Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 08-19-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lobstertrap:


You sure about that? My mother has her Ph.D in nursing, and one of her nursing books she uses for research at her job plainly states we only use about 14% of our brain, and that when we learn to use the rest of it, who knows what we could do (lift objects with our minds, be ungodly smart, etc).

Maybe the book's lying, I dunno, obviously the publisher believed the author.

Creationists may use only 10% of their brains, but that doesn't necessarily hold true for everyone else.

Queen of Swords · 08-19-2002, 03:23 PM

lobstertrap,

Try Dougal Dixon's Man after Man : an anthropology of the future for a really imaginative view of human evolution in the distant future. This book is out of print, but you may be able to find a copy in your library, or a used book store or on the web. Dixon's After Man : a zoology of the future has been reissued, and is also a fascinating read (both have color pictures to illustrate evolutionary trends).

Coragyps · 08-19-2002, 04:30 PM

QoS, you're too quick for me! I love After Man too - <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312194331/qid=1029803201/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-8686629-4374368" target="_blank">Amazon has it.</a> Now I'll have to search out the anthro one, too.

Starboy · 08-20-2002, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
The only selection pressure that I can see is for looks.

<looks around>

You sure about that?

There is a great deal of evidence that looks not only provides an advantage in mating, but also the advantage of looks carries over into compensation, professional advancement and social status. All the things you would want conferred to your offspring. As far as I can tell, at least in the industrialized world, the vast majority of people are smart enough to survive.

Starboy

Mageth · 08-20-2002, 08:24 AM

[note: being a bit sarcastic in some of my comments...]

Yeah, and the vast majority of ugly people survive too.

They're no less likely to survive, to marry and have children than those we deem better looking, AFAIK. Hell, some of them are even smart.

What's your point?

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

lobstertrap · 08-20-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:


There is a great deal of evidence that looks not only provides an advantage in mating, but also the advantage of looks carries over into compensation, professional advancement and social status. All the things you would want conferred to your offspring. As far as I can tell, at least in the industrialized world, the vast majority of people are smart enough to survive.

Starboy

Yeah, I agree partly. A hot girl is more likely to have more feasible mates (har-har), and she'll be more likely to get hired at any given job because the employer might be out for a piece of her ass. Ya never know in this world...

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: lobstertrap ]

Bubba · 08-20-2002, 03:29 PM

Why WOULDN'T humanity be vastly different in a couple of million years?

Bubba

Doubting Didymus · 08-20-2002, 03:44 PM

Bubba, Unless we find a way to stop mutation, we will definitely be different. I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise. My point is only that it is not possible to extrapolate evolutionary trends into the future, as natural selection can turn on its heels in the blink of an eye. See my post on elephants earlier.

Quote:

There is a great deal of evidence that looks provides an advantage in mating.

True, but do conceptions of good looks stay constant for long enough to have evolutionary ramifications? I think the answer is a resounding no. Social ideas about good looks change extremely fast, and some of them are quite strange and positively detrimental. The only selection pressures that revolve around looks and stay constant for long enough to play a part in evolution are the very basics. Symmetry, blemish-free, etc. These are linked directly to the health of the individual

Quote:

As far as I can tell, at least in the industrialized world, the vast majority of people are smart enough to survive.

True, but that isn't the point. Archeoraptor was not very good at flying, for example, but it could 'fly' as well as it needed to to survive. The point is that even greater degrees of any positive trait are still survival advantages. Evolution doesn't stop just because the organism is evolved enough in a trait to survive. More is always better, in an evolutionary sense.

DutchAtheist · 08-20-2002, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:


There is a great deal of evidence that looks not only provides an advantage in mating, but also the advantage of looks carries over into compensation, professional advancement and social status.

Starboy

Looks may provide all these wonderfull advantages, but as long as looks don't affect the number of fertile offspring that the individual has, then they aren't a selective advantage. Is there any evidence that attractive people produce more offspring?

Unless we use a Eugenics program to force the most attractive members of our society to produce more offspring than the unattractive members, then there will be no evolution towards more attractive humans.

Doubting Didymus · 08-20-2002, 05:32 PM

Some factors in good looks are definite selection advantages. These are almost totally unrelated to social perspectives, and are more related to instinctive perceptions of health.

Symmetry, any indicators of fitness and an abscence of external disease indicators are good indicators of health. It is thus not surprising that these are the most basic and seemingly universal factors in good looks.

Have you ever seen an ofputting image of a diseased person, and wondered why it is an unattractive sight?

08-20-2002, 08:24 AM	#15
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	[note: being a bit sarcastic in some of my comments...] Yeah, and the vast majority of ugly people survive too. They're no less likely to survive, to marry and have children than those we deem better looking, AFAIK. Hell, some of them are even smart. What's your point? [ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2002, 03:23 PM	#12
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	lobstertrap, Try Dougal Dixon's Man after Man : an anthropology of the future for a really imaginative view of human evolution in the distant future. This book is out of print, but you may be able to find a copy in your library, or a used book store or on the web. Dixon's After Man : a zoology of the future has been reissued, and is also a fascinating read (both have color pictures to illustrate evolutionary trends).

08-19-2002, 04:30 PM	#13
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	QoS, you're too quick for me! I love After Man too - <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312194331/qid=1029803201/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-8686629-4374368" target="_blank">Amazon has it.</a> Now I'll have to search out the anthro one, too.

08-20-2002, 03:29 PM	#17
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Why WOULDN'T humanity be vastly different in a couple of million years? Bubba

08-20-2002, 05:32 PM	#20
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Some factors in good looks are definite selection advantages. These are almost totally unrelated to social perspectives, and are more related to instinctive perceptions of health. Symmetry, any indicators of fitness and an abscence of external disease indicators are good indicators of health. It is thus not surprising that these are the most basic and seemingly universal factors in good looks. Have you ever seen an ofputting image of a diseased person, and wondered why it is an unattractive sight?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.