Human evolution

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Human evolution

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:23 am

Reference : New Scientist, 25 February 2017, paqe 10.

Humans are still evolving. The article referenced above tells of how south American peoples who have lived in a part of the Atacama Desert have evolved resistance to arsenic. The limited water supply comes with arsenic. Any other peoples would have terrible side effects, such as losing a lot of babies to miscarriage. But the native peoples of this area have an enzyme that metabolises arsenic into a form that is easily excreted. This evolution occurred since people first populated that area 7,000 years ago.

It is worth noting that the 7,000 year figure also applies to lactose tolerance, evolved by mainly Europeans since cattle farming about the same time.

Evolution has not stopped. Humans continue to evolve.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3058
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Human evolution

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:32 am

Evolution is a two-step process of mutation and selection.
Modernity has done its best to suppress the effects of selection whilst increasing the effects of mutation through increased population sizes and global travel/interracial marriage.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:31 am

Why do people assume that survival of the less fit stops evolution?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gord » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:29 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why do people assume that survival of the less fit stops evolution?

There's no such thing. [T]hose who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit. If you survive to procreate, then you are among the fit.

Also, in the broadest sense, evolution occurs whenever you procreate. Your children aren't clones, so your descendants have experienced "descent with modification". The next thing they experience is "natural selection", otherwise known as "survival of the fittest" which I just mentioned.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:33 pm

Gord wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why do people assume that survival of the less fit stops evolution?

There's no such thing. [T]hose who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit. If you survive to procreate, then you are among the fit.

Also, in the broadest sense, evolution occurs whenever you procreate. Your children aren't clones, so your descendants have experienced "descent with modification". The next thing they experience is "natural selection", otherwise known as "survival of the fittest" which I just mentioned.

However, that's not what I meant.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gord » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:01 pm

That doesn't help.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:02 pm

Gord wrote:That doesn't help.

Yep.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:26 pm

Gord wrote:That doesn't help.

To expand now that I'm back on a computer with a keyboard:

All kinds of minimally survivable critters are alive in any population at any time. That doesn't stifle the effects of the most fit on the population in the long haul. We know that wolves will feed and care for disabled members of their packs and have done this for who knows how long. Those animals were barely fit to survive, but they did. We can't know how many reproduced, but it's certainly not out of the question that they did.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gord » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:52 pm

That's still not what the term "fit" in "survival of the fittest" means. I'll repeat from my previous post: [T]hose who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit. If you survive to procreate, then you are among the fit. Delineations like "most" or "minimally" or "barely" don't enter into it. Now it's up to your children, who may face entirely different natural selections. Their fitness will be determined by whether or not they survive to procreate.

"Survival of the fittest" was just another way of saying "natural selection", which was just another way of saying "they didn't die for any of a multitude of reasons".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Human evolution

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:59 pm

Here is a question.

Based on the fact that humans are continuing to evolve, what are they evolving into?

I have often thought that, assuming the desire to have children is at least partly genetic, that over time, more and more of the human population will be descended from those women who most want children. Now that procreation is no longer an inevitable consequence of the expression the sex drive, only those women who actually want offspring will have them. Does this mean that, at an indeterminate time in the future, all women will have evolved a powerful instinct to have lots of children?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:08 pm

Gord wrote:That's still not what the term "fit" in "survival of the fittest" means. I'll repeat from my previous post: [T]hose who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit. If you survive to procreate, then you are among the fit. Delineations like "most" or "minimally" or "barely" don't enter into it. Now it's up to your children, who may face entirely different natural selections. Their fitness will be determined by whether or not they survive to procreate.

That makes no sense. It's not an either/or situation. Some are barely fit to survive, others are very fit to survive. Most are in the middle.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Human evolution

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:24 pm

Gawd

Fitness in this context is defined after the event. Fitness means surviving long enough to produce offspring, regardless of what characteristics define that individual.

For example, I know I am now defined as "unfit". That is because I am past my reproductive age and have no offspring. I am tall, moderately athletic, healthy, and intelligent enough to have earned a university degree. But I am nevertheless unfit due to not having passed on my genes. A man who is short, dumpy, stupid, and un healthy is much more "fit" if he makes lots of babies.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:29 pm

Your definition works for you model. Mine works for all models.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3058
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Human evolution

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:33 pm

Human evolution might be heading for a dead end: baby heads are so big that natural birth is unusually risky for both mother and child.
But by using cesarian to circumvent this problem we might have enabled genotypes that can't procreate without modern medicine.
Our biological evolution is now largely co-dependent on the evolution of our technology.

We do, however, have the largest genepool in the history of any mammal, so we can fully expected some humans to survive whatever massive selection event the future might bring.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Human evolution

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:05 am

EM

Humans have been 100% dependent on technology for most of our existence. For the first 190,000 years our species has been alive, that technology consisted of things like knapped stone tools, fire, woven cord, woven bags etc. Today the technology we depend on is more sophisticated. But the first humans of 200,000 years ago would not have survived without their technology, and we cannot survive today without ours. Big deal!

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:31 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Human evolution might be heading for a dead end: baby heads are so big that natural birth is unusually risky for both mother and child.
But by using cesarian to circumvent this problem we might have enabled genotypes that can't procreate without modern medicine.
Our biological evolution is now largely co-dependent on the evolution of our technology.

We do, however, have the largest genepool in the history of any mammal, so we can fully expected some humans to survive whatever massive selection event the future might bring.

Third world women don't have the Cesarean option as much as first world women, but they keep on having babies.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19623
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Human evolution

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Gawd

Fitness in this context is defined after the event. Fitness means surviving long enough to produce offspring, regardless of what characteristics define that individual.

For example, I know I am now defined as "unfit". That is because I am past my reproductive age and have no offspring. I am tall, moderately athletic, healthy, and intelligent enough to have earned a university degree. But I am nevertheless unfit due to not having passed on my genes. A man who is short, dumpy, stupid, and un healthy is much more "fit" if he makes lots of babies.

Seems education is contributing to the global dimming.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Human evolution

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:39 pm

I'd say it's we educate people on the matter and what attitudes we intentionally or unintentionally instill towards it.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Human evolution

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:48 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Gord wrote:That's still not what the term "fit" in "survival of the fittest" means. I'll repeat from my previous post: [T]hose who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit. If you survive to procreate, then you are among the fit. Delineations like "most" or "minimally" or "barely" don't enter into it. Now it's up to your children, who may face entirely different natural selections. Their fitness will be determined by whether or not they survive to procreate.

That makes no sense. It's not an either/or situation. Some are barely fit to survive, others are very fit to survive. Most are in the middle.

Within the context of evolution of a species, fit has the definition that it has to help explain how creatures can pass on their genes. The intent behind behind using here it is different from common usage.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:04 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Gord wrote:That's still not what the term "fit" in "survival of the fittest" means. I'll repeat from my previous post: [T]hose who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit. If you survive to procreate, then you are among the fit. Delineations like "most" or "minimally" or "barely" don't enter into it. Now it's up to your children, who may face entirely different natural selections. Their fitness will be determined by whether or not they survive to procreate.

That makes no sense. It's not an either/or situation. Some are barely fit to survive, others are very fit to survive. Most are in the middle.

Within the context of evolution of a species, fit has the definition that it has to help explain how creatures can pass on their genes. The intent behind behind using here it is different from common usage.

And that relates to my post in what fashion?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Human evolution

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:14 pm

Gawdzilla
You're not wrong about the dictionary diffenition you brought up about "fit." But the scientific diffenition isn't wrong either; within it's context. It's jargon.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:21 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:Gawdzilla
You're not wrong about the dictionary diffenition you brought up about "fit." But the scientific diffenition isn't wrong either; within it's context. It's jargon.

Show me in context where I'm wrong. So far it's been assertions from several people. Citation required.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Human evolution

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:06 pm

http://www.shomusbiology.com/evolutionary-biology1.html

Definition from above reference. Evolutionary fitness is an organism's ability to survive and reproduce.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Human evolution

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:49 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:http://www.shomusbiology.com/evolutionary-biology1.html

Definition from above reference. Evolutionary fitness is an organism's ability to survive and reproduce.


Yes. it has nothing to do with the ability to flourish.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Human evolution

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:12 pm

Yeah, it may make it easier to reproduce if an organism is doing well, but it's not necessary for it to be that way.
That's cold logic for you.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:13 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:http://www.shomusbiology.com/evolutionary-biology1.html

Definition from above reference. Evolutionary fitness is an organism's ability to survive and reproduce.

That's what I've been saying.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Human evolution

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:45 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Gord wrote:That's still not what the term "fit" in "survival of the fittest" means. I'll repeat from my previous post: [T]hose who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit. If you survive to procreate, then you are among the fit. Delineations like "most" or "minimally" or "barely" don't enter into it. Now it's up to your children, who may face entirely different natural selections. Their fitness will be determined by whether or not they survive to procreate.

That makes no sense. It's not an either/or situation. Some are barely fit to survive, others are very fit to survive. Most are in the middle.

Within the context of evolution of a species, fit has the definition that it has to help explain how creatures can pass on their genes. The intent behind behind using here it is different from common usage.

(my bold)
Ok, sorry about that. :oops:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gord » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:55 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Human evolution might be heading for a dead end: baby heads are so big that natural birth is unusually risky for both mother and child.
But by using cesarian to circumvent this problem we might have enabled genotypes that can't procreate without modern medicine.
Our biological evolution is now largely co-dependent on the evolution of our technology.

We've also bred cows to be dependent upon humans to take care of them. Milking cows need to be milked or their udders can swell up so large that they step on them when they walk. Image one of them trying to outrun a predator.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Human evolution

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:08 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Human evolution might be heading for a dead end.
Gord wrote:We've also bred cows to be dependent upon humans to take care of them.
I see, so you two are suggesting some sort of convergent evolution will take place. Interesting....... :D
cow.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gord » Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:45 pm

It's only logical.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3058
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Human evolution

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:39 am

I've long advocated to use Gene Splicing to make humans capable of digesting grass -

more meat for me.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19425
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:55 am

ElectricMonk wrote:I've long advocated to use Gene Splicing to make humans capable of digesting grass -

more meat for me.

Mooooove over, buddy!
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Human evolution

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:57 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Human evolution might be heading for a dead end.
Gord wrote:We've also bred cows to be dependent upon humans to take care of them.
I see, so you two are suggesting some sort of convergent evolution will take place. Interesting....... :D
cow.jpg


It's udderly ridiculous to put those things on a male.

(OTOH, it might explain why Matthew has no kids)
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Human evolution

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:06 pm

On gene splicing, and a total irrelevancy.
Interesting to note that a new gene therapy seems to have totally cured for the first time ever, a case of sickle cell anemia. Expanded capability in gene therapy might fix a lot of problems.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Human evolution

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:25 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:On gene splicing, and a total irrelevancy.
Interesting to note that a new gene therapy seems to have totally cured for the first time ever, a case of sickle cell anemia. Expanded capability in gene therapy might fix a lot of problems.


Revolutionary evolution.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7360
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Human evolution

Postby TJrandom » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:08 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote: ... It's udderly ridiculous to put those things on a male. ...


I dunno... I always enjoyed having the human ones touching me....

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Human evolution

Postby Gord » Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:02 am

"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7360
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Human evolution

Postby TJrandom » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:51 am

Gord wrote:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/moobs


That is one screwed up site... it won`t scroll... maybe you need to know the secret password... starts with a `b`.... not with an `m`.... :roll:

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Human evolution

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:38 pm

Some fun bits from our evolutionary history: https://youtu.be/UPggkvB9_dc

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Human evolution

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:32 am

Image
Scientists don't know everything, therefore my favorite flavor of stoopidz is true.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest