It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Human species 'may split in two'

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Human species 'may split in two'


news.bbc.co.uk

Oliver Curry, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, thinks two subspecies will emerge: a tall, slim, intelligent privileged class, and a short, squat, ugly, dim-witted race of servants.

If that sounds remarkably like what H.G. Wells foresaw in "The Time Machine" with his Eloi and Morlocks, that's because the division of species into slender "gracile" and husky "robust" forms occurs repeatedly in the evolutionary history of higher primates.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailymail.co.uk
www.foxnews.com




posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
We may be on an evolutionary track to split?! Much like in the book The Time Machine, where the rich pampered top dwellers evolved into feeble little people, and underground dwellers evolved into atough, aggressive species.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Phew, good think I don't believe in evolution.
Otherwise I might be worried about this.
Didn't the squat ones eat the thin guys in H.G. Wells story?



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I don't buy this guy's theory for a couple of observable reasons:

First off, hasn't anyone noticed that Hot chicks will often end up with really ugly guys? Seriously, check it out. It happens a lot. The old saying "opposites attract" is strangely valid.

Again, following social norms, we find that slender women are "the ideal", while husky men are considered more physically attractive. This means there will always be cross-breeding between slenders and huskies.

Then there's the fact that the rich and privileged also tend to become the useless and opulent. Being rich has very little to do with your intellect. It has a lot more to do with the class you are born into. True, there are cases where people make themselves wealthy through use of their intellect, but it's very rare. This suggests that the rich class will continue to degenerate, not evolve, until they are simply non-viable. This isn't speculation. It's a matter of record. Look at the various genetic issues in royal families.

So... I'm gonna have to call BS on this one.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


Right. Sort of. The lithe and beautiful agrarian surface dwellers, the "Eloi," were food for the large and ugly technological dwellers of the underworld, the "Morlocks."

Which doesn't really seem to support the premise advanced by the article that well.

However, whether one chooses to believe or not, doesn't negate the fact that evolution occurs.

But I fear this "split" will be the result of deliberate genetic tinkering by the elite, and not some random evolutionary polarization.

The question remains: To what extent will man have a hand in the conscious, true and manifest course of his own higher evolution?



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Do not believe this junk. I mean how much work can the "dim witted short" class really do? This world is balanced, and in order for this to happen it would mean fat, short people would interbreed, and the tall slim people would interbreed.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I was wondering what happened to my post, anyway here's my post from the other thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...


The time frame seems way off to me, in 100 years time mankind probably will have mastered genetic engineering. This means that they will be able make themselves as good looking and smart as they want.

Genetic engineering will probably be expensive though, so only the wealthy will be able to afford the really good enhancements. So I guess you'll end up with normal humans and a genetic master race.

Depending on genetic modification restrictions, the master race may itself branch of into millions of master races. Some may choose to have four arms, some super intelligence and others will be 50 feet tall.

I guess one of the challenges for the future will be to regulate human modification.




[edit on 27-10-2007 by Cthulwho]



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Evolution has been found to be false.

Link to thread with evidence that evolution is all wrong

We may still be interbreeding with other species of human that are so closely related that only certain tests being run would tell us that we are not all the same species. But that would be the only explaination that would make any sense now.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
Evolution has been found to be false.


Which is what you believe to be true.

However, the article you use as the basis for your assertion, actually doesn't reach your conclusion that the theory of evolution isn't valid.

Here's another, earlier article that states that there was probably no interbreeding between neanderthals and modern humans.

And here's yet another article that states there may have possibly, in fact, been interbreeding.

So whichever interbreeding theory you choose to believe, none of these serve to disprove the theory of evolution.

In fact I would venture to say they serve as further proof that evolution in fact occurs, based upon "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
Source | Dictionary.com | evolution: definition 3. biology

The scientific theory of evolution contains demonstrable proofs that can not be denied, no matter how much one wishes to believe, on faith, the facts to be otherwise.

Man is now poised at the brink of determining how our future evolution will occur.

An ethical dilemma of profound importance for the survival of all humanity.

What future man will look like, is of less importance to me, than what future man will be.

And who will be the ones to choose.




[edit on 27-10-2007 by goosdawg]



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
This article is more than a year old and Breaking News should be no more than 48 hours old.

Anyway, theories like this is completely worthless... 100.000 years away? As things are looking right now, we should be happy if we still exist in 50 years...



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Phew, good think I don't believe in evolution.
Otherwise I might be worried about this.
Didn't the squat ones eat the thin guys in H.G. Wells story?


Good 'think' I'm an Athiest, because I can totally see this happening. As Copernicus has already stated, who knows the direction of human evolution. We've just recently entered into a new technology era a little over 100 years ago. I couldn't imagine what all this GMO agriculture and hormonally altered food could possibly do to our genome, let alone the effects of all the other wonderous and rapidly advancing technologies. Human life would be a trip to see in another century. Let's hope it's for the better.



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   
To my carefully considered conclusion of this faulty future denouement I must interject with a few words.

Why would the ugly, goblin like species become dumbed down? I would think that since they have no looks to worry about that they'd focus only on intellect, whereas a specie spending more time caring about its looks would be more inclined to spend less time on intellect and more time on social behaviourisms. In revolving fact I encounter this every day. Look at models as opposed to Einstein or Tesla. I, for one, am an okay looking man... but my intellect tells me not to worry about my looks nor pamper my physical features with artificial beauty products... rather to take care of my body and my mind through physical excertion, exemplification: running, jogging, the gym, reading, writing, music, etcetera.

It is hereby my inference that such a scenerio playing out is merely scholastic hypothesis for the venture of recognition. I think the mind of this article is limited and not well thought out.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Because there's a grey area of the argument. They're not saying "all beautiful people" or "all the ugly people." They're saying "the best genetics." The argument, in a whole is a little more than skin deep.

Pun? I think so..


sty

posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   
indeed we will know more and more about our genetics - however at the moment I will have to agree with the posting. Why ? due the food quality used in the poor families - using increased quantity of poisoning chemicals as "food enhancers" . A lot of the intelligent / rich people will have enough knowledge and money to use "organic food" , and not poison the DNA of their kids ( I do not talk about music/film stars, but about intelligent people haha ) . Here in the UK we see this behavior a lot - rich and poor shopping their food in the same place - with rich grabbing the"organic" products that can be 5 times more expensive than the same non-organic product.
In a certain extent I believe in a theory of involution if we keep feeding us with food enhancers/additives etc..



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Its here as well:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   
There is an ongoing discussion here: Human race will 'split into two different species'

Thread Closed.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join