Deko

I would agree with you mate. I believe it's our duty to put some level of research into bringing back animals, but more importantly efforts should be made to boost numbers of living species.

Basicaly I think alex is arguing (in a non-comperhesible fashion) that if you trained a human up to the maximum for the neccecery amount of time then he could fly with the aid of artificial wings. Then he goes on to say "well then their is evolution". And then quotes technological acheivements as a show of how humans of one generation have different knowledge and expectations of the next. Ok so firstly the whole training up thing. Humans HAVE been pushing themselves to extremes for thousands of years. Weightlifters probably more notable than others in this regard have used steroids and all the scientific knowledge available to boost their performance. They HAVE succeeded in pushing themselves. Weightlifters nowadays can lift more than those say 1000 years ago. But not much more on the scale of things. There is only so much the human body can do. Your point about getting kids at an early age has also been a method adopted by parents wanting their children to progress faster. However science and history shows that at this age the body is not suited to stresses and strains and in turn does more damage the younger the person is from adulthood. As for evolution mutating the ability for us to fly, my argument is why? Evolution is a process in which benificial adaptations shape a species. Humans who fly is definitely not advantageous for the forseeable future as we have clearly managed to fill our niche with unparalleled comfort. As for the human mind and civilizations thinking up more innovations and widening our technology with every generation as a comparison for what humans could physically do is a gross mistake. 100,000 years ago our physical side could not kill a buffalo, we needed axes, spears and traps...we needed our brains to fill in the limits of our bodies. Throughout the years our brains have always been our greatest asset. Our greatest feats mentally have always massively outweighed the physical ones. You wouldnt beat a bull in a tug of war but try and get it to do your accounting. THE only way that winged humanoids could work is though genetic modifications, stem cell research and a lot of sick experiments. As it has been said before the resulting creature would not be human. And neither would be the scientists that attempted it.

Hi there I think this is right. 1a) the ratio would be 3 widows peaks for every one straight hair. b) the possible genotype for the mother would be ressesive straight and dominant widows peak (Ws) c) the mans parents would also be Ws Ws 2. don't know

Bringing animals "back from the dead" in a sense, is something that I am unsure about. Animals that died out due to natural selection would not survive in todays climates and recreating them would be like a species on death row. My selfish side would love to see a brontosaurus munching on the tree tops or a velocoraptor chasing down a springbok. Or if they did adapt, the damage reintroducing these long dead creatures would cause to the current eco-systems would be enormous. Perhaps no more cheetahs and giraffes to fill the niche. Cloning animals that died out due to human interference is a different situation. Obviously the mammoth hasn't been gone that long that the climates and natural habitat it used to rely on have changed that much. Also because we caused its extinction I feel it is our duty to bring it back.

I would disagree that the HIV virus puts immense selection presssure on any population. In some countries in Africa, where the virus is more prominent birth rates are not screeching to a halt. It is a factor, it does play a role in a small minority of humans and would take thousands of years for us to naturally fight it. In the time it would take us to evolve a more efficient immune response the virus could also evolve (and as we know viruses mutate all the time). HIV could effect millions more people if a parasite could transport it. Currently the mosquito's metabollism breaks it down, if the virus could figure that one out then HIV might cause a mass human wipeout the likes the world has never seen. And this could cause humanity to "fight" for species survival which is needed in order to evolve.

http://ncseweb.org/rncse/19/5/unmasking-false-prophet-creationism

I totally agree that trying to shed light on religious peoples faith is most of the time fruitless and annoying. They practically stick their fingers in their ears and say "naaaaaaa I can't hear you naaaaaa" Trying to convert them however it basically acting the way they act. I want people to make facts and evidence more important than the scribblings from almost 2 thousand years ago, however lets not act like closed minded crazy fanatics. No science wars.

This is a rather silly thread. Have you just finished watching Terminator Salvation? Could humans start to become smaller? sure it is possible but it would definitely not be due to weapons. There is evidence that animals evolve shells, poison, speed to name a few in order to survive....over millions of years, but humans dont exactly come into day to day combat with bullets and bombs. Therefore the humans who are less equipped physically don't get weeded out. Until a time comes where humanity is struggling (I'm not....I'm drinking a cup of tea watching the UK open) no evolving will happen.

Mendel's work must also be obsolete now. I wouldn't say its a phenomenon because it isnt really an event is it? It had to be painstakingly observed, calculated and deduced by watson and crick and other obsolete people.

Humans are very, very resourceful and will not become extinct due to global warming. Many millions or billions could die millions more on the brink and its "the brink" that induces mutations and survival of the fittest and therefore evolution. Humans as you can see by looking at a map can adapt pretty well to different climates. Other animals, plants and bacteria will face these same challenges many will fare worse and many will cope better. As a civilization humanity would crumble long before the species dies out. We have had only a short and easy spell at being top of the chain. Something like a global ice-age for 300,000 years would be needed for adaptations to turn into a new species.

If a new theory emerges for anything scientifically thats great. If someone comes up with a hypothesis for how and why life emerged and remains, super. But since the mid 1800's no-one has come up with anything remotely close to natural selection. Until someone does then I shall work and fit everything a believe in around it.

Basically like the above posts have said its all to do with timescale. In a lifetime you wont see evolution without a microscope. Its not pokemon. However I have been a little vague on this like you are now and if you want to learn more about it you can pretty easily.