Turn on thread page Beta

Human species may 'split in two' watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    Have we stopped the process of evolution???? :eek:
    Modern medicine
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ... people seem to be confusing reduced selective pressures with reduced evolution. They're not the same thing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    OLOL had to see this. Er no. 100% no.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (not actually read the article. And I'm 102% convinced: NO).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Haven't you read Plato's Symposium? Mankind has already split in two, which is the explanation for why people fall in love :}
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)

    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....
    Already happening: they're called chavs.

    They don't breed with us, and we don't breed with them. The alarming thing is how quickly they will out-breed us. Could happen well before any actual speciation :eek:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    Have we stopped the process of evolution???? :eek:
    No.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    BBC be trolling.

    But nah, utter nonsense in my opinion. We aren't like other animals, who all go for the biggest antlers or the most colourful bill. Humans exhibit a massive range of personal preferences, the idea that everyone will evolve in the same direction is ridiculous when between the internet and alcohol, anybody can and will potentially sleep with anybody =P
    Out of the billions upon billions of personal interactions that occur every minute between humans on this planet, a negligible proportion are down to 'personal preference' rather than instinct. Even this 'free will' is ultimately merely an extrapolation of instinct and chance anyway.

    To think that we are not subject to laws of nature such as evolution is just chauvinistic.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread calling the proposition ridiculous and laughable. The guy is a professor at LSE, and you are nearly all students of some description. I find it very arrogant that you dismiss his ideas without any justification beyond 'that's stupid'. I will abstain from judgement because I do not consider myself capable of refuting his arguments on scientific grounds.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Can I just point out that the article doesn't claim that speciation will have occurred by 3000 A.D.

    It merely predicts the decline towards such an event will begin in the year 3000...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread calling the proposition ridiculous and laughable. The guy is a professor at LSE, and you are nearly all students of some description. I find it very arrogant that you dismiss his ideas without any justification beyond 'that's stupid'. I will abstain from judgement.
    Being a Professor at LSE does not make you qualified to talk about evolution. He is a politcal theorist, not a scientist, and this was not proper research but a essay of his. Probably to generate publicity, as it apparently did. For the Bravo channel.
    The claims are ridiculous to anyone who knows the first thing about evolution and the history of our species. Two distinct dramatically different subspecies emerging in the same population after 100,000 years? There are remote isolated populations in completely different climates who we've had no contact with for many tens of thousands of years, and they're barely any different. The whole thing is fancilful gibberish - 'humans losing their jaw structure from lack of chewing' 'bigger penises'. It's Buck Rogers meets Sex & The City, and most importantly it's wholey unsubstantiated.

    Ben Goldacre does a good job of it
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Formica)
    Being a Professor at LSE does not make you qualified to talk about evolution. He is a politcal theorist, not a scientist, and this was not proper research but a essay of his. Probably to generate publicity, as it apparently did. For the Bravo channel.
    The claims are ridiculous to anyone who knows the first thing about evolution and the history of our species. Two subspecies emerging in the same population after 1000 years? There are remote isolated tribes in completely different climates who we've had no contact with for many thousands of years, and they're barely any different. The whole thing is fancilful gibberish - 'humans losing their jaw structure from lack of chewing' 'bigger penises'. It's Buck Rogers meets Sex & The City, and most importantly it's wholey unsubstantiated.

    Ben Goldacre does a good job of it
    That's fine, I actually researched the guy and the story myself. My point was 'how many people have just said that this was ridiculous without any reasoning?'

    By the way, why is he described as an evolutionary theorist in the article?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    That's fine, I actually researched the guy and the story myself. My point was 'how many people have just said that this was ridiculous without any reasoning?'

    By the way, why is he described as an evolutionary theorist in the article?
    He's theorising about evolution, which considering the low standard of science reporting in the press is porbably enough.

    Come to think of it, you have a point that many dismissed it without reasoning. Maybe that's a reflex response to odd science in non-scientific media, I very much doubt there'd be as much laughing if had been published in Nature or Science.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Formica)
    Come to think of it, you have a point that many dismissed it without reasoning. Maybe that's a reflex response to odd science in non-scientific media, I very much doubt there'd be as much laughing if had been published in Nature or Science.
    Shall I try a 'scientists say particles can travel in two directions at once' or 'scientists say that electron is actually a wave' next? Or a 'mathematicians say that some infinities are bigger than others'?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Young Spade)
    Lol I could see where the idea is created, and I think that they're taking what is slightly (slightly) happening now and amplifying it 10 fold.

    This happens though, the people on extreme ends hardly ever come in contact with each other; upper-middle and higher don't work on the same level or have the same jobs as middle-lower and down (social class).

    As a result, and I'm going by rough guesses, all of this is made from observation, people tend to meet and communicate/live with people in their respective classes. If things continue the way they are now and it gets drastically harder to live, I could see a larger spread in the "quality" of human life and the people that live that way.

    I'm not sure about downgrading to goblins or something, but I could see the lower class groups of people "staying" there and it being a lot harder to rise out of that than it is today. Hell, governments are built like this. The people in power want to stay in power. Because of this, they make it hard for people not already there to climb up in the ladder.

    Once you get middle-upper middle class it's "easy" to stay there (generationally speaking) but it's a lot harder to climb there from poverty/lower classes.

    Sociology 101.
    I have three main issues with your post:

    Firstly, it is a misconception that class is genetically based. Class may be inherited, but not through DNA, it is a socially constructed ideology which is derived from land ownership and social ties. There are intelligent and thick people across the social spectrum. Being born into an upper class family is by no means a guarantor of being clever, we need look no further than Prince Phillip for evidence of this.

    Secondly, putting aside the previous flaw in your assertion for a moment, social mobility has increased exponentially over the last century, which implies interbreeding between different social classes is highly likely to have risen, not decreased. I find it very difficult to envisage a reversal of this process, since once people have had a taste of freedom, equality, liberty etc they're not likely to give it up lightly.

    Thirdly, anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of evolution should be aware that for the process of speciation to occur, an insurmountable physical or geographical barrier must separate two populations for a significant period of time (thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years). No social construct is strong enough to form such a barrier, especially not in a developed, liberal country. For example, I'm from what most would define as an upper middle class background, nevertheless if an attractive girl who happened to be working class should grant me the honour of attending to her lady garden, no vague concept of social hierarchy is likely to persuade me to keep it in my pants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds more like a social class divide than a species divide...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    Shall I try a 'scientists say particles can travel in two directions at once' or 'scientists say that electron is actually a wave' next? Or a 'mathematicians say that some infinities are bigger than others'?
    I've had a hard time convincing my family about some of the weirder parts of science, but surely TSR would be less mistrusting of real science? Not totally of course, we have our share of nutcases..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Formica)
    I've had a hard time convincing my family about some of the weirder parts of science, but surely TSR would be less mistrusting of real science? Not totally of course, we have our share of nutcases..
    Yeah, but sometimes it's difficult for a non-scientist to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. It's why companies selling quack health products all write things like 'quantum vibrations' and 'magnetic resonance energy' and 'hyper-ionic technology' on their websites. Although I do hope for better from TSR, excluding the creationists and the guy who didn't think infinity was 'real'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I love threads like this because all the science guys come out and start arguing with eachother. Only problem is, I'm not a science guy, so I can't join in :sad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    I love threads like this because all the science guys come out and start arguing with eachother. Only problem is, I'm not a science guy, so I can't join in :sad:
    Where?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.