If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Researcher claims that in 100k years we may have evolved to look like the Twilight cast   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 96
    More: Unlikely, Google Glass, Queen Elizabeth I, Rock Hudson, human biology  
•       •       •

6267 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jun 2013 at 8:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-08 08:23:15 AM
That researcher sounds like a fat, middle-aged housewife. Who is fat.
 
2013-06-08 08:24:21 AM
See, there was an anime joke just sitting there, waiting for you, subby, but you left it on the tee.
 
2013-06-08 08:25:13 AM
To hear the Demo-dummies and global warming evangelists, we'll be lucky to make it until next week.
 
2013-06-08 08:25:36 AM
Somehow, I'm thinking an evolutionary path like the one in "Idiocracy" is more in line with our fate. I suppose if I wanted some attention from the press, I could come up with some B.S., like this Dr.  Kwan did. Thing is, natural selection just doesn't follow an overarcing path, Past performance is no indication of future returns and all that. it's a generation-to-generation thing. And naturally selecting features that would make our posterity look like Bratz(tm) just doesn't make any sense.
 
2013-06-08 08:26:28 AM
An eight-head and giant creepy baby eyes, where do I sign up?
 
2013-06-08 08:27:00 AM
Eloi?
 
2013-06-08 08:28:10 AM
[yourignorancemakesmeillandangry.jpg]
 
2013-06-08 08:30:15 AM
What about hairless? I was assuming we would all be hairless if we're turning into Close Encounters aliens.
 
2013-06-08 08:30:34 AM
Daily Fail.
 
2013-06-08 08:31:53 AM
Japan must be giddy.
 
2013-06-08 08:35:09 AM
All I can say is that the image in the article is going to give me nightmares.

Well, okay, I can say more...
Whoever wrote this article is an idiot.  He is basing is theory on expecting evolution to continue along some constant path or stream that never fractures, or is interrupted, or influenced by environment, or a gazillion other factors.  This is simply not the case.  Nothing about evolution could possibly so predictable.

So I think we can safely throw this in the drawer with the rest of the nonsense people are wasting our time with.
 
2013-06-08 08:35:33 AM
cdn.uproxx.com
 
2013-06-08 08:37:11 AM
We will all be Jabba the Hutt in 100k years. Been to Walmart lately?
 
2013-06-08 08:38:03 AM
Gay? Sparkly? Constipated?
 
2013-06-08 08:43:37 AM
There's a reason we don't already have ginormous heads -- our moms would have all died during childbirth.  I guess if we start breeding in labs then sure.
 
2013-06-08 08:46:54 AM

desertmouse: There's a reason we don't already have ginormous heads -- our moms would have all died during childbirth.  I guess if we start breeding in labs then sure.



Um... people grow.
 
2013-06-08 08:48:08 AM
Go far enough into the future and somebody will be arguing humans did not evolve from monkeys who look like us
 
2013-06-08 08:48:53 AM

desertmouse: There's a reason we don't already have ginormous heads -- our moms would have all died during childbirth.  I guess if we start breeding in labs then sure.


But it must be true -- researchers claim it!
 
2013-06-08 08:49:09 AM
The article didn't include 15 years from now.
www.expensivenuts.com
 
2013-06-08 08:51:54 AM
More like the majority of the cast in 5TH Element
 
2013-06-08 08:53:07 AM
This article is even dumber than that 1900s article postulating what the 2000s would be like.
 
2013-06-08 08:56:30 AM

trentrockport: Somehow, I'm thinking an evolutionary path like the one in "Idiocracy" is more in line with our fate. I suppose if I wanted some attention from the press, I could come up with some B.S., like this Dr.  Kwan did. Thing is, natural selection just doesn't follow an overarcing path, Past performance is no indication of future returns and all that. it's a generation-to-generation thing. And naturally selecting features that would make our posterity look like Bratz(tm) just doesn't make any sense.


TFA assumes that genetic engineering is going to supersede natural selection.
 
2013-06-08 08:59:33 AM
Your ignorance makes me ill and angry.   And I have a really big headache, too.

i711.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-08 09:02:19 AM
What humans will look like in 100,000 years:


i651.photobucket.com

EXTINCT

// We're like the kid who has to wear
// a football helmet and life jacket outdoors
// who then walks in front of an oncoming bus
 
2013-06-08 09:03:18 AM
Natural selection does not produce new species. All natural selection does is help eliminate the weak and unfit, thus keeping Creation in tune with the original system spec.

Genetic mutations never produce new information or improvements to the original -- entropy is a cruel biatch.
 
2013-06-08 09:07:51 AM
This what you meant, right?  That wouldn't be so bad.

images1.wikia.nocookie.net

/there is no other 'Twilight' in pop culture.  There just isn't
 
2013-06-08 09:09:18 AM

letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species. All natural selection does is help eliminate the weak and unfit, thus keeping Creation in tune with the original system spec.

Genetic mutations never produce new information or improvements to the original -- entropy is a cruel biatch.



You keep on using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
2013-06-08 09:09:58 AM
I love a woman with a big dome.
 
2013-06-08 09:10:00 AM

safetycap: What humans will look like in 100,000 years:


[i651.photobucket.com image 850x343]

EXTINCT

// We're like the kid who has to wear
// a football helmet and life jacket outdoors
// who then walks in front of an oncoming bus


We would be lucky to even survive 1000 years.
 
2013-06-08 09:18:21 AM

volodya: We will all be Jabba the Hutt in 100k years. Been to Walmart lately?



I think you added an extra K there.
 
2013-06-08 09:23:46 AM
I like to get the dumbest thing I'll see all day out of the way early.
 
2013-06-08 09:30:36 AM

durbnpoisn: All I can say is that the image in the article is going to give me nightmares.

Well, okay, I can say more...
Whoever wrote this article is an idiot.  He is basing is theory on expecting evolution to continue along some constant path or stream that never fractures, or is interrupted, or influenced by environment, or a gazillion other factors.  This is simply not the case.  Nothing about evolution could possibly so predictable.

So I think we can safely throw this in the drawer with the rest of the nonsense people are wasting our time with.


I think the "heads will get bigger, people will get taller" is a pretty safe bet, given it's been going on for at least 80,000 years.

It's all pretty much irrelevant though because - barring some major global catastrophe - our mastery of genetics in 100,000 years time will mean that everything genetic will be a matter of fashion and whim.
 
2013-06-08 09:32:26 AM
Here are some school girls from the far future:
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-08 09:34:57 AM
letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species. All natural selection does is help eliminate the weak and unfit, thus keeping Creation in tune with the original system spec. Genetic mutations never produce new information or improvements to the original -- entropy is a cruel biatch.

FrancoFile: You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


I see what you mean. The natural tendancy toward randomness and evenly distributed disorder is evidently a Good Thing, especially if dealing with complex biochemical control mechanisms that depend upon data integrity and transmission fidelity to even work in the first place.
 
2013-06-08 09:35:30 AM

Dhusk: This what you meant, right?  That wouldn't be so bad.

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 850x803]

/there is no other 'Twilight' in pop culture.  There just isn't


Somehow, I don't see giving up opposable thumbs as being a pro-survival trait.  Although telekinesis would be nifty, we haven't seen too many examples of it from Nature yet.
 
2013-06-08 09:36:20 AM

trentrockport: Somehow, I'm thinking an evolutionary path like the one in "Idiocracy" is more in line with our fate. I suppose if I wanted some attention from the press, I could come up with some B.S., like this Dr.  Kwan did. Thing is, natural selection just doesn't follow an overarcing path, Past performance is no indication of future returns and all that. it's a generation-to-generation thing. And naturally selecting features that would make our posterity look like Bratz(tm) just doesn't make any sense.


This. Except that the Idiocracy thing is really stupid.
 
2013-06-08 09:41:03 AM
Time to order a few tank cars full of eye bleach, if there's still time.
 
2013-06-08 09:41:54 AM
Why would we change?  We don't physically adapt to different climates; we build air conditioners and heaters.  We don't need to remember more or process information faster, we are already starting to have the devices that will do it for us so it's unlikely we'll see any significant change in brain-size.  And this notion that our faces will be more toward the idea proportions, you say that like ugly people aren't having kids.
 
2013-06-08 09:44:00 AM

durbnpoisn: So I think we can safely throw this in the drawer with the rest of the nonsense people are wasting our time with.


Duh, I could have told you that be for I even clicked the link.  It's DailyFail.

In fact, the only reason I did click the link was to confirm my suspicions that subby's headline does not mean what he/she thinks it means.
 
2013-06-08 09:52:40 AM

Alonjar: desertmouse: There's a reason we don't already have ginormous heads -- our moms would have all died during childbirth.  I guess if we start breeding in labs then sure.


Um... people grow.


So either our heads will maintain roughly the same proportions to our bodies, or hoo-haws in the future will be huge.
 
2013-06-08 09:54:00 AM

letrole: letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species. All natural selection does is help eliminate the weak and unfit, thus keeping Creation in tune with the original system spec. Genetic mutations never produce new information or improvements to the original -- entropy is a cruel biatch.

FrancoFile: You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


I see what you mean. The natural tendancy toward randomness and evenly distributed disorder is evidently a Good Thing, especially if dealing with complex biochemical control mechanisms that depend upon data integrity and transmission fidelity to even work in the first place.



Go back and read the definition of entropy.  "In a closed system" is the part you're missing.  Ponder that for a few years, ignore the fundamentalist crap that's been crammed down your throat, and come back when you're ready to discuss science with the big boys and girls.
 
2013-06-08 09:59:47 AM
But...but...evolution is only a theory...witch doctors and chimps that can't talk etc...
 
2013-06-08 10:03:58 AM

Fano: Eloi?


That was my 2nd thought.  After "this looks like those stupid dog and cat calendars with the insanely large eyes that stupid people buy"
 
2013-06-08 10:13:57 AM
FrancoFile: Go back and read the definition of entropy. "In a closed system" is the part you're missing. Ponder that for a few years, ignore the fundamentalist crap that's been crammed down your throat, and come back when you're ready to discuss science with the big boys and girls.

Do you mean heat transfer? Must it be a closed system sealed in a dewar flask? No.

Entropy can be used to describe any number of things that involve permutations. Password strength. Data compression. Data transmission. Data integrity.

Now go back to the original post, and slowly read it again, but this time for the context, and the way that the word 'entropy' was being used. Not talking about heat or closed systems.

The word entropy has several meanings, and this particular usage is correct. Now sir, you may not agree with the premise of the post, but don't this clever-dick lower than spelling flame shiat.

/ left you a typo
// just to be charitable
 
2013-06-08 10:18:51 AM
I thought we were going to look like this.

i985.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-08 10:19:29 AM

letrole: FrancoFile: Go back and read the definition of entropy. "In a closed system" is the part you're missing. Ponder that for a few years, ignore the fundamentalist crap that's been crammed down your throat, and come back when you're ready to discuss science with the big boys and girls.

Do you mean heat transfer? Must it be a closed system sealed in a dewar flask? No.

Entropy can be used to describe any number of things that involve permutations. Password strength. Data compression. Data transmission. Data integrity.

Now go back to the original post, and slowly read it again, but this time for the context, and the way that the word 'entropy' was being used. Not talking about heat or closed systems.

The word entropy has several meanings, and this particular usage is correct. Now sir, you may not agree with the premise of the post, but don't this clever-dick lower than spelling flame shiat.

/ left you a typo
// just to be charitable


One more post, then I have things to do.

From your original post.   "genetic mutations never produce new information".  Really?  You have an interesting definition of the word 'new'.

Dress it up however you like, but you are trotting out one of the usual schticks of creationism-wrapped-in-scientific-words, and you're wrong.  Go home.
 
2013-06-08 10:23:10 AM

Rapmaster2000: I like to get the dumbest thing I'll see all day out of the way early.


Then you need to jump over to the entertainment tab and look at the article about Star Trek, bestiality, and evolution.
Weapons-grade derp.
 
2013-06-08 10:30:59 AM
We'll have bigger brains? If the zombies know this perhaps they will decide to hold off on the apocalypse. However, I think brain size has been decreasing over the past several hundred thousand years.
 
pc
2013-06-08 10:40:42 AM
Blond hair and green eyes? Looks legit and totally scientific

http://www.livescience.com/34228-will-humans-eventually-all-look-lik e- brazilians.html
 
2013-06-08 10:40:51 AM
FrancoFile: From your original post. "genetic mutations never produce new information". Really? You have an interesting definition of the word 'new'.

Dress it up however you like, but you are trotting out one of the usual schticks of creationism-wrapped-in-scientific-words, and you're wrong. Go home.


Did you, or did you not, make a an arse of yourself with your own lack of understanding of the word entropy?

/left another typo for you
// fetch boy!

.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report