Human race will 'split into two different species'

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Human race will 'split into two different species'

By NIALL FIRTH

26th October 2007

The Daily Mail

Is this junk science or what? This was highlighted on Drudge. From the article:

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.

100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed.

The alarming prediction comes from evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry from the London School of Economics, who says that the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000.

. . .

Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.

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

Racial differences will be a thing of the past as interbreeding produces a single coffee-coloured skin tone.

. . .

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is the 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.

"After that, things could get ugly, with the possible emergence of genetic 'haves' and 'have-nots'."

Well at least there will be bigger penises and pert breasts for the haves.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

It isn't science at all, just idle speculation and not very original at that. See for example H.G. Wells's The Time Machine, written in 1895.

[BaalChatzaf]

Human race will 'split into two different species'

By NIALL FIRTH

26th October 2007

The Daily Mail

Is this junk science or what? This was highlighted on Drudge. From the article:

Utter crap. Speciation does not take place unless there is reproductive isolation. Human beings get into each others pants the world around regardless of -class- distinctions and babies often result. Natural selection is driven mostly by reproductive success. When European men sailed to the New World, the first thing they did after going ashore was to knock up the local pretties. Humans are a randy and ill-behaved lot. As long as there is screwing with little or no distinction speciation along the lines that Wells described in -The Time Machine- will not happen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 27, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

There are two distinct human species all ready: those who agree with me and those who don't. If you don't agree with this statement I'm sorry for you. The only problem so far is inability to reproduce, but that's sociological/psychological/economical/timealogical, not biological.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

There are two distinct human species all ready: those who agree with me and those who don't. If you don't agree with this statement I'm sorry for you. The only problem so far is inability to reproduce, but that's sociological/psychological/economical/timealogical, not biological.

--Brant

What, you can't reproduce?

[Selene]

Human race will 'split into two different species'

By NIALL FIRTH

26th October 2007

The Daily Mail

Is this junk science or what? This was highlighted on Drudge. From the article:

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.

100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed.

The alarming prediction comes from evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry from the London School of Economics, who says that the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000.

. . .

Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.

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

Racial differences will be a thing of the past as interbreeding produces a single coffee-coloured skin tone.

. . .

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is the 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.

"After that, things could get ugly, with the possible emergence of genetic 'haves' and 'have-nots'."

Well at least there will be bigger penises and pert breasts for the haves.

Michael

Yep. Those Italian genes are pretty strong!

[BaalChatzaf]

There are two distinct human species all ready: those who agree with me and those who don't. If you don't agree with this statement I'm sorry for you. The only problem so far is inability to reproduce, but that's sociological/psychological/economical/timealogical, not biological.

--Brant

Not so. Members of these class (or opposite gender, of course) are capable of producing fertile offspring. Look up what the word "species" means in a -biological- context, particularly evolutionary biology.

Agreement with your positions does not confer a reproductive advantage on anyone.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Human race will 'split into two different species'

By NIALL FIRTH

26th October 2007

The Daily Mail

Is this junk science or what? This was highlighted on Drudge. From the article:

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.

100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed.

The alarming prediction comes from evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry from the London School of Economics, who says that the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000.

. . .

Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.

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

Racial differences will be a thing of the past as interbreeding produces a single coffee-coloured skin tone.

. . .

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is the 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.

"After that, things could get ugly, with the possible emergence of genetic 'haves' and 'have-nots'."

Well at least there will be bigger penises and pert breasts for the haves.

Michael

It is silly idle speculation. Soon we will be hearing Lamarckian notions... Just as the giraffe's neck allegedly stretched to enable reaching of the leaves, then perhaps also...

Silliness. Wild conjecture.

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

It is silly idle speculation. Soon we will be hearing Lamarckian notions... Just as the giraffe's neck allegedly stretched to enable reaching of the leaves, then perhaps also...

Silliness. Wild conjecture.

Alfonso

Not all that silly. Darwin subscribed to a form of Lamarckism combined with natural selection. Read -Origin of Species-. Darwin had no hypothesis accounting for the inheritance of characteristics. He had not read Mendel who published in a very obscure Czeck journal (and not in English either).

Even Medel's hypothesis of discrete genetic factors was forgotten until rediscovered by De Vrees in 1908 at which time Mendel's original work was re-acquired. The modern synthesis of genetics and evolutionary theory was acheived in the late 30's of the last century and the exact machanism of inheritance was not known until the work of Watson and Crick and Rosalyn Franklin in th 1950's.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

De Vries.

[Robert Campbell]

Alfonso,

Bob K is right about all of this.

Although today's evolutionary theories are often referred to as "Darwinian," none of them is actually Charles Darwin's own theory. Lamarckianism was not conclusively ruled out until Mendel's work was rediscovered by De Vries (c. 1900) and built on by many other researchers during the first two decades of the last century.

Before the neo-Darwinian synthesis was achieved, some knowledgeable people actually thought that being a "mutationist" precluded being a "Darwinian" (which to them meant giving major credit to natural selection in the evolutionary process).

Robert Campbell

PS. Supposedly Darwin once cited an article that, in turn, cited Mendel's key publication. Tantalizingly close... But there's no evidence that Darwin tried to track Mendel's article down--it was published in German, in a bush-league natural history journal.

[merjet]

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.

This sounds like fiction, a twisted version of H. G. Wells' The Time Machine.

[Alfonso Jones]

It is silly idle speculation. Soon we will be hearing Lamarckian notions... Just as the giraffe's neck allegedly stretched to enable reaching of the leaves, then perhaps also...

Silliness. Wild conjecture.

Alfonso

Not all that silly. Darwin subscribed to a form of Lamarckism combined with natural selection. Read -Origin of Species-. Darwin had no hypothesis accounting for the inheritance of characteristics. He had not read Mendel who published in a very obscure Czeck journal (and not in English either).

Even Medel's hypothesis of discrete genetic factors was forgotten until rediscovered by De Vrees in 1908 at which time Mendel's original work was re-acquired. The modern synthesis of genetics and evolutionary theory was acheived in the late 30's of the last century and the exact machanism of inheritance was not known until the work of Watson and Crick and Rosalyn Franklin in th 1950's.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So because someone had a theory long ago which has been soundly and rightly discarded, that means the theory is not silly?

What that means is that that theory once made sense. Not that it still does, or that it fits with the facts available to us at this time.

Alfonso

[Selene]

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.

This sounds like fiction, a twisted version of H. G. Wells' The Time Machine.

Yep. Nice pick-up. Us old "fogeys" remember the Morlocks and the Eloi. The best part of the entire movie was the last scene with the incredibly inept, overacting lead and the solid housekeeper actress telling the equally well acted friend of the lead, after he asked her:

"Is their anything missing?"

She pans the library and notices three (3) books missing.

His friend, balefully looks off into the camera and into the future and says:

"Which three (3) books would you take?" [to build a new world]. Great values clarification exercise.

And the answer is...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, the linked article that started this thread ends thus:

Dr Curry's theory may strike a chord with readers who have read H G Wells' classic novel The Time Machine, in particular his descriptions of the Eloi and the Morlock races.

In the 1895 book, the human race has evolved into two distinct species, the highly intelligent and wealthy Eloi and the frightening, animalistic Morlock who are destined to work underground to keep the Eloi happy.

There are also pictures from both the 1960 and the 2002 movies.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

So because someone had a theory long ago which has been soundly and rightly discarded, that means the theory is not silly?

What that means is that that theory once made sense. Not that it still does, or that it fits with the facts available to us at this time.

Alfonso

It was not prima facia silly. In fact it took several clever experiments to disprove the Lamarkian theory. The theory was believed (until falsified) because it -explained- and -predicted- many modifications to various populations and because there was not alternative (until fairly recently) to explain inheritance. There was nothing self contradictory about Lamarck's theory either. There is no a priori reason why modifications made to the somatoplasm could not somehow affect the germplasm. As it is, environmental factors which modify body tissue -can- cause mutation (radiation, for example) of the germ plasm.

The naturalists who accepted the Lamarckian hypothesis were not idiots or silly people. The hypothesis did, in fact, explain generational changes in certain animal populations. The way the hypothesis was falsified was done with rats which have a short gestation time. Rats had their tails snipped off immediately after birth but lived otherwise normal lives and reproduced. Many generations passed and no tail-less rats were born to the subjects of this experiment indicating that acquired characteristics are not passed down through reproduction. The hypothesis predicts that a tail-less line of rats would eventually emerge but it did not happen, so the hypothesis was falsified. The real clincher came with the genetic explanation for the inheritance of characterstics and the discovery that the germplasm was quite seperate and isolated from the somatoplasm. And -that- is what killed the Lamarckian hypothesis, not some kind of prima facia defect.

The Lamarckian hypothesis that acquired characteristics are inheritable was as plausible as the aether hypothesis to explain the propagation of light. It just happen that neither hypothesis is correct and both hypotheses were falsified by

1. A set of experiments that showed their limitations as predictors

and

2. An alternative hypothesis that explained the effects.

We now know that light is particles not waves and does not need a medium for propagation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 29, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

So because someone had a theory long ago which has been soundly and rightly discarded, that means the theory is not silly?

What that means is that that theory once made sense. Not that it still does, or that it fits with the facts available to us at this time.

Alfonso

It was not prima facia silly. In fact it took several clever experiments to disprove the Lamarkian theory. The theory was believed (until falsified) because it -explained- and -predicted- many modifications to various populations and because there was not alternative (until fairly recently) to explain inheritance. There was nothing self contradictory about Lamarck's theory either. There is no a priori reason why modifications made to the somatoplasm could not somehow affect the germplasm. As it is, environmental factors which modify body tissue -can- cause mutation (radiation, for example) of the germ plasm.

The naturalists who accepted the Lamarckian hypothesis were not idiots or silly people. The hypothesis did, in fact, explain generational changes in certain animal populations. The way the hypothesis was falsified was done with rats which have a short gestation time. Rats had their tails snipped off immediately after birth but lived otherwise normal lives and reproduced. Many generations passed and no tail-less rats were born to the subjects of this experiment indicating that acquired characteristics are not passed down through reproduction. The hypothesis predicts that a tail-less line of rats would eventually emerge but it did not happen, so the hypothesis was falsified. The real clincher came with the genetic explanation for the inheritance of characterstics and the discovery that the germplasm was quite seperate and isolated from the somatoplasm. And -that- is what killed the Lamarckian hypothesis, not some kind of prima facia defect.

The Lamarckian hypothesis that acquired characteristics are inheritable was as plausible as the aether hypothesis to explain the propagation of light. It just happen that neither hypothesis is correct and both hypotheses were falsified by

1. A set of experiments that showed their limitations as predictors

and

2. An alternative hypothesis that explained the effects.

We now know that light is particles not waves and does not need a medium for propagation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My point is that to embrace Lamarckianism TODAY is silly. Not that it is/was prima facie silly. Just as to embrace a flat earth theory TODAY is silly - whereas it might not have been so thousands of years ago.

Alfonso

[John Dailey]

~ I've just got to ask...Why the hell this century-old speculation fantasy is considered 'news' is beyond me. The 'arguer'/speculator AND the article writer have been reading too much fantasy...and don't know the diff 'twixt that and intelligent prognostication.

~ Are we going to discuss the (ahem!) 'possibility' of Freddy Krueger's ilk (add in HellRaiser's 'Pinhead') to...consider the implications of...next? I mean, there's spiritual (de-)'evolution' to consider also, no?

~ Morlocks/Eloi. Let H.G.Wells R.I.P, hmmm?

~ MIKE: shame for making this a...'news' item to consider.--- You...you...MORLOCK!

LLAP

J:D

Edited October 29, 2007 by John Dailey

[Ellen Stuttle]

For the record, the linked article that started this thread ends thus:

Dr Curry's theory may strike a chord with readers who have read H G Wells' classic novel The Time Machine, in particular his descriptions of the Eloi and the Morlock races.

In the 1895 book, the human race has evolved into two distinct species, the highly intelligent and wealthy Eloi and the frightening, animalistic Morlock who are destined to work underground to keep the Eloi happy.

I never read the book, but from what I've heard of it, that description is inaccurate. The Eloi in the book, so I'm told, were diminutive in size -- and in intellect -- by comparison to modern humans and had lost even the ability to read. (I'm told there's a scene wherein the Time Traveler finds a library with the volumes all gone to dust and screams in outrage something like "How could they let it all go?!") Further, the Eloi were kept as food supplies by the Morlocks, similarly to a herd of domenstic bovines.

Ellen

___

Edited October 29, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

I never read the book, but from what I've heard of it, that description is inaccurate. The Eloi in the book, so I'm told, were diminutive in size -- and in intellect -- by comparison to modern humans and had lost even the ability to read. (I'm told there's a scene wherein the Time Traveler finds a library with the volumes all gone to dust and screams in outrage something like "How could they let it all go?!") Further, the Eloi were kept as food supplies by the Morlocks, similarly to a herd of domenstic bovines.

The Eloi were small, childlike, fragile and friendly vegetarians, dancing in the fields with many beautiful flowers, making cooing noises, in short, some kind of Teletubbies. They were the descendants from the higher classes, but had degenerated in the course of time while they knew no hardships and had no problems to solve. The Morlocks were in appearance much less human, white spidery beings with huge eyes, that couldn't stand light, living underground. They were the descendants of the labourers, still working with machines and indeed treating the Eloi like cows: taking care of their needs, but also eating them.

[Brant Gaede]

Eloi chops! Yum, yum!

--Brant

[Selene]

I never read the book, but from what I've heard of it, that description is inaccurate. The Eloi in the book, so I'm told, were diminutive in size -- and in intellect -- by comparison to modern humans and had lost even the ability to read. (I'm told there's a scene wherein the Time Traveler finds a library with the volumes all gone to dust and screams in outrage something like "How could they let it all go?!") Further, the Eloi were kept as food supplies by the Morlocks, similarly to a herd of domenstic bovines.

The Eloi were small, childlike, fragile and friendly vegetarians, dancing in the fields with many beautiful flowers, making cooing noises, in short, some kind of Teletubbies. They were the descendants from the higher classes, but had degenerated in the course of time while they knew no hardships and had no problems to solve. The Morlocks were in appearance much less human, white spidery beings with huge eyes, that couldn't stand light, living underground. They were the descendants of the labourers, still working with machines and indeed treating the Eloi like cows: taking care of their needs, but also eating them.

I think the Eloi community looked exactly like an Earth Liberation Front party.

[Barbara Branden]

In a sense very different from that being discussed in this thread, I sometimes think, in a rare down mood, that what we term the human race already consists of at least two species. I see the spectacle of mothers proudly sending off their children to blow themselves up in obedience to some bloodthirsty supernatural being; I see men gleefully chopping of the heads of other living men; I see college students randomly shooting total strangers to death; I see pedophiles burying small children alive; I see men dragging another man to an agonizing death behind a moving car because his skin is a different color than theirs -- and I think of Michelangelo's Moses and Wagner's Tristan and Isolde and the poetry of Elizabeth Barrett Browning; I think of Jonas Salk conquering polio and of the men and women who give years of their lives to moving one day closer the elimination from the earth of cancer; I think of the inventors of the electric light and the airplane and the telephone and the computer; I think of cars as beautiful as any work of art moving off assembly lines and buildings of glass and steel shooting up to the skies; I think of carefree children laughing and scholars eagerly poring over books and lovers swearing eternal fealty; I think of a teacher placing his body between his students and a killer and of a writer spending fourteen years creating a hymn to the human potential -- and I think that it is not possible that we who inhabit this planet are all members of a single species.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

In a sense very different from that being discussed in this thread, I sometimes think, in a rare down mood, that what we term the human race already consists of at least two species. I see the spectacle of mothers proudly sending off their children to blow themselves up in obedience to some bloodthirsty supernatural being; I see men gleefully chopping of the heads of other living men; I see college students randomly shooting total strangers to death; I see pedophiles burying small children alive; I see men dragging another man to an agonizing death behind a moving car because his skin is a different color than theirs -- and I think of Michelangelo's Moses and Wagner's Tristan and Isolde and the poetry of Elizabeth Barrett Browning; I think of Jonas Salk conquering polio and of the men and women who give years of their lives to moving one day closer the elimination from the earth of cancer; I think of the inventors of the electric light and the airplane and the telephone and the computer; I think of cars as beautiful as any work of art moving off assembly lines and buildings of glass and steel shooting up to the skies; I think of carefree children laughing and scholars eagerly poring over books and lovers swearing eternal fealty; I think of a teacher placing his body between his students and a killer and of a writer spending fourteen years creating a hymn to the human potential -- and I think that it is not possible that we who inhabit this planet are all members of a single species.

Barbara,

Many terrible things that go on today went on yesterday too, but we weren't so aware of them. Today there is an avalanche of information. There are over five billion people on this planet and we're going to be bombarded with all the bad news that various media can cram down our throats. And a lot of horrible people are performing for the cameras.

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara,

Many terrible things that go on today went on yesterday too, but we weren't so aware of them. Today there is an avalanche of information. There are over five billion people on this planet and we're going to be bombarded with all the bad news that various media can cram down our throats. And a lot of horrible people are performing for the cameras.

--Brant

It's certainly true that the horrors we learn about today are not new. But they do exist, and have always existed. And they make me wonder....

Barbara