Two Human species in the future

[Anachronist]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1965

Has anybody else seen this?

[scottishranger]

Geesh, H.G. Wells anyone?

Anyways I also heard this on my radio yesterday, it is interesting to say the least. It is kind of logical though, in a weird way.

[DisgruntledGoat]

Ya I have, when I read H.G. Wells the time machine. Looks like these guys read it and decided to publish a report :S

Its also, a lot of common sense. Considering the sexual patterns of most and their selection based on physical traits. Which has been going on since forever.

PS: Just noticed that the article even includes images from Time Machine movies!

Although this wouldn't be so bad:

Women will all have glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts, according to Curry.

[JP226]

Seriously, unless your desparate, who wants to **** a fat chick? It doesn't surprise ,e and it's the logical conclusion given what elements of human behavior i've studied. Everyone is looking for maximization, be it cash or hotness.

[Pra]

It's utter crap. There's no link to any exhaustive scientific research, and we're just left with some sort of 'because I said so and I'm a scientist so I'm right' as an argument. What proof does he have in selection process of humans when choosing mates.

The only thing we know for sure is that men look for physically attractive mates, and women look for mates with high social status. (This is hardcoded genetic programming in the way we think). That's about it.

I'd like to read the report that the article is based off of. It seems like a steaming pile of ******** to me.

[Jubal_Barca]

It's utter crap. There's no link to any exhaustive scientific research, and we're just left with some sort of 'because I said so and I'm a scientist so I'm right' as an argument. What proof does he have in selection process of humans when choosing mates.

The only thing we know for sure is that men look for physically attractive mates, and women look for mates with high social status. (This is hardcoded genetic programming in the way we think). That's about it.

I'd like to read the report that the article is based off of. It seems like a steaming pile of ******** to me.

QFT

[JP226]

However, I don't think we'll turn into the beautiful intelligent and the goofy ass retards. I dopn't know about you guys, but when it comes to finding a girl for good I look for intelligence as much as looks. A hot chick may be fun for now but if she's a moron it's not worth it in the long run. I think there will be more parity then this article gives credence to.

[Medicus]

This is Grade-A ********. I think Pra said it best, so I won't say anymore.

[Sebdeas]

Sounds like bollocks how can mankind evolve so much in a thousand years?
In evolutionary time it's nothing.

And all evolution happens for a reason, why would nature make a part of mankind grow smaal and dumb?

[Valentin the II]

And all evolution happens for a reason, why would nature make a part of mankind grow smaal and dumb?

No it does not.
Especially in our times when technology shelters us from natures wrath.

This article could be plausible if different economic clases or nationalities would breed only betwin themselvs, but in our time mixing of class and rase is very comon (thank god) so the chances of 2 different spicies arising from all this interbrieding is slim at best.

PS: Also, as simetricall already stated its practically imposible to make such asumptions about the distant future.

[Feliks]

In article, it said that our reliance on technology will make us evolve into weird little weak troll things. What the hell? Would sexual selection just stop, or are gremlins getting all the girls?

[Darkarbiter]

In article, it said that our reliance on technology will make us evolve into weird little weak troll things. What the hell? Would sexual selection just stop, or are gremlins getting all the girls?

Well... in theory surely that would mean that those who relied on sexual preferences too much would get evolved out of the gene pool too(at least physical). If the only thing that was actually necassary for the most part in the future was perhaps intelligence and fast reactions.

[Serious Spamurai]

Is it actually possible for a race to evolve to be inferior? Surely people would have to **** the dumbest, ugliest bastards for that to happen.

[Pra]

Is it actually possible for a race to evolve to be inferior? Surely people would have to **** the dumbest, ugliest bastards for that to happen.

Well evolution and natural selection always leads to the most 'successful' form of life in a particular habitat. If something evolves to be more 'inferior' , which can happen, it dies.

[Kanaric]

Is it actually possible for a race to evolve to be inferior? Surely people would have to **** the dumbest, ugliest bastards for that to happen.

I could cite examples but it would result in a flame war but I guess i'll do one.

Have you been to the DEEP south. I don't mean the places that you normally know about, like Biloxi or some standard urban or rural area. Think Deliverance except without the rape. Such places exist and you could argue for people devolving.

The Ozarks, the Bayou, places such as that its like a land that time forgot and at times that the gene pool forgot as well.

I wouldn't say everyday society would result in that, unless the mass entertainment and people sitting on their asses makes us weak but I doubt it would be mentally weak.

[Simetrical]

I've always thought that IQ was a terrible way of measuring intelligence.

It isn't, really. There's a reasonably strong correlation between higher IQ and higher performance in practically any cognitive task. Of course it's only a correlation, because someone might be really smart in one area but perform poorly in another, but usually someone who's smart in one area will tend to be relatively smart overall. Idiot savants are the exception.

I could cite examples but it would result in a flame war but I guess i'll do one.

Have you been to the DEEP south. I don't mean the places that you normally know about, like Biloxi or some standard urban or rural area. Think Deliverance except without the rape. Such places exist and you could argue for people devolving.

You don't have any evidence that any perceived deficiencies of Southerners are genetic. They could also be cultural.

The basic answer is, of course, that "de-evolution" in the sense of loss of desirable traits or gain of undesirable ones is perfectly possible, if "desirable" does not mean "beneficial to reproductive success in the short term". Evolution only takes paths that are beneficial to reproductive success in the short term. That can make things look uglier or become stupider, for instance.

[imb39]

It's from the Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.

[Feliks]

It may not be needed, but we still live in a culture that places high value in physical fitness, and such is still favorable in sexual selection, it would require a massive and rapid shift in both culture and genome to change that, I don't see that happening.

[Simetrical]

The idea that you can make any predictions 100,000 years into the future is just ludicrous. Even a century in the future, and it seems fairly likely that at least the wealthy will be able (possibly with some risks) to make themselves as fat, skinny, tall, short, or whatever else they like.

[Medicus]

The idea that you can make any predictions 100,000 years into the future is just ludicrous. Even a century in the future, and it seems fairly likely that at least the wealthy will be able (possibly with some risks) to make themselves as fat, skinny, tall, short, or whatever else they like.

You've got me thinking, Sim.

This will never happen for one reason: genetic engineering. By the year 3000 we'll probably be able to build a new human entirely from the ground up.