Dark Legacy MUD Forum

Exactly. I just wanted someone to articulate it correctly instead of giving some half-crocked example and spreading misinformation.

Here's an excellent treatment of the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-e ... _evolution

Major victory for evolution: Read it here and form your own judgement.

Evidence that may cripple irreducible complexity defenders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html

transitional fossil records between fish and tetrapods found.
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

this link is for isabelle
http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuse ... 4251974707

At what point in time did evolution deside to make diffrent sexes when it makes more logical sense from an evolution point of veiw to keep each asexual (How ever its spelled)

I fail to understand how we could of came from ooze, both sexs suddenly all came out at the same time ?

Perhaps it's just me, but the separation into separate sexes seems like a specialization that helped a creature survive better at some point. It's also not like all species have set sexes. They can also be asexual or hermaphroditic, depending on what aids more to the survival of a species. In species that have separate sexes, the different sexes generally act instinctively differently, supporting the idea of specialization.

I'm glad you bring up this because this is intricately tied to evolution.

There are two types of reproduction strategies and they both have their advantages and disadvantages. One is asexual and the other one is sexual. Asexual reproduction is the regeneration of a new individual of a species that is genetically identical to a single parent (cloning). Sexual production is the mixing of the genomes from a male and a female of a species to produce offspring that differ genetically from both parents. Of course. I'm sure you already know this.

Asexual production can hapen by fission, budding or parthenogenisis.
Sexual reproduction can happen by fusion or for our particular species, alot of alcohol and a wild party.

Asexual reproduction is good because it requires very low energy. Many bacteria and viruses CAN do this but they dont have to. The disadvantage is the low genetic variability limits capacity to change meaning that it is highly resistant to evolution. The daughter will looks exactly the same as the mother. the genome is conserved 100% under normal conditions. If mommy was alergic to iodine so will the daughter. Notice that it resists evolution to some degree but it is not absolutely immune to evolution. Sexual reproduction on the other hand requires alot of energy (we all should know this by now :p). The bright side is that we end up with genetic variability. This happens because the mother and the father exchange genetic materials. Their DNA crosses during metaphase of mitosis. chromosomes are very "sticky," they will swap to where they touch. When the chromosomes splits it is now not the same, it is a combination of mother and father. This is why children come out with the father's nose and the mother's hair and so on. Not to mention that there are also additive affects but lets ignore that to keep it simple.

So the question is "how did asexual reproduction give rise to sexual reproduction?"

It is through the process of evolution. I will not explain how this came about because i would have to resay what i said two or three posts ago all over again. What i will explain is how can such phenotype is conserved in the genepool. This has to do with fitness. Like I said, sexual reproduction offers gene diversity. Diversity is good (this is why children of biracial parents are often bigger, stronger, smarter, and get sick less than the average child of the same racial parents)Diversity ensures the greater survival of the population because diversity generates different fitness. The greater the variability the chances are natural selection can not put pressure on all. If natural selection can only put pressure only on a few, the rest will escape because they have a different fitness. Those that escape eradication can repopulate the population creating more diversity. Here is an example in simpler terms for those that have no clue what i jus said.


Imagine a black group of moth in England. These moth are tend to anchor themselves to the lower half of trees in the city. The moths' predators are birds. Usually some moths are eaten and other escape predation depending on how well they can blend in with the color of the tree's bark. Lets just say that one day the city decided to spray paint all trees white like what they sometime do here. Now these trees are completely white exposing the black moths to all predators. Birds can now spot them easily and eat them all. This population of moth is screwed because they have no diversity. Had this population had diversity resulting in a population of moths with many different colors (including white), the white ones would have escaped death when the trees are painted white. These that escape death can then give rise to black moths again. Before you can understand how white moths give rise to black moths you have to understand dominance and recessive genes, but lets not go in that direction.

Sexual reproduction generates diversity. Diversity offers a better chance of escaping death.

---------------------
now you know how sexual reproduction is tied to evolution, now you can understand why:

1.Incest is prohibited in most places
2.Incest is avoided by most animals
3.Self pollination is avoided by many flowering plants
4.How some of the roman emperors turned out retarded.
5.Why royal bloodlines usually produce children with major heritary diseases in the past.
6.why we dont find our siblings sexually attractive no matter how good looking they are.(there are exceptions...those sick mtf)
7. why do we end up with typical progressors and late progressors for some HIV patients?
8. what are the role of antibodies in respect to diversity?


-----------
response to quintos.

Yes you are correct. It is a survial strategy.

(i didnt write this)
AAAS Responds to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Controversy


According to a study conducted by Education Week, many other states have standards that “fail to address the fundamental evidence supporting the theory, which explains how life on Earth developed…. the age of the Earth, internal similarities among organisms, or the common ancestry of different species.â€

F*** status.

Evolution is most likely, whereas creationism (or intelligent design) is a shot in the dark. Not saying any is correct, one just happens to have physical evidence, and it ain't the latter.

One could ask, "Why exist? What's the nature of reality as we know it?" This could be a basis for intelligent design theory, because it presents the idea the cosmos has a 'will' that it wants to accomplish. Then you could get into the argument of whether it's a singular, or multi-faceted?

Creationism is mostly garbage. I wouldn't be suprised if there's some misunderstood metaphors used in some biblical texts that may really have some basis as to how things got started. But largely garbage. However, that's easy to say now, being hundreds of years from now we could be creating entire species via gene engineering. We'd be playing the God figure then, and should we accidently leave some intelligent apes on some random planet, who knows what they'll end up saying about us epochs from then, eh?

What if we're just jumping through hoops for absolutely nothing? Time does eventually run out. One of two things will happen, either we keep expanding till physical matter is ripped apart by dark matter/energy, or it all collapses back in on itself... over and over... to what end? What's the bleeding point of that I ask? Doesn't sound very intelligent to me, rather mindless really.

Snowflake stated that a lot of the evidence given in support of evolution in textbooks has been proven wrong, and recieved a lot of flak over that statment. However Snowflayke is correct, the famous Scopes Monkey Trial is a good example. Many textbooks still make referance to it. Often with a statment like, "It has been proven in a court of law that evolution is valid". But, nearly every piece of evidence used to support evolution in that famous case has been proven false over time, the teeth used turned out to be pigs teeth, and so on. Even Charles Darwin had his doubts about evolution latter in life. Yet none of this is ever printed in our textbooks.

Not that this means evolution is wrong, but we should stop putting outdated and wrong information in our childrens textbooks. We can not disreguard the vast amount of data that supports evolution within the animal kingdom. My only trouble with the theory is when it is applied to humans. We call ourselves Homo Sapien, man the wise, Homo Ignoramous would be more accurate.

Homo Sapien, we gave ourselves that name in part because we have such a large brain, most of which we do not use. One of the things we were taught in school was that we only use 10% of our brain. Show me one, just one example where evolution produced a creature with 90% more of something than it needs. A bird with 90% more wing than needed, a fish with 90% more fin than it needs.

The rest of the universe can be explined by science or religion without them butting heads, but humans love to argue to much for that to ever happen.

Enough for now, my wife is haveing car trouble, got to run.

I'm glad you point this out because it is a myth. We use all of our brain.


It has not yet been proven. Infact nothing is proven in science, it is only supported. Human evolution is the biggest debate ever since Darwin's discovery. If evolution can happen to every animals in this world, i dont see any reason why it can not be applied to us as well. I'm curious, why do you think it can not be applied to humans?


I agree, but poor school districts can not afford new books with new information. These schools often settle for outdated books that are no longer used by richer schools. Also, there's alot of politics involved. I know there are some biology books in some states does not even mention the word evolution once.



Introns. About 98% of the human genome is junk. Genetic code that codes for nothing. Nonsense. These are copied by transposable elements. Sort of like a genetic virus. HOwever, scientists are beginning to question whether these introns are really junk DNA, so Arureal, you may be right. Personally, I dont think species have extra features that are not usable (in the long run). Evolution says that unbenificial features will get stamped out and become lost.


yes, but I believe that only one is correct or at least a bit of both are correct. Personally, I accept evolution because it makes sense in everyway so it is PROBABLY correct. Theological explaination leaves too much room for doubt so I would have to say that it is PROBABLY wrong.

hey Kazin/Celeborn,

I wonder how Europe handles this topic? Care to offer some input?

I just want to point out that Wikipedia is no longer a powerful source of argument. The website itself says that it is not reliable. You can still use wikipedia as a source of your argument but it has little reliability and little authority.

Thanks, just want ot make this clear for future reference.

Why do you say Wikipedia is not valid? I've found most of its information fiarly accurate and interesting. But alas....


That 10% of the brain crap kills me and makes me wanna vomit in my mouth. Thanks for laying the pimp hand.

About parts our body may/may not need , I state what ken says

"If at any time you wish me to remove something from your body which science declares "useless" i will gladly pay 100% of the hosipital bills"
They say part of our tailbone is "useless"
Tonceils( how ever spelled) once thought useless they are now wildly NOT removed because you have a chance to get a lot sicker later in life
your pancreas(sp)..WTF ever its called once though useless is now showen to have great use in white cell development
I would personaly pay to see some guy get his nipples removed , i mean there useless and all.

I dont think there is any part of our body that is useless and that has mean something , We arent growen like this maybe we were "made"?

If we get sick its not because our design, its because what we and our familys did to there body that makes us sick

I seriously doubt that he can keep his words. Will he pay for appendix removal? how about sebacious and ganlia cysts? how about tumors? All of these are within the body.

I'm not saying that the appendix is useless. People agree that the appendix has no uses but i think that we just havent fully understood its function. the nice thing about science is that as soon as it is flexible, it is able to change according to our understanding. Religions on the other hand is absolute. What we discovered when we were dumbnuts we grudgingly hang on to it.

snowflayke writes:

I generally agree but I have to disagree alittle bit because there are genetic diseases. Those are out of our control. They come from within our body. We are writen that way and we can not avoid it. If you have a genetic code that screws up somewhere along the genome and there is no other replacement you will face it down the road. You can not avoid it no matter what you do (unless you die before that part of the DNA grove is read).

Sorry about my last post being so short, I had to go help my wife. You all know I seldom make statements without backing them up. So to fill in the details, here is the rest of the story.

Lingolas,
I am glad you caught that myth about us using only 10% of or brain. I used that specifc example because it shows one of the many things we have in our schools textbooks that are wrong. It is more correct to say that we use all of our brain, just not at its full ability. Kind of like useing a Formula 1 race car to drive around town and pay your bills. You are useing the whole car, but not at its full ability. Let me explain, a lady I know has a genitic problem with her brain, the two sides are not connected as in a normal brain. She discovered that this condition is not as uncommon as you might think. some children diagnosed with A.D.D. and other problems may have this condition, only it was never checked for. Even rarer is that some people are born with just half a brain. Yet studies have shown that they can perform at normal levels, even excell in life. As this condition is not allways apparent from the outside, the true number of people with these conditions is unknown. So reguardless of how one words it, or the specific amount, we do not need as much brain as we have.
The brain is an expensive organ to maintain, and uses a large amount of the bodies resources as compaired to other organs. Evolution would not build any organ with such a degree of over-enginering.

You asked me why I do not think evolution applies to humans. I do think it applies to humans, my problem is in how it is applied to humans. Remember My Theory states that Evolved Humans Interbreed with the Decendents of Adam and Eve. With that thought in mind, humans and their various cultures promote devolution rather than evolution. From the moment that humans started gaining control over their enviroment, they have been cutting the bonds of natural selection that drives evolution, and substiuting their own.
Now please do not take this the wrong way, the following statments are from a purely evolutionary viewpoint, not mine. Human socity allows stupid people to live, and worse breed, whereas in the wild their stupidity would kill them off, hopefully before they reproduced. We take care of our elderly, wasting resources and providing a breeding ground for desease. People with genitic deseases are aided by doctors instead of being spayed or nutered by them, like any other animal unfit for breeding. We help the sick and wounded, rather than letting the weak die and the strong survive. If we think so highly of evolution, why do we chose such a devolutionary structure for our socities. Given our actions for thousands of years, we are more apt to devolve over time than evolve. Now do not get me wrong, I do not wish to spay or nuter a third the worlds population, and kill another third just to improve the gene pool. Unless I am elected supreme ruler of course.

So is there any evidence to support that we are devolving? Well, very little as we are just building a good database of genitic info to study, but here is an interesting tidbit. When I was takeing biology, my textbook had this formula that could be used to determine the average lifespan of any animal, except for one, humans. When applied to humans it gave a average lifespan of 120 years. Also of note, 120 years is also the max age that God said he would let man live after the flood. Well this makes us unique amoung the animal kingdom! We do not live as long as we should. In fact most of the recent gains in lifespan can be attributed to technology which gave us better nutrition and medicine. So evolution has produced a species, humans, that can not even get the nutrition from its environment to live even a fraction of its possiable lifespan. Yep, evolution did a good job there with us humans. There are a number of ancient writings that state ages for people equal to modern times and up to the 120 average predicted, or above. Most of these are dismissed as errornous or otherwise irrelavent, and no serious researcher dare use them for fear of ridacule.

I am glad that you see my point on the need to correct our schoolbooks. You are correct also in that money and politics are involved in these decisions. Of note is that my current home state of Kentucky is one of the states that do not mention evolution in their textbooks. It was also in this state that the famous Monkey Trial proved evolution in a court of law, with false evidence. Politics again.

I was aware of Introns in the human genome, but did not wish to delve too deep into genitics here. The large amount of this useless genitic info is one of the things that I felt supported my interbreeding theory, and by others to suggest aliens modifing our genes. I have noticed some genitic traits that pop up from time to time that also suggests interbreeding. My best friend growing up could have been cast as a caveman in any movie, no make up required, except he had one one the keenest minds I have ever meet. I often joked that after he died, I could dig him up, and claim to have found the missing link. Except for that darn carbon 14 dateing won't let me get away with it, rats, foiled again.

Here is why I think both religion and science don't need to but heads.

An all powerful God that exists outside time and space can certainly make and operate within an universe goveraned by the laws of science, without breaking any of those laws in the process. Religion should not object to science trying to discover the laws that govern our universe, for they are the laws set down by God at its creation.

Science should not object to religion trying to explain the universe, there is always room for God in the unknown. As science is in pusuit of the basic laws of the universe, God is not a factor as he/she exists outside of space and time and does not affect it.

Arureal

When asked if he would become Supreme ruler of the World, Arureal replied. " If nominated, I will not run. If elected I will not serve. If re-elected, I might be persuaded."

I agree mostly with the fact that although we are still part of the evolutionary chain, humans have partially set themselves beyond it. Its at least partly due to the fact that we have no predators...and therefore fat people dont have to outrun anything (Just an example). Generally, we dont need to genetically compete with anything for survival. (Aside: one fantasy series i read proposed that for balance, humans needed a species greater than them..in their case: dragons So lets bring back the dinosaurs!)

One thing I would like to argue is that bit about the formula giving 120 years for our lifespan. I saw a show on Discovery about a shrew in Africa and they were talking about the fact that most animals live like 800 million beats of the heart or something (dont call me on the numbers) and that the formula they created was based on the fact that longer living creatures have lower heart rates. I looked up the formula and the accompanying story/formula said that humans are actually supposed to live only about 30+ years and that medicine and living conditions allowed us to live longer. Which imo, sounds entirely more logical since I dont believe the Biblical story about hundreds of years. So im not sure who's right (i think its me ) but perhaps it can be discussed.

One more thing about the whole unnecessary organs thing...dont we also have DNA that isnt necessarily junk but has a purpose that we longer use? I can remember vaguely learning about something like that. In any case, im not sure that unnecessary things would disappear. If traits get incorporated because animals with them would survive and others without them would not, then would it not also be the same with disappearing traits? If people without them (or in case of the appendix perhaps w/ smaller ones) survived while others with them did not..then it would eventually disappear. Sounds logical, anyone have anything to refute or support this?

(I suspect also that many of the things are still here because we inherently retain sort of a historical code of our evolution. Sort of seen by the fact that when babies grow from an egg they first get gills, a tail, etc. But maybe im drawing bad conclusions)

I can answer this part of your post. This is a misconception with evolution. What you are describing is a lack of selection pressure, which is defined as a consistent force present that forces the gene pool to narrow. A lack of a selective pressure does not imply de-evolution.

I don't think 'devolving' really exists, a lack of selective pressure will not simplify a lifeform. In fact, you could say that as long as they are breeding and doing fine, there IS a selective pressure on is to stay at our current level of complexity and NOT simplify. Evolution doesn't imply 'better' or 'smarter' or faster or quicker or anything like that. When used scientifically, it is simply change triggered by selective pressure, it doesn't have to make humans supermen.

Silvanos,
The formula I mentioned was from a biology course I took some 25 to 30 years ago. It may have been revised or even discarded during that time. As there is no evidence to support devolution yet, it was all I could think of at the moment. Also my memory may have been faultly, it would not be the first time. Anyway, I am glad you looked that up, as I had no idea of where to find such a formula again.

I did see some work done on what the effects would be of a thousand year lifespan for a human skeleton. A computer program started with a home sapians skeleton as the base, and modeled the effects of a thousand year life span. The resultant skeleton had a lot of what archologists would call primitive characteristics. These primitive characteristics start to appear at about the 200 year mark and increased with time. Now I would not consider this proof of anything. It does cast some doubt on the methods we use to determine tha age of humaniods at time of death, based on the skeleton. If any humanoids had a different life span than us, we would be interpeting the age indicators of the skeleton incorrectly.

Weems,
It was not the lack of natural selection pressure that implies de-evolution, but the actions we replaced them with. Our culture has selection pressures that will promote evolution, but not in a manner that is in the best interest of the race. I used the term devolution to show that it was not a change for the good. But you are correct in that it is still evolution, whether good or bad, in the strictest sense I suppose.
You are incorrect that evolution does not imply better, smarter, ect. That is the very core of evolution, that life gets better, faster, smarter, or some other adaptation that allows one species to gain an advantage, new resource,ect. Evolution that leads in the other direction, tends to result in that species dieing out, as they can no longer compete.
Our level of technology will hopefully keep us from dying out, and may even fix some of the genitic damage caused by our culture. Lets keep our fingers crossed on this one. If we can not fix it, than I am glad I will not be around to see what the human race becomes given the current evolutionary pressures affecting our species. Unless one sees us becoming a race of fat, stupid, disease infested, and highly infertile creatures as a good thing. Then in that case, three cheers for the triumph of evolution.

Hrm. You are perhaps misunderstanding me. Evolution is not a human thing, our opinion of what 'better' is, is not always the same as what allows a species to survive better. Do you see what I mean? Some of the most succesful lifeforms are deceptively simple in their workings, and not really, by our standards, 'better' than us at all.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry so much about humans evolving to be less intelligent/healthy. Sexual attraction does most of that for us. It's fairly rare that you see an unintelligent, unhealthy person breeding with a very intelligent and healthy person, unless there is a large wealth disparity. It's in every one of us to seek mates that would be good genetic material for our kids. There are exceptions to this, but I think that in the vast majority of cases, people tend to try to do their best.

Weems,
Sexual attraction will prevent breeding with unintelligent, unhealthy people. A nice thought, but not true. Lets take for example Brrittany Spears or Paris Hilton, between the two of them they don't have half a brain, but any number of young men would give their left "you know what" to get a chance at pocreation with them, plus they are rich. What more could many guys ask for, a dumb blond who is good looking, with lots of money. Do you ask a girl for a full genitic evaluation before you do the deed. What people find sexualy attractive varies a lot, and changes over time. Back when I was young, when hot pants and mini skirts was in style, a fat girl or guy could not get a date, much less laid, not true today. A mear hundred years ago, cubby girls were considered sexy, as it showed that they were healthy and capable of bearing children. Heck, many guys will jump in bed with any girl that will have them, without a thought as to that persons genitic material and suitability as a mate.

You also state "Evolution is not a human thing, our opinion of what 'better' is, is not always the same as what allows a species to survive better." Lets look at that and what I said in my post. Intelligent vs Stupid, intelligence helps us to overcome problems and adversity, stupidity causes problems and adversity. Low incidence of genitic disease vs High incidence of genitic disease, I thought this one was a no brainer but, less disease good, more disease bad. Normal fertility rates vs Low fertility rates, Normal fertility, we can reproduce which is good for the species. Low fertility, we have trouble reproducing, bad for the species. Fit vs Fat, here you might have a point, as a fat person could live off their fat in times of famine, as long as they did not have to run from a fit person trying to crarve them up for dinner. Human, the other white meat, Umm Umm Good.

Here is a question aimed at only those who believe in evolution, and do not believe in a God at all.

What if we discovered tomorrow that the last few thousand years has had a highly negative effect on the human genitic structure. If nothing is done, in a few generations everyone will be carring some kind of genetic disease, or some other ill effect. The only way to fix this problem is to screen the entire worlds population to determine who may reproduce, and who may not. If we do this, in a few generations we will have fixed the threat, and in a few more eliminate genitic disease from the race, with the right breeding program.

Would you go along with this breeding program to save the human race and even perhaps improve it?

What if you were one of those chosen not fit to reproduce? Would you still do it for the greater good?

To what extant do you inforce this breeding program, anything less than full cooperation would greatly increase the time it will be needed?

If the person breaking the law is someone who is not even fit to breed, should we even waste time on a trial or just kill them on the spot?

There are many implications, I can not list them all. Enjoy.

Yes, why are we attracted to them? Because they are healthy, to be honest. Overall attractiveness on that front has never changed. Things like facial symmetry, clean skin, hip to waist ratio, breast size. Body fat percentage is something that is regional and cultural, but hugely fat has never been attractive.

Also, my example was calling for a smart and healthy person to breed with an unintellgent AND unhealthy individual, without a large wealth disparity. I may have been unclear, if I was, I do apologize.

External looks mean jack-s*** when it comes to healthiness... I should also point out 'attractiveness' is relative/subjective. You think primitive man gave a rat's rear about hygiene and bikini waxes?

For example, that 20-something runway model may be drop dead gorgeous according to modern society's ideals- could have a long genetic history of getting breast cancer.

I could also point out she may have terrible nuturing skills and make for a terrible mother figure.

Genes have a major influence on personality and intelligence. She looks stunning but is as intellectually lustruous as a lump of coal, and about as enthralling as grass growing.

If movie stars (beautiful, "healthy" people) ran things, you can be sure everything would fall apart. Scientology is a prime example. C'mon.

*attractiveness: i think i already discuss this somewhere on this forum. I think that evolution and attractiveness are VERY closely related. I dont feel like elaborating on this but if anyone requests i will start a new long post explaining the relationship between evolution and attractiveness.

*brittney spear: Is she really dumb? Eventhough Britney seems like a typical blonde, i doubt that she is dumb and here's why. First, she has the motivation. We all know that she can't sing but yet she was consistently on top of the chart. She knows what men desire and she is able to advertise that effectively. From an evolutionary point of view, it doesnt matter what you do, as long as you can get laid and give birth you're good enough.

*Paris Hilton- plain stupid, not even that attractive and she' just lucky

* as for people with genetic diseases, it is very difficult to rule them out because some diseases dont show up until you are at a certain point in life. Usually after you already have had children.


aureal writes

this is a tough question. I dont know how to answer this question without falling into any traps. Screening people for genetic errors sounds alot like the eugene program that we had in the past. This can create all kind of discriminations. Human rights and personal privacy is obviously violated. I would not support such program but not because of any reasons i mentioned above.

The reason why i choose not to support the program is because i think that there is a better way to handle the problem. I would force everyone to get tested and have their record privately stored. Before a couple decides to procreate they have the option to check on each other if they like. The person at question may or may not release private health records to the other person but then he/she may not get laid. I think that most people who are aware of the risk of this new genetic disease will check on their mates. Those that are too dumb enough to care and check then well we dont want them to be in the genepool anyway so it wouldnt matter. In the end, the ones that are smart/caustious will survive and those that are recless will get eliminated.

Many things that are similar to this scenario is already happening but at a much smaller scale. One example would be HIV


I didnt read everything from some of the above posts but i saw the word "de-evolution." I dont think that there is such thing as de-evolution. De-evolution is nothing different than evolution. Kinda like saying I walked pass a man vs. a man walked pass me. No difference.

--------
wow you took biology 25 years ago??!! I wasnt even born! Anyway, unlike math and Bob Ross's hair, much has changed since then. We have made much progress with genetic and that sort of changed pretty much everything in biology. Also, evolution has changed significantly since then. I remember while i was in biochemistry kept on saying "btw, that's not in your book, we have just recently discovered it..." Also, if anyone is taking human anatomy right now they will notice that some names are in parenthesis meaning that they will be gone in a few years. Unlike other field of studies, biology and computer are changing very rapidly, there is still so much that we dont know. My physiology book is full of "currently unknown"
----------

to silvanos.
I disagree. I dont think that humans have escaped evolution. Predation is only one of the few selective pressures. Sure we get eaten by lions as often as we used to anymore but we are still dying left and right because of diseases. We are still unable to get a date because we are too ugly, too short, too dumb or too poor. Even if we are perfect in everyway and that everyone is garanteed to have a child before death we will still have evolution because the enzyme that corrects mismatch codon is statistically not sufficient enough to keep us 100% mutation free. If we mutate we evolve, therefore evolution has occured.

---------
There is something called "menes" (I hope i spelled it correctly). I think this is what some of you guys are alluding to. I dont remember much about menes but it would be an interesting area to discuss.

---------
I was discuss one more thing but i forgot what i wanted to say...lol(i hope this is not an early symptom of Alzheimer!)

I sense ugly people hating on beautfiul people in this thread.


Please everyone put down the Haterade. If you're rich, hot, powerful or me; or any combination of the above... people will want to eff you.