×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Human Species May Split In Two

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the if-we-don't-destroy-ourselves-first dept.

1000

gEvil (beta) writes "According to an article at the BBC, an evolutionary theorist in London suggests that humanity may split into two sub-species within the next 100,000 years. From the article: '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.'" No missing link here, we already have the troll-like humans to prove it.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1000 comments

So to be clear... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477199)

Half of us will be Swedish, and the other half will be British?

Re:So to be clear... (5, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477313)

Half of us will be Swedish, and the other half will be British?

Yes and the Brits will make revolting sausages out of the Swedes and eat them with bacon and eggs.

Re:So to be clear... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477337)

Somebody tag this as Old News, please! H.G. Wells made a very similar prediction more than a century ago.

Re:So to be clear... (5, Funny)

colonslashslash (762464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477353)

I'm British, but that was fucking hilarious. Mod up haha.

I, for one, welcome our futuristic tall, slim, attractive, intelligent and creative sauna loving meatball munching copyright infringing swashbuckling pirate blonde overlords. May death come quickly to their enemies. Yaaaaar!

Re:So to be clear... (3, Funny)

slughead (592713) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477355)

Half of us will be Swedish, and the other half will be British?

From the Oh-Snap! Dept.

Re:So to be clear... (3, Funny)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477393)

Half of us will be Swedish, and the other half will be British?


Nah, the top half will be the Mac users. The other half will be.. you know.

Re:So to be clear... (5, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477545)

I know! lets call one group Eloi and the other...oh...say Morlocks!
after all...you are who you eat...

How's that clear? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477565)

I can't see how the Swedes would turn into troglodytes. Oh. That's the British. Ah. I always thought there was something odd with the people in Milton Keynes.

Damn Straight (1)

Asshat Canada (804093) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477201)

Me vs. all the rest of you fuckers

I for one ... (1)

clyde009 (1014849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477323)

welcome our tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative overlords!!!!

I for one ... (revised) (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477577)

welcome our tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative overlords!!!!

I think you meant our short, squat, well developed and bigger-brained overlords.

Height tends to shorten one's lifespan.

Confounding factors (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477211)

*Snort!* Ha ha ha ha ha ha....... heeeee ha ha ha ha ha! *sniff*.......

In all seriousness though, there is nothing new here as this certainly plays off any number of sci-fi subjects going back to the late 1800s and early 1900s. People have been obsessed with this sort of thing for years and in fact, was the basis of racial profiling, discrimination, murder and genocide by the Nazis in the 1930s through eugenics.

The funny thing though is that even though many folks are obsessed with image and "beauty", people will choose mates for a variety of different reasons, that sometimes boggle the mind in their complexity or pathology and as long as you have people that are..... less than attractive with large amounts of financial reserves, you will always have confounds in the system. Other confounds are simply human relationships. For instance, my wife and I decided to date and then marry only after we had been good friends for some period of time. The fact that she is physically attractive [utah.edu] was only incidental which brings up a whole other category of people who meet and then fall in love over the Internet without ever having met in person.

Oh, and speaking of confounds, the increasing use of plastic surgery among those that 1) have real reason to use it (true disfigurement) and 2) are just vain enough to want it (lips, cheeks, chins, breasts) will have an effect on this as well, leading to a whole new aspect of relationships. What is false advertising when it comes to body modification? Breasts are pretty easy to detect, but what about that nose which might have been bobbed? Straightened? What about those cheekbones? Teeth? All of these mods and others will confound any selection pressure and likely will increase in their statistical impact the more important "beauty" becomes to societies.

But hey, you know..... The Clone Wars will take care of all of this sort of nonsense..... or will it be Skynet? :-)

Re:Confounding factors (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477367)

The funny thing though is that even though many folks are obsessed with image and "beauty", people will choose mates for a variety of different reasons, that sometimes boggle the mind in their complexity or pathology and as long as you have people that are..... less than attractive with large amounts of financial reserves, you will always have confounds in the system.

I whole heartedly agree. Many times a day I wonder why I married my wife.

Re:Confounding factors (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477603)

What is false advertising when it comes to body modification? Breasts are pretty easy to detect, but what about that nose which might have been bobbed? Straightened? What about those cheekbones? Teeth? All of these mods and others will confound any selection pressure and likely will increase in their statistical impact the more important "beauty" becomes to societies.


This is why you check out other members of the family. You get an idea what their mom and aunts grandmas look like. You can easily get an idea whether they've augmented and if they'll age "gracefully".

Stereotypical Predictions from Dr. Curry ... (5, Interesting)

skitheboat (901329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477213)

Direct quotes from Dr. Curry's article:
Men: "... bigger penises"
Women: "... pert breasts" (and presumably larger/fuller too)
I gotta wonder how valid this "research" truly is - sounds like something Dr. Frankenstein or Homer Simpson [komar.org] would have written - D'OH! ;-)

Well done ScuttleMonkey with the "Missing Link" addition.

Re:Stereotypical Predictions from Dr. Curry ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477321)

"No missing link here, we already have the troll-like humans to prove it." quote from original article.

They do, and they did not have to look very far either: Just go to arstechnica, you find the majority of their sampleset used in their forums boards members, moderators, & the owner.

Re:Stereotypical Predictions from Dr. Curry ... (4, Funny)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477349)

Women: "... pert breasts" (and presumably larger/fuller too)

Boy, he really hasn't studied human beings enough, has he? First he expects smart people to be beautiful (or the converse) and now he expects large boobs to be pert?

Re:Stereotypical Predictions from Dr. Curry ... (5, Funny)

dumdeedum (150099) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477541)

First he expects smart people to be beautiful (or the converse) and now he expects large boobs to be pert?

Hush up, you. They may have taken away our dreams of flying cars and houses on the Moon, but breasts that are both large and pert is a future worth fighting for!

The article author isn't named Wells (2, Insightful)

georgeha (43752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477219)

by chance?

Re:The article author isn't named Wells (1)

j3tt (859525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477497)

No but the article does mention that it would be something similar to what Wells foretold

From TFA ...

The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.

Evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477227)

TFA seems to consist merely of speculation. Is there any actual scientific reason for believing all the claims in there?

Re:Evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477301)

you...

It's already happening (2, Insightful)

TheWoozle (984500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477233)

Just take a look at professional athletes. They're bigger, stronger, and faster than even just two generations ago. We're starting to see more and more offspring of atheletes following in the footsteps of their parents. And to top it off, they make more money and have more prospects for reproducing.

Our genetic upper-class is already here.

Re:It's already happening (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477331)

"Our genetic upper-class is already here."

Umm, no it's not. You clearly have no understanding of evolution or genetics. It takes a liiitle longer than two or three generations to have a visible effect.

Re:It's already happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477569)

It takes a liiitle longer than two or three generations to have a visible effect.

Not really. Ask any dog breeder.

Re:It's already happening (3, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477389)

Yeah, but where do the brains come in? Athletes are not exactly known for their creativity or intelligence.

Re:It's already happening (5, Insightful)

masdog (794316) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477397)

They're bigger, stronger, and faster than even just two generations ago.

That's not evolution - that's steroids.

Re:It's already happening (1)

mackil (668039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477403)

Actually most studies show that the more affluent you are, the less likely you are to have a lot of children. Typically wealthy people have far less kids than poorer ones.

Re:It's already happening (1)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477587)

Actually most studies show that the more affluent you are, the less likely you are to have a lot of children. Typically wealthy people have far less kids than poorer ones.


Poor kids have a lesser likelihood of surviving due to poor health care and nutricent... so it balances out.

Re:It's already happening (3, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477449)

Sports stars are not it because they do not exclusively intermarry, and breast implants are not heritable. Instead, I think the fear is the "uncivilized" world. If we do not do something about it, Africans and the denizens of the Third World will fork into their own species. They do not get enough food, they do not get adequate health care, HIV/AIDS is killing everyone, and there is no selection for longevity because everyone dies young. This idea is horribly racist and insensitive, yes, but that's only because we have been acting in such a racist and insensitive manner. (Do you think we would let Caucasiasn starve to death?)

Re:It's already happening (1)

MasterC (70492) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477509)

Just take a look at professional athletes. They're bigger, stronger, and faster than even just two generations ago. We're starting to see more and more offspring of atheletes following in the footsteps of their parents. And to top it off, they make more money and have more prospects for reproducing.

Our genetic upper-class is already here.


The ironic thing is that the professional athletes exist in that form only because the non-professional athletes pay, IMHO, obscene amounts of money. If people wouldn't pay the money, the professional sports wouldn't exist, the athletes would not be as prominent, and their "prospects for reproducing" would be no different than anyone else. Which means their "upper-classness" is a direct dependence upon their ability to entertain not their genetics.

Their genes are the key to the door but the peoples' money is the bouncer.

Re:It's already happening (1)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477527)

On top of everything everyone else has said, professional athletes make up an almost invisible fraction of the human population, and there really just aren't enough of them, not to mention enough in-breeding amongst them to split off into a subspecies. Plus, while many of them are insanely wealthy, they're still not as wealthy as many CEOs out there...

I don't think that's the sort of wealth we're talking about anyways. It's actually a much more subtle difference--more between the lower classes, and upper-middle and above. I think the article is sort of insane though, as I've seen countless upper-middle class people who are not exactly the specimens of genetic superiority that TFA talks about.

Re:It's already happening (1)

knightmad (931578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477549)

This is due less to a genotypical trait (hardcoded in the DNA) and more a fenotypical one (better food, health care and, in the athletes case, training techniques and chemistry, a lot of chemistry).

I profoundly disagree that so called "lower class" are (or will ever be) necessarily less "tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative" (or that the upper class will be more) because all these improvements are getting through the mankind via the enviromnent and not via mutations in the genes, hence, being fenotypical and not passing to the offsprings. Lamarck's [wikipedia.org] theory, after all, got discredited after Darwin, didn't he?

On the other hand... (1)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477581)

They're also the most likely to be able to afford birth control, abortions, and be too busy to bother raising a child.

Re:It's already happening (1)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477585)

That's not quite how it works. While it is true that most top athletes do have a genetic disposition for growing the right muscles for their sport, a whole lot of being an athlete is also environmental influence. This does not start at physical exercise and technology, it already starts with being fed properly as an infant. Genes merely provide the boundaries of our physical existence.

The people in North Korea don't grow shorter with each generation because there is a fast-forward Darwinian selection at work. It's as simple as the terrible living conditions most North Koreans have been living in for the past years.

Re:It's already happening (1)

majaman (958076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477589)

"Just take a look at professional athletes." Sorry, that has little to do with breeding. Better, more effective training, better nutrintion and of course better drugs. You don't seriously believe that todays athletes are clean, do you? At least not the ones winning. The ones breeding for faster track times in the offspring are probably negligable in the big run of things anyway. Can it be 4-6 people worldwide? Small upperclass. Most babies are made in the spur of the moment anyway. Champagne and bubblebaths are dangerous things. Seriously, anyone thinking of track times during sex are unnatural freaks. Wait a minute, its started already. *puts tinfoil hat on and heads for the basement*.

Re:It's already happening (1)

bagboy (630125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477597)

Oh please... Umm let's see, more advanced training techniques, dietary science has evolved, high tech monitoring for maximum workout efficiency, medical advances in treating sports injuries (or preventing them). Athletes today have far superior methods of becoming the best over those of 2 generations ago. Not every advance is evolution of the species, but can be evolution of technology/science.

Why just two? (1)

Mab_Mass (903149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477269)

First of all, I think that this whole article is flamebait, but aside from that...

Why just two? If you honestly think that there will be enough of a split in the social structure, why limit this to just two species?

It seems to me that we will either keep going as a single species, or there will be splits, in which case the number of splits should be regarded as N. (For the sake of argument, I'm assuming no extinction, which is the least interesting possibility for an evolutionary biologist.)

Re:Why just two? (5, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477511)

You just made me think of something ... if there was a split in our species, how many people would find it a novelty to try to "mate" with the other species, and eventually bring us back to 1 species? The only way it would seem like they'd stay split is if the new species had a different # of chromosomes ...

Troll 1: Hey Biff, I just banged a Homo Tallenperty
Troll 2: Unga bunga ... sweet, can I have some more cheetos?

Seems like this would be repeated on both sides until we'd all be back to our mildly ghoulish yet mildly attractive selves of today.

The problem with this is (5, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477275)

That he's got his use cases mixed. Intelligent, creative people are far less likely to pay attention to personal appearance, where beautiful people are far less likely to pay attention to mental pursuits.

Re:The problem with this is (4, Insightful)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477447)

I can't tell if you are being funny or insightful, but I agree with your statement.

I think we are more likely to end up with intelligent goblins and beautiful brainless fairies, if there will only be two groups.

He's being Interesting - it's right there... (0, Offtopic)

Arathon (1002016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477591)

Apparently, he's being "Interesting", not Funny or Insightful.

Re:The problem with this is (4, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477605)

Intelligent, creative people are far less likely to pay attention to personal appearance

In order to dissuade you from this dellusion, I direct your attention to my dearest of college discoveries: Sexy art chicks.

Good timing... (5, Funny)

Arathon (1002016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477283)

I guess we should all be happy we came along now. Better to be dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures while it's still politically incorrect to call us such.

Metropolis (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477291)

Wow, did someone watch Metropolis recently.

Not Metropolis, just college. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477391)

This news is final confirmation of the Geek/Jock devide. ;)

Hey!! (4, Funny)

nate nice (672391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477293)

As a dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creature, I take offense to this!

You did it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477415)

It should be "I am a dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creature, you insensitive clod!"

Stats? (4, Funny)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477295)

So... what kind of stats do the short goblin-like humans get? Want to make sure I don't inadvertadly lower any of my prime skills. ;P

wait, that sounds familiar.. (5, Funny)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477299)

Mac users and PC users You work out which is which..

Re:wait, that sounds familiar.. (1)

j3tt (859525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477573)

How did the Linux users evolve? I assume they've already moved out to colonize other planets ...

Yowza! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477303)

Yeah... wait sorry, didn't HG Wells write about that a few years ago? A book called "Time Machine" I seem to remember.
 

Great work science, continuing to postulate sciece fiction!

That'll give a whole new defination.... (1)

banuk (148382) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477305)

for slummin it... now you can find a hot white trash girl and in the future you'll REALLY be slummin it

Fox (5, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477309)

Hey, it's only Fox New's fault if Republicans and Democrats entirely stop cross-breeding!

(You can't call it a troll if I don't say which one becomes the upper class :p)

Re:Fox (5, Funny)

slughead (592713) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477401)

(You can't call it a troll if I don't say which one becomes the upper class :p)

Sure I can! I'm libertarian, you insensitive clod!

Morlocks and Eloi, anyone? (5, Insightful)

sebFlyte (844277) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477311)

"He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo." Because I go to Bravo for all my evolutionary biology needs. This sounds like a joke, really. The guy in question got a cheque from a tabloid TV channel, nicked HG Well's idea, and laughed all the way to the bank. Nice work if you can get it.

Re:Morlocks and Eloi, anyone? (3, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477501)

You also have to take into account the bit that got cut from my blurb--he's from the London School of Economics. I don't know anything about that place, but from its name I'm guessing it's not particularly known for it's evolutionary biology program.

Read this somewhere before.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477315)

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.'"

What a load of Morlocks [wikipedia.org]

Does he think no-one will notice he's rehashing H.G. Wells?

Pets? Similar to gadgets? (3, Insightful)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477317)

"However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology. Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals." I fail to see the similarities between relying on a human owner and using "gadgets designed to meet our every needs". Technology doesn't think for itself, but who knows where we'll be in such a long time? Apparently, we'll have less advertisements for penis enlargement.

"Natives"? (1)

iMySti (863056) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477319)

I've actually been thinking about people who still live primitively on secluded islands in the Pacific or Indian Ocean that don't get much contact with those of us more technologically progressed. Wouldn't they likely be the first left behind in human evolution? We already treat them like another species, being allowed to show their "naughty bits" in the same way as animals on public access cable yet not the genitals of more civilized people.

Dr. Who (1)

Ice Wewe (936718) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477325)

No, someone's just been reading the script of the next Dr. Who episode, when the Doctor has to save the human race from becoming 2 sub species. Oh, wait, that's Surviver... my mistake!

**sigh** (1)

GmAz (916505) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477333)

Oh come on people. We are already like that. We have fat ugly people and drop dead gorgeous people. This guy is just looking for a way to get his name in the history books. He can make all the claims he wants because no one will ever remember his name or anything about our era in 100,000 years.

Complete bosh (1)

Dasher42 (514179) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477341)

You do indeed see natural speciation through sexual selection. Predicting this for a global and intermingling [web4health.info] population is absurd, especially in the next thousand years. More dramatic things would have to happen to divide the species than this researcher's supposed sexual hierarchy.

Interesting theory (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477365)

Now where the hell are those pesky facts in our past that would back this up..... oh wait, there are none since humanity has come to rely on technology for thousands of years yet has only shown improvement away from domesticated animals, rather than what he thinks.

Why wait 100,000 years? (1)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477371)

At what point can a person be classified as a different species? Is this somewhat arbitrary, like when the US officially declared someone to be the 300,000,000th American (the real 300,000,000th American should be highly offended by the way)? If saying that short "dim-witted" people indicate a separate species, we already have plenty of this new species running around - regardless of 'social class'.

I think this guys logic is pretty flawed though. For thousands of years, there have been the 'haves' and 'have nots' ... and class structures have always been in place. If his hypothesis were true, we'd have a group of 7 ft tall frail men and 6 ft tall women (with firm breasts I might add, yes - he actually predicts this to be widespread by 3000AD) running around today, all descendants of the royalty of the past.

This ignores history (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477377)

The problem with this is that throughout history, the ruling class has changed many times. The rich and powerful tend to get beheaded from time-to-time, making way for a new rich and powerful set. Putin has little lineage from Catherine the Great, Chirac has little relation to Marie Antoinette...

obligatory charles heston reference (2, Funny)

triffid_98 (899609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477379)

A planet where apes evolved from men?

Nova was the perfect woman. Beautiful, Compliant, Mute.

It could certainly happen... (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477411)

But it's ridiculous to make such concrete predictions. TFA reads like an Onion article without the humor.

Cup Holders! (2, Funny)

the_last_tmnt (1014855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477413)

Following his logic, we will all also grow cup holders out of our sides and men will develop urinals out of the end of their genitals.

Re:Cup Holders! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477557)

And if they do grow urinals, you can bet that bastard Stan Marsh will pinch off a chocolate hot dog in one...

Except one problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477427)

You know, the idea of there developing two more distinctive populations is acceptable, however, saying that one will find themselves repulsive and the other will find themselves beautiful is not anything near scientifically strong-- well, it's Slashdot. Animals that tend to mate with certain animals will, over time, develop a liking for those characteristics. Kind of like how mating with those women with bigger thighs leads to more healthy, reproducing offspring. Saying that the poor will hate their looks and be trolls is not an accurate prediction.

You may look at a foreigner and think, "You want me to sleep with that?" and that does not mean that every possible subjective interpretation of that person is negative.

Damn... Another 100,000 years?? (1)

JL-b8 (862188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477429)

Common Sauron!!! You said I'd have my Army in WEEKS!?!? Damnit!

Hmmmm... soma (2, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477441)


The summary mentions Alphas and Epsilons, but glosses over the transitional Betas, Gammas and Deltas.

Or Wellsian... (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477443)

This is a very HG Wells-ish concept.

Incidentally, George Pal's version of "Time Machine" had a young, red-haired James Doohan in a supporting role, chatting about satellites and war just as the sirens went off and the protagonist decided to move the lever forward and skip WW3 altogether (wise man).

I want to romp amongst the Eloi, myself. That Weena was hot!

Umm... (5, Funny)

M0bius (26596) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477445)

Musicians are proof of how untrue this theory is because they show time and again that the hottest of ladies will sleep with the ugliest of guys as long as they can play a guitar, normalizing the gene pool.

More, and much sooner... (1)

seven of five (578993) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477451)

In the next 50-100 years, with advances in biology, nanotechnology, and the like, our descendents will see far bigger leaps than 'pretty people/ugly people'. We will re-engineer ourselves utterly, down to our very molecules.

100,000 years? Bah! (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477455)

I've gone from tall, slim, attractive, creative and intelligent to my current state just in the last 10 years.

Turning 40 is the Mordock-Tipping-Point.

100.000 years? (1)

Xymor (943922) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477471)

I'd say in 100 years tops we should have the genetic manipulation capabilites shown in Gattaca [wikipedia.org] . This guy is very off.

Troll-like humans? (2, Funny)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477475)

No missing link here, we already have the troll-like humans to prove it.
Yeah, they're called politicians!

Come on... high five! Anybody?

Sounds like a rehash of "The Bell Curve" (1)

NatteringNabob (829042) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477495)

which people took seriously even though both of the authors were completely, totally ignorant of even the most basic evolutionary theory (and fairly shoddy researchers and statisticians to boot). LOOKS LIKE A joke and/or flamebait by somebody that fancies himself a modern Jonathan Swift. Or perhaps Dr. Curry is really Tim Curry AKA Dr. Frankenfurter.

100,000 years? (1)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477505)

With the current growth of the population, the pollution of our environment, the amount of mass destruction weapons and the tricks mother nature (and the universe) plays on us, I don't think that we have to worry much about what is happening in 100,000 years. Let's first survive the next hundred years, and do that a thousand times :-)

So the Chinese will become tall and slender? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477519)

If you were looking at such things, you'd have to ask who they were sampling. Seems to me the European groups (including many Americans) are in decline, and other groups are increasing.

On a genetic level, race is pretty meaningless, however, from a scientific perspective.

Hrm... (1)

PieSquared (867490) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477533)

While I could see a genetic split between the upper and lower income classes occurring over that timeframe, and the "upper" class species would obviously follow about those genetic specifications... I don't see the lower class changing as described. What genetic advantage is their in being small, dim-witted, and ugly? How would ugly or stupid make you more likely to have kids? I'd assume that the "lower" class would "choose" the same traits as the upper class, and while the really smart or beautiful ones might get "pulled" into the upper class before the split happened (and even shortly after) once there was a genetic basis for split species, the "lower" class would start evolving to match the upper class. Or so it seems to me.

Beergoggles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16477547)

I can't see how this works out, don't we all like a bit of rough now and again?

everyone can say crazy things (1)

Shar-Kali-Sharri (890290) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477555)

This is like being a futurist ... "I predict that mobile phones will be used for many things in the future" (actually stated by danish futurist). And that is okay, because nobody takes futurists seriously (at least not when they call themselves futurists - it is something else when it's sci-fi authors) ... but this evolutionary theorist title makes it sound like science ... which it is clearly not..... I'll have a go: "In 100.000 years we'll al be dead says scientist-guy" ... wuhuu shut up ..

Coffee-colored?? (1)

denebian devil (944045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16477571)

If the blatant rip off the Time Machine wasn't enough to make me completely lose any respect for this article, the reference to the ironing out of the races and the development of a "uniform race of coffee-coloured people" just put the last nail in that coffin.

Skin tone is not the result of blending in the sense that the article leads us to believe. This site [backintyme.com] explains it quite nicely. Dark skinned people can produce children with much lighter skin than either of the parents, just as light skinned people can produce children with much darker skin than either of the parents, because the genes for one skin tone can be masked in one person, but then get passed on and expressed in their child. No matter how much inter-racial breeding happens, humans will not all eventually converge on one "coffee-colored" skintone. And if the article can't even bother getting that right, what does that really say for the rest of it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...