|
17 Oct 06 - 06:16 PM (#1861626) Subject: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: George Papavgeris It sort of makes sense...pick your sides now! |
|
17 Oct 06 - 06:26 PM (#1861639) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Divis Sweeney George, I am 6'1" 44 chest, 32 waist,a little thick, smoke like a train , and swear like a trooper. Not so choosie about sexual partners, but they seem to be ! |
|
17 Oct 06 - 06:38 PM (#1861652) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: John MacKenzie Oliver Curry gives us food for thought right enough! G. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 06:57 PM (#1861682) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Divis Sweeney Sounds a bit Spiced up! sorry in poor taste. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 07:00 PM (#1861686) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Amos "he 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." I thought that already happened! ;>) A |
|
17 Oct 06 - 07:13 PM (#1861695) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: McGrath of Harlow I see that BBC links says "He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo." "Bravo - A televisual broadcaster for the modern gentleman I just checked what's on their programme schedule for right now: "World's Most Amazing Videos - Awe-inspiring footage from home videos depicting amazing events, escapes and disasters. Lions attack a zookeeper, a tornado picks up a house, and a motorbike stunt goes wrong." |
|
17 Oct 06 - 07:40 PM (#1861709) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: skipy Go look at Stanford in the Vale, they are peeking early! Skipy |
|
17 Oct 06 - 07:53 PM (#1861724) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: JohnInKansas It "made sense" at least since around 1850 or so when Galton first started spouting it. It was a central policy of US "public health" agencies who sterilized at least 60,000 "defectives" for the purpose of "improving the race" - beginning around 1900 and ending in some areas as recently as 1968. The Nazis did the same to over 450,000 (sterilization). They just killed a lot of other "non-superior" persons, with little "genetic effect" being observable. And China has recently promulgated a ruling that those who wish to marry must "prove their genetic worth" or be subject to an "oath of nonreproduction" and/or must undergo voluntary sterilization or remain unmarried. As stated, it's bad evolution theory. A new "race" doesn't arise just because a few "better" creatures happen along. It's necessary that the precursor "race" be destroyed by its inability to compete under new conditions, or by some other means must become unable to interbreed with descendants of the "new creature." Without elimination of the precursors, back crosses most likely will occur and will stabilize the genetic characteristics of those who survive. A driving force that counters the theory given is that poor people, perhaps due largely to inferior health care and poor nutrition, tend to die younger - but not before they reproduce. They tend, in most cultures to reproduce much more prolifically than the "elite," so that the excess reproduction "naturally" takes care of the shortage of workers that would otherwise be the result of the short lifespans. The "elite," at least in current cultures, tend toward very low reproductive rates; and are frequently required to dip back into the general genetic pool for mates. For this reason the "elite classes" of the kinds that currently exist are unlikely to "fix" a separate genetic type. Note that the "reporter" apparently is an economist, not a medical or genetics expert. Application of genetic manipulation to reduce the number of people susceptible to geneticly based illness is a commendable goal, but will have little real effect unless it applies generally to all the "eligible breeders" in the population, and in all "overlapping populations." The assumption that this will result in a "new race" that will subjugate the old one, or that genetic separation of classes of society will emerge from it, is a very old notion held only by a few nut cases - (who all should be immediately sterilized for the good of society). Even if a "new elite" should emerge and could somehow be separated from the old population (for breeding purposes) the older population has persisted quite nicely by random and indiscriminate breeding for much longer than the time span for change suggested by the cited writer, and should continue to do so quite nicely as long as there's food and sex available to at least the "competent" members of the group. No real reason to expect them (us) to change. Well - it's an opinion anyhow. John |
|
17 Oct 06 - 07:58 PM (#1861730) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Bobert I'm sooooooo confusssssed..... |
|
17 Oct 06 - 07:59 PM (#1861732) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: The Fooles Troupe Curry prevents Alzheimer's - actually the Tumeric... apparently it contains stuff that 'digests' the plaque that speeds the destruction of the neurones... |
|
17 Oct 06 - 08:03 PM (#1861735) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Emma B nothing new under the sun! H G Wells got there first! |
|
17 Oct 06 - 08:16 PM (#1861746) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: number 6 Amos .... It certainly has happened here in Saint John. sIx |
|
17 Oct 06 - 08:19 PM (#1861748) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Rapparee I noticed it the last time I was in DC, too. |
|
17 Oct 06 - 10:39 PM (#1861833) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: bobad "Curry prevents Alzheimer's" Lighting up a joint after dining on your turmeric laden curry may provide the 1-2 punch that KO's the dreaded Alzheimer disease according to recent studies |
|
17 Oct 06 - 10:45 PM (#1861837) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: number 6 Really .... now if I could only remember where we keep the turmeric. sIx |
|
18 Oct 06 - 12:15 AM (#1861876) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Bert Actually it's going to split into three. An upper class A dim-witted underclass And below that - politicians. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 04:09 AM (#1861943) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Paul Burke The article is rather half-arsed. The author seems to forget Orgel's Second Rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are." While it is as certain as anything in this world that, if humans last long enough, they will split into different species, it takes a bold soothsayer to predict when, where and how that might happen. His idea is predicated on the Uebermenschen being able to both maintain themselves separate from the Unterditto, and retain control of both the relative and absolute share of resources required to fund their gotalifestyle. The first is uncertain: men think that women are attracted by wealth, beauty, intelligence and Tom Cruise, whereas in the real world women are attracted by wealth and whatever else you have got. Most rich people are incredibly stupid at anything but making money, and the wealthiest people aren't square- jawed tall business tigers but drug and porn dealers and the greasy scrapyard owner down the road. As for the second, pressure on resources might well make being tall a less than optimal strategy. In the end, it's all about ecologonomics. Sexual selection in humans doesn't only involve the sort of display ritual beloved of Hollywood. A song on the subject: In Chester town there lived a brisk young widow. For beauty and fine clothes none could excel her. With a figure straight and tall, a slender waist and small, She's a lovely lass withall, she's a brisk young widow. So a suitor soon there came, a dandy farmer. With his hat turned up all round, he thought to woo her: "My dear for love of you, this wide world I'd go through, If you only will prove true, you shall wed a farmer." Says she "I'm not for you, nor your hams and flitches, For I'll have a lively lad with lands and riches. For it's not your hogges and yows can buy me furbelows, All my silk and satin clothes they are all my glory." "Oh madam, don't be coy, not for all your glory, For fear of another day and another story- If the world on you should frown, your topknot must come down, To a linsey-woolsey gown, where is then your glory ?" But then there came that way a coal-black collier, With his boots and leather hat he soon did gain her, At which the farmer swore "That widow's 'mazed for sure, And I'll never court no more with a brisk young widow" |
|
18 Oct 06 - 04:45 AM (#1861958) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: skipy It's a Brave New World! Skipy |
|
18 Oct 06 - 06:00 AM (#1861996) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Wolfgang attractive-ugly?? One of the many things (intentionally?) wrong in that article. A person belonging to the "ugly" species would surely consider members of the other human species ugly and those of her own attractive. Wolfgang |
|
18 Oct 06 - 06:05 AM (#1862000) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: GUEST,Shimrod I doubt whether our species will be around long enough for these sort of evolutionary processes to operate. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 09:15 AM (#1862102) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Mr Happy '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.' I was under impression women already possessed features!! Also see Sheldon's 'Morphs ' theory, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesomorphic |
|
18 Oct 06 - 09:33 AM (#1862123) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: John on the Sunset Coast Who needs to wait until the year 3000? In the United States they already have...Republicans and Democrats. Each think they are the tall good looking ones, and will not intermingle with the opposite party, except undre the direst of circumstances. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 09:37 AM (#1862127) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: MMario hmmmm - just had a post disappear into the aether! aside from commenting on the fact that google has chosen to advertise sperm banks on th is thread - I mentioned some people consider the human species to already be sub-divided iin twain; male and female; with males parasitic on females for reproduction. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 09:48 AM (#1862137) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Scoville Wait--women will have lighter skin AND be coffee-colored? Isn't most of today's upper crust white, anyway, so which is it? I guess he's not a sociologist as well as not being a geneticist. This is almost as good as that stuff in the Onion. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 11:28 AM (#1862228) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: George Papavgeris Perhaps where you live, Scoville - not everywhere. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 03:06 PM (#1862430) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Scoville In the U.S. they're pretty damned lily white. Then do upper crusts migrate enough to change this? Aren't people who are doing well more likely to stay put (and not mingle)? Whatever. |
|
18 Oct 06 - 05:08 PM (#1862594) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: GUEST,ibo Especially if they meet george michael |
|
19 Oct 06 - 03:42 AM (#1862932) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Paul Burke It's possible that humans could divide straight and gay species, though still able to interbreed between the extremes. See ring species. |
|
19 Oct 06 - 09:25 PM (#1863784) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Gurney Us and Them, eh? THEM are ugly, like Wolfgang says. (If I presumed to belong to the 'uppers', I'd say THEY.) |
|
20 Oct 06 - 04:48 PM (#1864575) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: freda underhill it's already split into two - above the line & below the line (BS).. freda |
|
20 Oct 06 - 05:53 PM (#1864626) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: GUEST,thurg Speaking of the future, when are the robots going to start doing all the work? I don't have that many years left ... |
|
21 Oct 06 - 06:00 AM (#1864928) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Paul Burke We'll end up working for the robots. |
|
21 Oct 06 - 08:04 AM (#1864975) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: Flash Company The human species has always been split in two, Us & Them! Thing is, I'm not sure which half I belong to! FC |
|
14 Nov 06 - 02:20 PM (#1885626) Subject: RE: BS: Human species 'may split in two' From: GUEST,Cluin What a load of shit. |