Human species 'may split in two'

[M.Dancer]

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

Itès already happening Ièm sure........I have been to parts of the US where the entire population of a shopping mall looked like a cruel eugenics joke...something to do with poverty, malnourishment and drugs...

[Figleaf]

I predicted this same possibility many years ago, but observing the surprising stupidity rampant in the wealthier classes, I have re-assessed their likelihood of establishing stable genetic superiority.

[gc1765]

I doubt it...

For one thing, the "upper" and "lower" class will probably continue to interbreed, as well as breed with the "middle" class.

What makes someone genetically superior? A lot of people choose their mate based on money, and anyone can become rich or poor regardless of their genes.

[kimmy]

Hoax? I'll bet 100 valuable Kimmy-Points that this is the work of the same guy who created the imaginary scientific report that blondes would be extinct within 200 years.

-k

[Leafless]

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

Itès already happening Ièm sure........I have been to parts of the US where the entire population of a shopping mall looked like a cruel eugenics joke...something to do with poverty, malnourishment and drugs...

I've noticed the same thing in shopping malls in Toronto and Ottawa.

Anyways it sounds like this guy has been watching to much interracial porn.

[geoffrey]

I doubt it...

For one thing, the "upper" and "lower" class will probably continue to interbreed, as well as breed with the "middle" class.

What makes someone genetically superior? A lot of people choose their mate based on money, and anyone can become rich or poor regardless of their genes.

Well, I don't know. Upper class people generally stick with people along similar wealth levels.

[gc1765]

Well, I don't know. Upper class people generally stick with people along similar wealth levels.

Sure, in general, but there's bound to be some interbreeding which will lead to a continuum of traits like we see today rather than two distinct species or sub-species. There will always be people in the "middle" or "upper-middle", "lower-middle" etc...Someone in the "upper class" could breed with someone in the "upper-middle" class to give an "upper-upper-middle" class...well, you get the point...

Also, even if the rich only breed with the rich, and the poor only breed with the poor, anyone can strike it rich or loose it all. So, someone with "lower class" genes could win the lottery, become rich, and mate with someone with "upper class" genes, and someone with "upper class" genes could go bankrupt and end up with someone with "lower class" genes.

[kimmy]

Something struck me as particularly odd about this claim:

Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

One of the first lessons we learn about genetics in highschool is the story about the experiment conducted by August1881 who proved that you can cut the tails off of generation after generation of mouse, and yet the next generation will be born with tails.

How is it, then, that a lack of mandibular exercise will result in the next generation being born with a weaker jawline?

We owe it to the memory of those generations of maimed mice to remember that acquired characteristics are not passed on to following generations. You can eat processed food, live on soup and pate, or pull out all your teeth and suck your meals through a straw, and it won't make a lick of difference to what your kids look like.

A weaker jawline evolves if, and only if, a weaker jawline provides some survival advantage or greater reproductive success: higher odds of weak jawlined individuals passing contributing that characteristic to future generations.

But that would seem contradictory to the whole thesis that future generations will be choosy about their reproductive partners and place high emphasis on looks.

Are we sure this theory was written by an expert? I still say hoax. valuable Kimmy-Points up for grabs!

-k

[M.Dancer]

Are we sure this theory was written by an expert? I still say hoax. valuable Kimmy-Points up for grabs!

-k

I believe you

[gc1765]

Something struck me as particularly odd about this claim:

Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

One of the first lessons we learn about genetics in highschool is the story about the experiment conducted by August1881 who proved that you can cut the tails off of generation after generation of mouse, and yet the next generation will be born with tails.

How is it, then, that a lack of mandibular exercise will result in the next generation being born with a weaker jawline?

We owe it to the memory of those generations of maimed mice to remember that acquired characteristics are not passed on to following generations. You can eat processed food, live on soup and pate, or pull out all your teeth and suck your meals through a straw, and it won't make a lick of difference to what your kids look like.

A weaker jawline evolves if, and only if, a weaker jawline provides some survival advantage or greater reproductive success: higher odds of weak jawlined individuals passing contributing that characteristic to future generations.

But that would seem contradictory to the whole thesis that future generations will be choosy about their reproductive partners and place high emphasis on looks.

Are we sure this theory was written by an expert? I still say hoax. valuable Kimmy-Points up for grabs!

-k

I think you are correct. The only thing I could add is that it might theoretically be possible for smaller chins to evolve. Theoretically, making a smaller chin would take less energy so that could provide a very slight advantage. But that is assuming that 'natural selection' is still playing a role. I think attractiveness is related to health & fitness, so is it possible that in many years from now we could think of small chins as sexy? Who knows, sounds pretty crazy to me but I guess it's possible. I believe in the past humans did have larger jaws & differently shaped teeth, which evolved and got smaller. But 'natural selection' was probably a lot more important hundreds of thousands of years ago than it is today.

I don't know if an 'expert' wrote this or not, but it's still a pretty bad theory in my opinion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Another interesting thing that tends to get overlooked is that evolutionary changes occur over 10s if not hundreds of thousands of years. Rapid changes, such as 'mutations', aren't the source of evolutionary advancements, for the 'mutants' are generally killed by their own if they are 'too different'.

[M.Dancer]

Anther point is that small mutations that might give us an edge are pretty much moot now that are brains do most of the problem solving....what need is there to evolve a cold reseltant metabolism when nucleaar power plants provide heat for millions......

There certainly will be evolutionaryt forces at work.... but instead of natural selection being the mechanism, it will probably be sexual determinism....ie: sexually attractive and stable people get together younger and have more kids than average, increasing the chances of passing their DNA down the line.......

.....actually, that might suggest that the teenage welfare mothers from the underclass may be the ones who split from the I'll wait till after my doctorate degree to have 1.5 children (who will be blonde and have a cute as a button nose........)

[threnody]

Hoax? I'll bet 100 valuable Kimmy-Points that this is the work of the same guy who created the imaginary scientific report that blondes would be extinct within 200 years.

-k

The gene for red and blonde hair is recessive. Thus, eventually, it will be extremely uncommon, and even later on, extinct.

[M.Dancer]

Hoax? I'll bet 100 valuable Kimmy-Points that this is the work of the same guy who created the imaginary scientific report that blondes would be extinct within 200 years.

-k

The gene for red and blonde hair is recessive. Thus, eventually, it will be extremely uncommon, and even later on, extinct.

Uncommon here doesn't mean uncommon everywhere.......Scotland and Ireland have very high concentrations of red heads.......and both my wife and I have blue eyes...my father had red hair, my wifes aunt had red hair........

As long as my children stay within their ethnic bounds there children will be similar......on the otherhand, gene pools get small quickly.....there is this girl at my daughters school, one of her parents is black...she has a dark brown complextion, reddish kinky hair and blue eyes....she has transcendent luminescent beauty.......

[PocketRocket]

Evolution is typically the result of countless generations of culling.

Those born with unfavorable characteristics are killed off.

Weak, slow, or stupid, they lack survival characteristics, and so become victims in the "law of the jungle" wherein the strong, fast and smart survive to breed, therefore passing on their more favorable genetics.

Unfortunately, once a society becomes "civilised", those who are weak, slow and stupid, are able to find niches wherein they survive and proliferate.

Indeed, as a society we encourage this with welfare and other such programs which allow these genetic inferiors to survive and reproduce.

What to do??? I for one am not about to play God. I would rather err on the side of compassion.

But the fact remains; Civilization brings evolution to a halt, or at best, a painfully slow crawl.

[gc1765]

The gene for red and blonde hair is recessive. Thus, eventually, it will be extremely uncommon, and even later on, extinct.

No. Just because something is recessive does not mean it will become extinct. Fair skin is also recessive. So is not having huntington's disease.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

This is all a pointless thread.

Even if the circumstances existed that somehow the existing human sapien species could split into two or more seperate species, the amount of time it would take, based on our life span and reproductive rate is too great for any of us to have a meaningful discussion about - we'll likely end up killing ourselves off long long beforehand.

We can talk about evolution in insects... fine, we can witness it firsthand due to their short lifespans and rapid breeding cycles.

Consider, for example, un-natural selection. Humans have been selectively breeding dogs for roughly 15000 years, give or take. Despite this amount of time selectively breeding these animals for the desired characteristics, they are all still the same species.

One key way that biologists define a species is based on their reproductive capabilities. A german shepard can breed with a wolf, and the offspring will be reproductively fertile. They are the same species: Canis lupus. Certain closely related species, such as a donkey and a horse, may repoduce but their offspring are infertile. Other species - species to relationships produce nothing what-so-ever... just ask Angus the sheep-shagger.

So... to get to my point... if 15000 years of selectively breeding dogs, which have relatively short lifespans and short gestation periods, in controlled environments fails to produce speciation then THERE IS NO WAY POSSIBLE THAT HIGH CLASS VERSUS LOW CLASS HUMAN SPECIATION WILL EVER OCCUR! In fact, even the weak-jawed human idea would have to be purposely selectively bred as a trait. You would have to ensure that only weak-jawed males bred with weak-jawed females, and you would have to cull the non-weak-jawed offspring.

[GostHacked]

You would see the divide already, For that has been going on for centuries and nothing has changed to support the two species. We are still all human. Some are ugly, some are hot, some are dumb, some are smart.

I've met ugly and stupid rich people.

I've met hot and stupid rich people.

I can go on and on and on.

Unless genetic code is seriously being altered with mixing the breeding classes then this is all bullshit. Last time I cheked, we are all of the human species, and doubt that anyone is a sub-species of humans.

[Remiel]

Neanderthals were actually the same species as us. We're both homo sapiens, though for those kind of cases the invented the sub-species category... homo sapien sapien and home sapien neanderthalis (or something to that effect).

[myata]

From what I recall from basics of genetics studied years ago (correct me if I'm wrong), a time frame for even minor genetic change in the population should be in the order of 100 generations. So we have some breathing space before (and if) it happens.

[PocketRocket]

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

I think this says it all.

This is not a research scientist with a highly respected medical or science university.

This is like a professor at the "Toronto School of Business" coming out with a new theory on Black Holes or some such.

IOW, hardly a source to be taken as reliable.

I want my Kimmy-Points

[Charles Anthony]

I would caution OurKim to keep her points to herself and not let anybody carry them in their Pocket without earning them. Otherwise, we will certainly see the value of these points split in two very fast.

I think this says it all.

It says more of the general public's ignorance of not only the modern studies of economics and evolution but also of game theory which glues them together. I would suggest both of you learn a thing or two of each of those three disciplines before discrediting Oliver Curry's methodology as a farce.

While the general public's interest in science may be enhanced by Magnus Pyke, his spinning arms can only scratch the surface of superficial knowledge.

I recommend watching the film "A Beautiful Mind" which cleverly illustrates the basics of game theory in one very short scene.

Game theory is simply the mathematical study of the strategies used to win games. It began with the study of games like noughts and crosses and chess, which are relatively easy to analyse because they are games of ‘complete information’ - in other words, each player can see the other’s position. Then mathematicians became interested in games like poker, which is much more interesting because players cannot see each other’s cards. Poker is a game of ‘incomplete information’, so more subtle elements such as bluff come into the analysis.

Eventually, mathematicians attempted to analyse more important games, including economics, warfare and divorce settlement. In each case you have two parties competing over money or territory, and each party develops a strategy based on their own strengths and objectives, and on the perceived mindset and skills of their opponent. Game theory is maths plus a dash of psychology.

http://www.simonsingh.net/A_Beautiful_Mind.html

Economics is not the study of making or counting money. Money to economics is like pencils to language arts. It just turns out that money is the easiest tool with which to illustrate the principles of economics to first-time learners. We could teach people to read and write without pens and paper but it would be exceedingly difficult -- although, Helen Keller seemed to succeed.

[Charles Anthony]

delete

[M.Dancer]

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

I think this says it all.

This is not a research scientist with a highly respected medical or science university.

This is like a professor at the "Toronto School of Business" coming out with a new theory on Black Holes or some such.

IOW, hardly a source to be taken as reliable.

I want my Kimmy-Points

Although you google his name and he seems legit and that the LSE offers progammes in anthropology, geography and the environment, history...the London School of Econmics is highly respected....on par with the top universities...cerr=tainly no comparison to the toronto school of business.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/darwin/people.htm