of thought that said legs were going to disappear altogether since we ride everywhere.
And that our eyes would lose the ability to see color because we were spending so much time looking at (black-and-white) TV.
Both sound Lamarkian to me.
GrayBeard Wrote:I learned something else that was interesting. When Ponce De Leon landed in FL, he was 4'11" and was met by Native Americans that were 6' +. Also, that particular tribe had a crazy long lifespan in comparison to the Europeans. Where they different species? Or were they affected by different mutations? Which group was in it's more natural state? My guess is that the Native Americans were more natural and that the Europeans had been influenced negatively by mutations.
Moreover, how did native americans even get there in the first place? 6000 years is a short time to travel and set up an entirely new and different civilization halfway across the world.
Also, the increase in heights over the past 200 years or so is not an evolutionary development - it's a nutritional development.
OwlJacket Wrote:Also, the increase in heights over the past 200 years or so is not an evolutionary development - it's a nutritional development.
I agree with that. Was the short stature of the Europeans a poor nutritional development as well?
All of these theories sound idiotic because the people coming up with them don't seem to have much of a grasp on the #1 tenant of evolution - Natural Selection. You have evolution when one set of characteristics or traits becomes much more favorable and those lacking these characteristics DO NOT SURVIVE and are unable to pass these genes on to the next generation. In the 21st century western world, virtually everybody (now matter how ugly or stupid) can find a spouse, live a reasonably long life, and have kids thus passing on their genes. There is very litle natural selection in the western world right now, and thus we are in a state of homeostasis, not evolution.
OwlJacket Wrote:Also, the increase in heights over the past 200 years or so is not an evolutionary development - it's a nutritional development.
So are you saying that changes in nutrition cannot cause evolutionary changes?
Not to mentions that 1000 years only covers about 30 generations, which would be almost impossible to see any statistical variation in the population.
In addition, this assumes that the so-called new superrace would only mate and reproduced with like members of the superrace. We all know that this is seldom the case, as the average male is eventually amenable to any warm, wet orifice regardless of the intelligence of what's on the other end of it. In fact, in many cases, people will choose to go 'slumming' becuase of the lack of repercussions on the other end. And while there will be a general tendency towards a unifomed mixed-race appearance, sociological drivers will prevent a complete intermingling on the time scale proposed by the author.
Another aspect not considered is the low fertility rates currently achieved in advanced societies. Much of Europe is below the replenishment threshhold as is America; China is tending towards that if they haven't already achieved it. The "be fruitful and multiply" directive does not hold sway with the intelligent and educated; thus there may be a tendency for the regression of the overall intellect of the species towards the lower end grunt and funt population...
uhmump95 Wrote:So are you saying that changes in nutrition cannot cause evolutionary changes?
I'm just saying that the average genetics of the particular populations hasn't changed much over that time frame.
There is most certainly a genetic component to height in individuals. But that is not the only factor at work; without proper nutritional inputs, there will be a limit to the heights that people can achieve. But this nutritional input and acquired trait (height) will not be manifested in future generations.
Or maybe God just decided that everyone needed to be a foot taller and recreated them that way, one by one.
uhmump95 Wrote:OwlJacket Wrote:Also, the increase in heights over the past 200 years or so is not an evolutionary development - it's a nutritional development.
So are you saying that changes in nutrition cannot cause evolutionary changes?
What is an evolutionary change? Wouldn't that be considered something that is a permanent change? Then, I wouldn't classify a nutritional change as evolutionary because one would assume that if the nutrition diverted back to past habits that the changes would begin to revert back to the original state.
GrayBeard Wrote:What is an evolutionary change? Wouldn't that be considered something that is a permanent change? Then, I wouldn't classify a nutritional change as evolutionary because one would assume that if the nutrition diverted back to past habits that the changes would begin to revert back to the original state.
An evolutionary change would be a change in the genetic code. Change in diet could cause this as the body may have to change how some food is processed or stop harmful affects on the body of some new foods.
Fanatical Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:What is an evolutionary change? Wouldn't that be considered something that is a permanent change? Then, I wouldn't classify a nutritional change as evolutionary because one would assume that if the nutrition diverted back to past habits that the changes would begin to revert back to the original state.
An evolutionary change would be a change in the genetic code. Change in diet could cause this as the body may have to change how some food is processed or stop harmful affects on the body of some new foods.
What genetic code changes have been documented in humans?
GrayBeard Wrote:What genetic code changes have been documented in humans?
Sickle cell trait?
SouthGAEagle Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:What genetic code changes have been documented in humans?
Sickle cell trait?
Wouldn't that be a negative? Is that evolution or mutation? How does that fit natural selection?
People with the sickle cell trait are immune to malaria. Those who didn't have the trait died of malaria. Those who did survived.
Edit... added the following:
Over thousands of years, this led to the sickle cell trait beiing common across Africa.
Granted when two people with sickle cell trait reproduce, it can lead to sickle cell anemia, which isn't very good... but I'd still classify this as a form of natural selection.
Google is amazing
Quote:A Mutation Story:
A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria, a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.
How could a "bad" gene -- the mutation that causes the sometimes lethal sickle cell disease -- also be beneficial? On the other hand, if it didn't provide some survival advantage, why had the sickle gene persisted in such a high frequency in the populations that had it?
The sickle cell mutation is a like a typographical error in the DNA code of the gene that tells the body how to make a form of hemoglobin (Hb), the oxygen-carrying molecule in our blood. Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity. These sickled cells become stuck in small blood vessels, causing a "crisis" of pain, fever, swelling, and tissue damage that can lead to death. This is sickle cell anemia.
But it takes two copies of the mutant gene, one from each parent, to give someone the full-blown disease. Many people have just one copy, the other being normal. Those who carry the sickle cell trait do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease.
Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.
It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected, because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.
Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.
For parents who each carry the sickle cell trait, the chance that their child will also have the trait -- and be immune to malaria -- is 50 percent. There is a 25 percent chance that the child will have neither sickle cell anemia nor the trait which enables immunity to malaria. Finally, the chances that their child will have two copies of the gene, and therefore sickle cell anemia, is also 25 percent. This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."
SouthGAEagle Wrote:People with the sickle cell trait are immune to malaria. Those who didn't have the trait died of malaria. Those who did survived.
But isn't that adaptation, not evolution? They are, after all, still homo sapiens.
I really am asking because I don't know the answer.
Isn't adaptation a type of evolution?
SouthGAEagle Wrote:Isn't adaptation a type of evolution?
The Dictionary Wrote:Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Not according to the definition above.
Lethemeul Wrote:SouthGAEagle Wrote:Isn't adaptation a type of evolution?
The Dictionary Wrote:Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Not according to the definition above.
Is that the definition of adaptation or evolution?
Never mind... I assume it's evolution.
I think adaptation would be considered "micro-evolution" because it does not result in a new species.
GrayBeard Wrote:I think adaptation would be considered "micro-evolution" because it does not result in a new species.
Is micro-evolution/adaptation really in dispute, though?
Back in the day cats were taken aboard ships to help keep down rat populations onboard. When the ships arrived in the New World, the cats were turned loose in a foreign land, in a colder climate. Some cats died, some grew more fur to better cope with the weather (see the Maine Coon). Still a cat.
Or is the argument that we're only seeing the micro-evolution, the small steps toward a new species to be discovered eons from now?
GrayBeard Wrote:I think adaptation would be considered "micro-evolution" because it does not result in a new species.
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not scientific terms.
They are the same thing. What creationists call macroevolution is just the effects of lots of microevolutions over a long period of time.
Another problem with the understanding of evolution here is that some people think that evolution means a creature getting better. That's misleading. The idea that humans are "more evolved" than fish is absurd. Put them both at the bottom of the ocean and we'll see who survives longer. Put them both in the desert.
Humans have adapted to a specific environment. That is what they have evolved to live in. So because you may see something as disadventagous does not mean that evolution does not work, it means you can't see why it evolved that way. See sickle-cell example above. On the surface it looks like a bad thing, but if you see why it did that, you'll understand that it is just an adaptation.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:I think adaptation would be considered "micro-evolution" because it does not result in a new species.
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not scientific terms.
On the contrary, they most cerainly are.
Quote:They are the same thing. What creationists call macroevolution is just the effects of lots of microevolutions over a long period of time.
That is the assumption of evolutionary theory. It is a flawed one, as real science attests.
Try scaling up anything really found in nature.
Consider the correspondence principle
Scale up a chemical reaction.
Drop a toy car from 20 feet and see what happens. Now compare to a real car.
Scaling up is far more complicated than simply "lots of microevolutions over a period of time". Particularly for genetics. In fact, the more gentics is understood, the more it is counter-intuitive to evolution...If you change one gene, it was thought you'd change one trait. Ergo, you can have the sum of microevolutions that you cite.
Only it doesn't work that way. Gene's often overlap...they use the same genetic code. So, if you change one gene, and get an improvement, you will often change another gene, and that's highly unlikely to be acceptable.
Evolution in tiny steps is known to be less likely now than even as genetics was understood 20 years ago.
AND that doesn't even consider the fact that there is little to no empirical evidence for it! Why do you think Gould had to come up w/ his Punctuated Equillibrium theory? This what cracks me up when evolutionists bash ID and claim it's based on "faith".
Quote:Another problem with the understanding of evolution here is that some people think that evolution means a creature getting better.
Yeah, well throw around terms like 'survival of the fittest' and what do you expect? I agree that evolutionists use misleading vocabulary...that's because they are always trying to hand-wave their lame 19th C theory. Alchemy is just as hard to understand.
Quote:Humans have adapted to a specific environment. That is what they have evolved to live in. So because you may see something as disadventagous does not mean that evolution does not work, it means you can't see why it evolved that way. See sickle-cell example above. On the surface it looks like a bad thing, but if you see why it did that, you'll understand that it is just an adaptation.
And that's a tautological argument.
Lethemeul Wrote:SouthGAEagle Wrote:People with the sickle cell trait are immune to malaria. Those who didn't have the trait died of malaria. Those who did survived.
But isn't that adaptation, not evolution? They are, after all, still homo sapiens.
I really am asking because I don't know the answer.
Of course it's not evolution. It's a population shift.
But, it is the one bit of empirical evidence that can be provided. By mixing definitions of evolution, you readily influence 9th grade biology students to convince them that it's true.
DrTorch Wrote:Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:I think adaptation would be considered "micro-evolution" because it does not result in a new species.
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not scientific terms.
On the contrary, they most cerainly are.
Well yes, but not in the manner in which they are often used when discussing this subject. I went too far with my statement.
Quote:Quote:They are the same thing. What creationists call macroevolution is just the effects of lots of microevolutions over a long period of time.
That is the assumption of evolutionary theory. It is a flawed one, as real science attests.
Real science, eh? Lets see it.
Quote:Try scaling up anything really found in nature.
Consider the correspondence principle
Scale up a chemical reaction.
Drop a toy car from 20 feet and see what happens. Now compare to a real car.
Scaling up is far more complicated than simply "lots of microevolutions over a period of time". Particularly for genetics. In fact, the more gentics is understood, the more it is counter-intuitive to evolution...If you change one gene, it was thought you'd change one trait. Ergo, you can have the sum of microevolutions that you cite.
Only it doesn't work that way. Gene's often overlap...they use the same genetic code. So, if you change one gene, and get an improvement, you will often change another gene, and that's highly unlikely to be acceptable.
Evolution in tiny steps is known to be less likely now than even as genetics was understood 20 years ago.
AND that doesn't even consider the fact that there is little to no empirical evidence for it! Why do you think Gould had to come up w/ his Punctuated Equillibrium theory? This what cracks me up when evolutionists bash ID and claim it's based on "faith".
Again, you make a lot of claims here. You seem to be insinuating that Gould did not base his ideas on actual evidence. That's incorrect.
Nobody is denying that a change in genes will affect more than one thing. I think we've all acknowledged that. The side effects may not be acceptable, but the species may survive none-the-less.
Scaling? I'm not sure where that camefrom, but yes, we have no 10,000 ft high ants. If it is in reference to humans growing taller, I guess that's why taller people have problems with their joints. Where are you going with this?
Quote:Quote:Another problem with the understanding of evolution here is that some people think that evolution means a creature getting better.
Yeah, well throw around terms like 'survival of the fittest' and what do you expect? I agree that evolutionists use misleading vocabulary...that's because they are always trying to hand-wave their lame 19th C theory. Alchemy is just as hard to understand.
Hand waving? You mean like when Behe waved his hands at Kitzmiller when shown a stack of papers that detailed evolution?
Quote:Quote:Humans have adapted to a specific environment. That is what they have evolved to live in. So because you may see something as disadventagous does not mean that evolution does not work, it means you can't see why it evolved that way. See sickle-cell example above. On the surface it looks like a bad thing, but if you see why it did that, you'll understand that it is just an adaptation.
And that's a tautological argument.
Except for the fact that it can and has been tested for. And hey, it works.
If you want to help your ID guys out, why don't you go and calculate the CSI of something. I've never atually seen any results other than. This rock has no CSI, or this human has lots of CSI. Well, how much? See science would try to have a number. ID has "lots" and "none."