Sayonara

That's because people keep posting to this thread without reading what has gone before, and some of them are reading it all but not too closely.

"Inside" and "outside" aren't geometric sides. They're better described as within and without.

(a) Depends what you're cloning. (b) It's easier to improve an existing technology like cloning than it is to come up with a whole new one, like tailoring macro-organisms.

But the USA education system denying evolution occurs would be funny

http://www.thinkgeek.com/cubegoodies/toys/5ea1/

We can clone. We've barely begun to catalogue species' genomes, never mind understand how they all work to such a degree that we can dabble with them willy-nilly and predict the effects on a complete life cycle.

Which is a pain in the proverbial.

It's not that simple. Genomes aren't like Shake 'n' Bake.

Fixed.

That's not a sphere. It's a mesh. Yes and no. In the case where I said there were no sides, the assumptions is that "side" and "surface" are not synonymous terms.

Making more of them just means more will die. If you aren't adding anything new to the gene pool, they won't magically get over it. A population with only two genotypes is a recipe for disaster, although the basic idea could be made to work assuming the right conditions. (Also, in the case of pesticides, something that was so shoddily tested and applied that it kills the local non-pest wildlife is likely to have many other effects on the ecosystem too - possibly persistant effects - so there are other factors to consider.)

I didn't say it couldn't be one. If you go by the geometric definitions, it's zero. If you go by the dictionary definitions, it's one. I don't see an argument for 'infinite'.

Instead of using the nature of a sphere to prove it had no sides, you started from the assumption it had infinite sides then squeezed the reasoning in, so to speak. A sphere's surface can't have closed (or open) sides because it's continuous in every direction.

It's a poopy answer for the philosphers to worry about. And it smells. Zero or One!

When I was at school they told us lies like that deliberately, because at that level it was easier than spending 5 days trying to explain it properly, and in context, when we had a syllabus to cover. ESPECIALLY in bloody physics

You've applied the right logic, only backwards

If you mean a species-wide, transgender preference for smaller jaws, it's unlikely. That kind of effect is usually highly localised in both time and space for humans, as the cultures we live in tell most people what to like, and when. We don't tend to do things in giant, like-minded groups.

Utilising currency more efficiently does not guarantee better reproductive success in terms of mating, but it decreases the chances of problematic pregnancies/deliveries etc, and is probably one of the possible keys to delivering genetically fitter offspring (unlikely to occur in one generational step).

If you're using the dictionary definition of "side" (pffft), then you can consider the surface of a sphere to be one side. "Infinite" doesn't come into it. If it has lines that close off planes, it's not a sphere.

A side is an extrusion between two vertices. A sphere has no vertices. Therefore: Zero.

Is this going anywhere?

Also I just remembered: we're currently eating thousands of times more simple sugars than we ever have done, which means we don't need to macerate our food so much to get the glucose we need. Although, considering the number of obese people about these days, this seems to be an optional factor. It's a falacy to believe that only an advantageous macro-adaptation will be "selected for". If there's no point in growing a particular pair of molars, or in having a jaw of size X, or having masseter muscles with strength Y, then there's not much point investing biomass in them. Therefore individuals without that wasted investment will be utilising the currency of their ecosystem more efficiently.

Unless you're planning to evolve by yourself I wouldn't worry about it. However, painful molars is something to worry about. See a dentist.

Apparently there are also the issues of space needed for increased brain cavity, and the requirements imposed by language. These affect the overall shape of the oral system and the size of the buccal cavity rather than the lower jaw though.

Ask him/her to point you in the direction of the relevant studies and see what happens. Anything that's tough, we cook. We soften, tenderise, puree, mash, boil, steam or fry most of what we eat. We don't need to grind up tough plant material to the extent that our distant ancestors did, nor do we need to tear or slice meat from the bone with our teeth - parts of our dental arrangement are now fully redundant (bye-bye wisdom teeth, we won't miss you). In fact there was a time (Australopithecus through to Homo erectus) where we were eating so much more meat, and so much less vegetable matter, that our entire molar assmebly was virtually obsolete. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6b.shtml