Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by Big Twigge, Oct 18, 2006.
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.
"dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures". It's Chavs! It's happening already!
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........)
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.
"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.
Ooh, non-linear dynamics, chaos theory and sensitive dependence on initial conditions
If I wasn't editing your CD I'd go into realms of total twaddle (or possibly not) :biggrin:
- women with features? (... trembles with fear )
Ahh, but you are, so get back to work and stop surfing!
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]
Find more discussions like this one
sub specieshumansURLsub species of humans
An internal "skip" feature so that we can tune out the inanities of the men around us...:tongue:
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". )
That's just telling you that the weather (wo)man is taking a safe bet.
Separate names with a comma.