The End of Humanity - Page 8

On August 14 2008 07:13 HeadBangaa wrote:

Whenever I read papers on modern anthropology, it clearly indicates that humans are experiencing rapid evolutionary change. You tried to claim that wasn't the case. The blue eyes are just one example.

If some culture considers it extremely sexy to have, let's say, a large nose, then the large nose people will be more successful in reproducing. It's that simple.

On August 14 2008 10:46 imBLIND wrote:


Yes asian men will be extinct by the year 2050

On August 14 2008 16:54 b_unnies wrote:
sadly it might be world war 3 that finishes everyone off

On August 14 2008 16:21 BottleAbuser wrote:
We're failing to distinguish microevolution from macroevolution here. Blue eyes are not a new genetic trait. We're not seeing anything new here - the frequency of the gene in the population may be changing, but we're not seeing any changes to the gene.

If we started seeing, say, purple eyes, or 4 eyes, or 2 hearts, or whatever, that would be macroevolution and the stuff of species distinction.

The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[2]

On August 14 2008 21:10 BottleAbuser wrote:
I'm gonna have to disagree with Wikipedia and American Association for the Advancement of Science here.

There is the change in the genetic pool where the frequency of certain traits change, and then there is the change where new genes are added and some are removed. The former happens quickly enough for us to observe visibly. The latter happens on such a slow scale that we won't be able to see any changes in our lifetimes. Probably.

Use your own terms to tell the two apart, I prefer the terms microevolution and macroevolution.

On August 14 2008 21:10 BottleAbuser wrote:
I'm gonna have to disagree with Wikipedia and American Association for the Advancement of Science here.

There is the change in the genetic pool where the frequency of certain traits change, and then there is the change where new genes are added and some are removed. The former happens quickly enough for us to observe visibly. The latter happens on such a slow scale that we won't be able to see any changes in our lifetimes. Probably.

Use your own terms to tell the two apart, I prefer the terms microevolution and macroevolution.

On August 14 2008 16:02 DrainX wrote:

As far as I know no one in this thread has disputed that evolutionry change was taking place in humans up to very recently. In fact, I think evolution was happening very quickly until recently. The changing from nomad/hunter gatherer to setteling down in communities would have changed the evolutionary pressure on humans a lot and that only happened some 15,000 - 50,000 years ago. The debate was whether or not it is taking place right now and whether or not it would make us evolve into another species.


That is not enough for evolutionary change to happend.

First of all sexual preference varies. During the 1700s in Europe it was considered attractive to be fat since it was a simbol of wealth. Just a few years ago what was considered attractive was different from what it is today. Like you say it has to do with culture and culture changes. For evolutionary change to happend the pressure has to be in a certain direction for thousands of years not for ten or a hundred years that a cultural fad lasts.

Secondly since the invention of contraceptives coupled with humans ability to plan ahead and make decitions that go againt their instincts being sexy in the eyes of other humans doesnt mean you will get more offspring. You can have sex every day since you turn 15 and never have children. Many attractive and succesful people choose not to have any kids since they dont have the time and even here culture has a large effect on how many kids we get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

Physical attractiveness is the perception of the physical traits of an individual human person as pleasing or beautiful. It can include various implications, such as sexual attractiveness and physique. Judgment of attractiveness of physical traits is partly universal to all human cultures, partly dependent on culture or society or time period, and partly a matter of individual subjective preference.

Despite the existence of universally agreed upon signs of beauty in both genders, both heterosexual and homosexual men tend to place significantly higher value on physical appearance in a partner than women do.[1] This can be explained by evolutionary psychology as a consequence of ancestral humans who selected partners based on secondary sexual characteristics, as well as general indicators of fitness (for example, symmetrical features) enjoying greater reproductive success as a result of higher fertility in those partners, although a male's ability to provide resources for offspring was probably signalled less by physical features.[1] There appear to be universal standards regarding attractiveness, such that raters agree who is and isn't attractive both within and across cultures and ethnicity.

On August 13 2008 14:01 spetial wrote:
i hate everyone that voted rapture because they are most likely a bunch of ignorant assholes