Human Species May Split in Two


hermanntrude
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotianView Post

.


Oh wait the majority of Evolution is BS. I forgot.

not BS. just being bypassed by the human race currently. we keep people alive who would normally die and we allow those who genetically can't reproduce to reproduce, hence the weak as well as the fit survive and evolution stops working.

Also genetics are more complex than "if my mum and dad are ugly i will be ugly too". Much more complex.
 
elevennevele
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by WilliamAshleyView Post

Which one are your descendants?


Hm. Now rereading, I think I misunderstood. That this was implied as a question to myself! Um, disregard all that other gibberish. And very funny mister.
 
jimmoyer
#33
genetic laws?

thou child shall have intelligence as defined by the APA and the FDA
thou child shall not have any defects which will take up tax payer dollars
thou child shall worship the government and large multinational corporations

due to labour being cruel and unusual punishment, the child cannot be born from the mother, for it would be sentances to jail for assualt causing bodily harm

thou child shall be born in the acme baby machine as supplied from both the parents dead skin, as sexual organs are premiscuous and maybe even, smutten. since god only said to multiply and said sexual acts are unclean, obviously avoiding sex completely kills two birds with one stone.

I think that this would lead to really small people able to lift large wieghts with big heads, meanwhile they would wear a hologram, to appear or sound etc.. as they would like.
-----------------------------------------------WilliamAshley-----------------------------------------------------

Great predictions.

That last one about wearing a hologram is priceless.
 
Curiosity
#34
They do that in Hollyweird already...
 
humanbeing
#35
Quote:

everyone will be coffee-coloured because of interbreeding", now, do you REALLY think that kind of a comment wont stir up a lot of shyte?.

The interbreeding part sounds bad, for sure, since there is no 'inter' necessary, as we are all very closely related, regardless of skin colour and other typical markers of race, and we are all very much from from the same race.

Anyhow, I thought about that for a second, then I realized that one time a short while ago, I was babysitting my young cousin and he wanted to watch South Park.

So we watches the show, and it's an episode about US immigrants from the future coming to US of the present, getting jobs, banking their cash, and becoming rich in the future. Soon the entire town is flooded by immigrants from the future... Anyways, what is one characteristic of these immigrants from the future? They are all coffee coloured due to mixing of the 'races'.

South Park beat this economist by at least a year or two (maybe more, depending on how old that episode was).

edit: here is the episode in brief detail, by the way
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobacks (external - login to view)

(PS it shows a picture of what the coffee-coloured humans from the future will look like when they are about to get run over by a car)
Last edited by humanbeing; Oct 28th, 2006 at 10:32 PM..
 
sha_zapple
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotianView Post

haha....de-evolution? I thought we were only supose to get better. Like grow extra fingers and maybe wings or something....

Oh wait the majority of Evolution is BS. I forgot.

The article is definitly mostly full of crap, but no one claims evolution 'makes you better'. It adapts you to your particular situation. 'Better' is relative
 
dekhqonbacha
#37
i'm really surprised how hollywood affected the thought of Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry.
 
Nuggler
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Just the crappy parts.

Good one Kreskin.

Can I use it??

Ugg.
 
Nuggler
#39
Ah thank thet we done split inta a buncha branches alreddy lak. Lak, it don take but tooo er three generabatins fer genetek stuff ta happen eh.

Roun theees parts ma kin started as retards way bak wen, an stedilly bred fer looks n brayns. Over the dekades ah am proud ta saye, ah am the result of improvin genetiks. Ah hav mor then tooo teeff, got tooo ies sted of one, an ma hiQ is lak almos a hunnerd.......give er take eh.

So, hit do foller thet ma chillin is on the verg of a hiQ brakethru, an maye get offn welfair yet eh. Ifn not, theys chillin mite fer sure eh.

Ah ken c a fuw yeers dawn th lan, a doktor er a lawer, er maybee evun a plummer if wer luckee, in ar familee.

Thangs is a lookin up fer sur.

D'ugg.
 
jimmoyer
#40
more on evolution --- our evolution into a new species...


human nature
Full-Mental Nudity
The arrival of mind-reading machines.
By William Saletan
Updated Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at 5:02 AM ET




Years ago, Woody Allen used to joke that he'd been thrown out of college as a freshman for cheating on his metaphysics final. "I looked within the soul of the boy sitting next to me," he confessed (external - login to view).

Today, the joke is on us. Cameras follow your car, GPS tracks your cell phone, software monitors your Web surfing, X-rays explore your purse, and airport scanners see through your clothes (external - login to view). Now comes the final indignity: machines that look into your soul.
With the aid of functional magnetic resonance imaging (external - login to view), neuroscientists have been hard at work on Allen's fantasy. Under controlled conditions, they can tell from a brain scan which of two images you're looking at. They can tell whether you're thinking of a face, an animal (external - login to view), or a scene (external - login to view). They can even tell which finger (external - login to view) you're about to move.
But those feats barely scratch the brain's surface. Any animal can perceive objects and move limbs. To plumb the soul, you need a metaphysician. John-Dylan Haynes, a brilliant researcher at Germany's Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, is leading the way. His mission, according to the center, is to predict thoughts (external - login to view) and behavior (external - login to view) from fMRI scans.
Haynes, a former philosophy student, is going for the soul's jugular. He's trying to clarify the physical basis of free will. "Why do we shape intentions in this way or another way?" he wonders. "Your wishes, your desires, your goals, your plans—that's the core of your identity." The best place to look for that core is in the brain's medial prefrontal cortex (external - login to view), which, he points out (external - login to view), is "especially involved in the initiation of willed movements and their protection against interference."
To get a clear snapshot of free will, Haynes designed an experiment that would isolate it from other mental functions. No objects to interpret; no physical movements to anticipate or execute; no reasoning to perform. Participants were put in an fMRI machine and were told they would soon be shown the word "select," followed a few seconds later by two numbers. Their job was to covertly decide, when they saw the "select" cue, whether to add or subtract the unseen numbers. Then, they were to perform the chosen calculation and punch a button corresponding to the correct answer. The snapshot was taken right after the "select" cue, when they had nothing to do but choose addition or subtraction.
Until this experiment, which was reported last month in Current Biology (external - login to view), nobody had ever tried to take a picture of free will. One reason is that fMRI is too crude to distinguish one abstract choice from another. It can only show which parts of the brain are demanding blood oxygen. That's too coarse to distinguish the configuration of cells that signifies addition from the configuration that signifies subtraction. So, Haynes used software to help the computer recognize complex patterns in the data. To dissect human thought, the computer had to emulate it.
Each participant took the test more than 250 times, choosing independently in each trial. The computer then looked at a sample of the scans, along with the final answers that revealed what choices had actually been made. It calculated a pattern and used this pattern to predict, from each participant's remaining scans, his or her decisions in the corresponding trials. Haynes checked the predictions—add or subtract—against the participants' answers. The computer got it right 71 percent of the time.
I know what you're thinking: Why would anyone want a machine to read his mind? But imagine being paralyzed, unable to walk, type, or speak. Imagine a helmet full of electrodes, or a chip implanted in your head, that lets your brain tell your computer which key to press. Those technologies (external - login to view) are already here (external - login to view). And why endure the agony of mental hunt-and-peck? Why not design computers that, like a smart secretary, can discern and execute even abstract intentions? That's what Haynes has in mind. You want to open a folder or an e-mail, and your computer does it. Your wish is its command.
But if machines can read your mind when you want them to, they can also read it when you don't. And your will isn't necessarily the one they obey. Already, scans have been used to identify brain signatures of disgust (external - login to view), drug cravings (external - login to view), unconscious racism (external - login to view), and suppressed sexual arousal (external - login to view), not to mention psychopathy and propensity to kill (external - login to view).
Haynes understands the objection to these scans—he calls it "mental privacy"—but he buys only half of it. He doesn't like the idea of companies scanning job applicants for loyalty or scanning customers for reactions to products (an emerging practice known as neuromarketing (external - login to view)). But where criminal justice is at stake, as in the case of lie detection, he's for using the technology. Ruling it out, he argues, would "deny the innocent people the ability to prove their innocence" and would "only protect the people who are guilty."
I hear what he's saying. I'd love to have put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed through an fMRI before Sept. 11, 2001, instead of waiting six years (external - login to view) for his confession. And I wish we'd scanned Mohamed Atta's brain before he boarded that flight out of Boston. But what Haynes is saying—and exposing—is almost more terrifying than terrorism. The brain is becoming just another accessible body part, searchable for threats and evidence. We can sift through your belongings, pat you down, study your nude form through your clothes, inspect your body cavities, and, if necessary, peer into your mind.
FMRI is just the first stage. Electrodes, infrared spectroscopy, and subtler magnetic imaging are next (external - login to view). Scanners will shrink. Image resolution and pattern-recognition software will improve.
But don't count out free will. To make human choice predictable, you first have to constrain it so that it's not really free. That's why Haynes confined his participants to arithmetic, gave them only two options, and forbade them to change their minds. They could have wrecked his experiment by defying any of those conditions. So could you, if somebody came at you with a scanner or an electrode helmet. To look into your soul and get the right answer, science, too, has to cheat. Somewhere, Woody Allen is laughing. I can feel it.
A version of this article also appears in the Outlook section (external - login to view) of the Sunday Washington Post.
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War (external - login to view).

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2161936/ (external - login to view)var SA_ID="wpost;slate"; rs = PStax; DM_addToLoc("thisNode", rs); DM_tag();
Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
 
Curiosity
#41
LOL JimMoyer - what are you up to today

A reflexive MRI wouldn't work on me - there is very little to image ....

Unless I saw a picture of a chocolate ice cream cone - or a handsome guy in biker gear...

I would love to see an image of a person sneezing - would make a great wall hanging (the MRI not the sneeze).
 
MikeyDB
#42
Humanity is being 'split' through its own choice...

Al Gore vs. "ain't no such thing as global warming...

Liberal left-wing hypocrits vs. right thinking "rights"

War in Iraq/Afghanistan vs. corrupt American government....

pedophiles and rapists vs. capital punishment as the ultimate social "filter"....

Splitting continues...
 
tamarin
#43
Mikey, I bifurcated long ago. It came to me during one of those annual anti-littering campaigns when I tried to use my monkey brain and couldn't. I had the window down like thousands of other Canadian saps and the Mickey D's bag in my hand but I couldn't let it go. To join the trash Canadians love to leave on their roadsides. I realized then the monkey part of my brain was no longer there. It was gone. I was different from most of my fellow citizens. It was a good feeling but I also realized I was living amongst primitives. And it eggs me to this day: what should I be doing about it?
 
MikeyDB
#44
Tamarin

I can only suggest you do what I've been doing for decades...

Embrace your own spirit....be as kind and loving as you can to those about you who've withdrawn from life and sprinkle humor and generosity whenever and whereever you can...

I dint say it was easy....
 
tamarin
#45
Mikey, you're too kind. When I see a litterer I go into rage mode. It is only the long conditioning of civil society that prevents me ripping them apart.
 

Similar Threads

91
On the evolution of The Origin of Species
by Tonington | Sep 22nd, 2009
1
7
Have you seen any invasive species?
by Johnnny | Jun 8th, 2007
3
Scientists Uncover Possible New Species Of Human
by Rick van Opbergen | Oct 29th, 2004
no new posts