Two sub species of humans...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by Big Twigge, Oct 18, 2006.

  1. Big Twigge

    Big Twigge Active Member

  2. ronnie_the_lizard

    ronnie_the_lizard Active Member


    Interesting perhaps, but in places (as reported on the link) absolute twaddle. In particular assumptions are made about factors such as "Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features". Whilst these features may well increase sexual attractiveness (in some societies), which in standard evolutionary terms would lead to "natural selection" in favour of these features, the structure of human society has developed to the extent that having particularly desirable features doesn't necessarily mean that you have more offspring, and therefore the rules of natural selection no longer apply.

    In any case, Homo sapiens has already been through the "Gracile - Robust" subspecies split at least once before when ourselves and neanderthals parted company.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2006
  3. bigmamabadger

    bigmamabadger Active Member

    "dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures". It's Chavs! It's happening already!
  4. andyp

    andyp Active Member

    Perhaps, but that depends if you consider chavs as human!

    (and if you don't then they don't need "human rights" either, which opens up new law enforcement possibilities........)
  5. Anno Draconis

    Anno Draconis Well-Known Member

    Interesting, but logically flawed, because the theory seems to assume that everything will progress more or less in the direction currently perceived by the author. Scott Adams (author of Dilbert) once wrote that this kind of logic applied to chaotic systems gives rise to the most absurd conclusions. Example - if you knew nothing about animal life on this planet and watched the first 3 months of a kitten's life and then extrapolated the data for the next 20 years, the natural conclusion would be that it would continue to grow unstoppably until eventually it would need Canary Wharf as a scratching post; after all, there are many plant and animal species that do grow throughout their life. Of course, we know this doesn't happen but only because we all know, from observation and experience, that kittens eventually stop growing.

    In a system as chaotic as evolution, especially when skewed by the potential effects of global warming, you simply can't extrapolate from an existing scenario for the next 1000 years. It's like trying to forecast the weather in 2150.
  6. cornetsquint

    cornetsquint Member

    "Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features"
    Although these characteristics may improve a humans attractiveness it will not nessecerily increase the reproductivity of humans therefore limiting the chances of natural selection occurring. I personally think that this is a load of rubbish and agree with Anno Draconis in saying it is like trying to predict weather in 2150.
  7. KMJ Recordings

    KMJ Recordings Supporting Member

    Ooh, non-linear dynamics, chaos theory and sensitive dependence on initial conditions :D

    My faves....

    If I wasn't editing your CD I'd go into realms of total twaddle (or possibly not) :biggrin:
  8. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    - women with features? (... trembles with fear ;) )
  9. Anno Draconis

    Anno Draconis Well-Known Member

    Ahh, but you are, so get back to work and stop surfing! ;)
  10. Anno Draconis

    Anno Draconis Well-Known Member

    Wonder what "features" the woman of the future will come with?

    Dare one hope for a volume control? or even a mute button? :clap:

    [if anyone needs me I'll be hiding in Afghanistan, possibly with a veil on]
  11. bigmamabadger

    bigmamabadger Active Member

    An internal "skip" feature so that we can tune out the inanities of the men around us...:tongue:
  12. ronnie_the_lizard

    ronnie_the_lizard Active Member

    It'll be rainy, with some scattered periods of sunshine.

    (Incidentally there was a weather forecaster on Radio 4 yesterday who revealed that with current supercomputer technology we can only predict tomorrows weather with around 85% accuracy - but you get at least 60% accuracy just by saying "It'll be the same as today". )
  13. matthetimp

    matthetimp Member

    That's just telling you that the weather (wo)man is taking a safe bet.