I thought my neighbor looked funny...

Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I thought my neighbor looked funny...

This is from the BBC.  This is the crap that give evolution a bad name.


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.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer

Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
What a compilation of utter

What a compilation of utter nonsense and speculation. Such wild, vague conjecture has no place in science and certainly no place being taught to a public which has a very poor understanding of science and a terrible understanding of evolution in particular. Since when have lackeys of LSE been considered authority on clade?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.


Books about atheism

Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Futurists have to justify

Futurists have to justify their grants somehow.

 What does processed food's softness have to do with evolution anyway? For natural selection to be relevant here, wouldn't people need to routinely die of dental problems until now? Bigger jaws don't evolve because you use your jaw to crack walnuts; it would be through the exclusion of small jaws from the gene pool.

I can see the Randroids creaming their shorts about this though.

High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
 I would think by that time

 I would think by that time we are just manually altering our genes?  Are we not working such things right now?

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.

ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:

What does processed food's softness have to do with evolution anyway? For natural selection to be relevant here, wouldn't people need to routinely die of dental problems until now? Bigger jaws don't evolve because you use your jaw to crack walnuts; it would be through the exclusion of small jaws from the gene pool.

exactly! also, lets not forget that processed foods are man made and have only been around relatively recentally.  i don't think our ancestors evolved jaws with the idea that we might develop processed food today.