Unknown Theories Cont.

[JrPahoodneyMan]

The Partial Evolution Theory

I think that only humans evolve. This I say because if you look at the Bible, one of the highest treasures of the Christian religion, it says in one verse something like "every animal to its own kind." Now think you think about it, what if this applies to evolution itself? Did God give us an evolution only obtainable through the human form? Anyways, if you mix all of the human gene pools, you will probably get a grey skin tone. If you give people foods that don't require chewing, eventually they will adapt to where they don't have teeth anymore. If they get used to artificial gravity, their bodies will get smaller because they don't need a much mass to hold them up. And the human head keeps getting bigger. And with only artificial lighting, their eyes will get bigger. So, big-headed, grey-skinned, big-eyed, small-bodied humans. Think about it.

[John Cuthber]

Think about it.

I did.

Since the Bible is a made up fairy story, you can't actually use it as evidence.

[pwagen]

Why would evolution only apply to humans, again? I must have missed the part where you explained that.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Biblical references used, moved to Religion.

The Partial Evolution Theory
I think that only humans evolve. This I say because if you look at the Bible, one of the highest treasures of the Christian religion, it says in one verse something like "every animal to its own kind." Now think you think about it, what if this applies to evolution itself? Did God give us an evolution only obtainable through the human form?

The Bible is a very poor tool with which to do science. It's like measuring the distance to the sun with a poem.

Anyways, if you mix all of the human gene pools, you will probably get a grey skin tone.

Why? Evidence tends towards a light brown skin in multi-cultural examples.

If you give people foods that don't require chewing, eventually they will adapt to where they don't have teeth anymore.

That might happen, if teeth eventually became sexually unattractive. Unnecessary parts are often kept because they encourage mating.

If they get used to artificial gravity, their bodies will get smaller because they don't need a much mass to hold them up.

Why? Wouldn't artificial gravity require the same muscles? Or are you saying we'd artificially reduce the gravity if we were offworld for extended periods?

And the human head keeps getting bigger.

American heads have been getting bigger, according to some studies. But we've observed changes in body shapes with other animals as well, so that doesn't support your idea that humans alone are evolving.

And with only artificial lighting, their eyes will get bigger.

We have artificial lights that more closely resemble actual sunlight.

So, big-headed, grey-skinned, big-eyed, small-bodied humans. Think about it.

 

What does this have to do with only humans evolving?

 

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence I've ever seen that all vertebrates evolved from fishes is the laryngeal nerve. Check this out:

 

[Ringer]

The Partial Evolution Theory

I think that only humans evolve.

Don't look into bacteria, your head might explode.

[JrPahoodneyMan]

Well, I am just using it as part of a speculation, saying that if there were a God, and he provided an evolution, it may be limited to humans, and no one can prove the Bible to be a Fairy Tale. After all, no one religion has been absolutely proven to be true or false.

I can't prove or disprove the full theory of evolution. I am just giving my speculations, and a hypothesis of how mankind might evolve in the future.

You see, I may be a Christian, and my understanding of things is connected to my beliefs. But science can indeed be its own thing. I have no clue if God did give us a science to go with the physical universe I believe He created.

The thing is, I have a speculation that the universe is artificial, and if it is, it may indeed prove this speculation that evolution is indeed limited, but I wouldn't know exactly how limited. But the only way to prove that is if I prove my energy core speculation and hypothesis, which is for unlimited material production from what I believe dark matter is, and for unlimited energy for electronics. And I would have to prove my artificial gravity speculation/hypothesis.

If I am able to test my speculations and prove my hypothesis, if, of course, I am able to become a physicist one day and do those exact things, they may then become real theories.

[pwagen]

Well, I am just using it as part of a speculation, saying that if there were a God, and he provided an evolution, it may be limited to humans

The thing is, we can clearly see evolution in other species, perhaps even better than in our own. Just look at all the different kinds of dogs we've managed to evolve. Everything from a Great Dane to a Chihuahua coming from what was originally wolves. How is that not evidence evolution exists in other species?

[Phi for All]

Well, I am just using it as part of a speculation, saying that if there were a God, and he provided an evolution, it may be limited to humans, and no one can prove the Bible to be a Fairy Tale. After all, no one religion has been absolutely proven to be true or false.

 

And this puts religion and gods in the supernatural category. Science doesn't deal in "proof", it deals in the best supported explanations for natural phenomena. That's why we have to move any topic involving religion to the Religion section. Speculations is for scientific speculation.

 

I can't prove or disprove the full theory of evolution. I am just giving my speculations, and a hypothesis of how mankind might evolve in the future.

 

You should start by reading as much as you can about evolution. Remember, you're not trying to "prove" anything, you're just looking at all the mountains of evidence that supports one of the best understood theories in science today. Many religions acknowledge that evolution is real, including the largest Christian sect. If you study it, you'll see that it's happening all around us all the time in reality.

 

You see, I may be a Christian, and my understanding of things is connected to my beliefs. But science can indeed be its own thing. I have no clue if God did give us a science to go with the physical universe I believe He created.

 

Belief can be divided into three basic parts: trust, hope and faith. Trust is what science asks of you, a belief in the best supported explanations, subject to change if something better supported comes along. You can hope that something is true without completely changing your life based on that hope (I hope this ticket I have will win the lottery but I'm not going to start spending the money yet). Faith, and I'm defining faith as unshakeable, unquestioning belief in something that has no evidence to support it, is actually the weakest form of belief pretending to be the strongest. Faith is basically steadfastly believing things you can't possibly know for sure.

 

The thing is, I have a speculation that the universe is artificial, and if it is, it may indeed prove this speculation that evolution is indeed limited, but I wouldn't know exactly how limited. But the only way to prove that is if I prove my energy core speculation and hypothesis, which is for unlimited material production from what I believe dark matter is, and for unlimited energy for electronics. And I would have to prove my artificial gravity speculation/hypothesis.

 

Sort of a Matrix kind of artificial universe? You might be getting into an area again where science isn't the right tool to use. If what you're describing can't be supported by evidence either way, we say it's unfalsifiable, or incapable of being proven false. Every hypothesis in science needs to be capable of being false (we'd have to reconsider what we know about gravity if you could somehow toss a normal ball into the air and it stayed up there).

 

If I am able to test my speculations and prove my hypothesis, if, of course, I am able to become a physicist one day and do those exact things, they may then become real theories.

 

And a big part of the process is sharing as you're doing here, and listening to the critique of others.

 

How would you set up an experiment to test your hypothesis? Are there any predictions you could make that might be testable?

[JrPahoodneyMan]

Thing is, I just want to say that sure there is a lot of evidence, I will not deny that evolution may be a fact, but I cannot call it an absolute truth either. For Creationism and Evolution theories, and now my Construction speculation now exist, we cannot deny any one of them. All three of them may even exist as a truth in some way I would not understand, and I wouldn't even know it. We do not know everything about the physical universe, but we are destined to figure it out.

Even if many of my speculations are proven, it does not disprove nor prove evolution. You see, we have genetic construction, and we have the possibility of energy cores and artificial gravity, which we have not yet figured out. Is this enough to say we cannon yet disprove the possibility that the Earth may indeed be artificial, and that maybe the first species' gametes were constructed, and maybe the gametes of the first two of every species were constructed, even humans. But I cannot disprove or prove anything until I get an education in the fields that cover my speculations, get a job in those fields, and there may be a different future than what I see. I don't know, nor does anyone else know, the exact extent of the universe and its basis for understanding and knowledge.

If you wish to know more about my speculations, view my other topic Unknown Theories, which, by now, part of it may have been changed to speculation and/or hypothesis.

[pwagen]

Is this enough to say we cannon yet disprove the possibility that the Earth may indeed be artificial, and that maybe the first species' gametes were constructed, and maybe the gametes of the first two of every species were constructed, even humans.

Personally, I like when ideas are thought up outside the box. So sure, Earth being constructed is an interesting thought. But then you have to ask something in the lines of "What do the evidence say? Are there any evidence that even suggest that this might be an idea worth pursuing?".

 

It's not enough to just say "We can't disprove the possibility that there's a teapot orbiting Uranus". Are there any evidence suggesting there's something orbiting Uranus at all (except for moons)? Is there a chance someone threw a teapot in Uranus' direction some time ago? If not, it's probably not worth spending time and effort on the idea.

 

It's the same with the Earth being artificially constructed by aliens. Do we have any signs of this? Not that I know of. Have we found the blueprints or tools left by the constructors? I doubt it. Are our current understandings of how the Solar System formed inadequate to explain what we're seeing today? They seem good enough. So we really have no reason, at the present time, to assume the planet might have been constructed. That means, until new evidence surface or old evidence are reinterpreted, the idea is probably more science fiction than science.

[JrPahoodneyMan]

Well, you pose an interesting point. Here's my speculation on the matter. If you observe the crust, atmosphere, and waters of the Earth, solid moves both water and gas. So, could it be that there has to be a solid in the center of the Earth moving the magma in convection currents?

I do know that the mind and body of humans evolve, but I've never really seen animals evolve. I've seen their breeds mix, and there are quite a few mixed breeds that get cancer and many other physical problems. There may be a limit to breeding that doesn't allow animals to be intellectual in the same way as humans. Therefore, animals might or might not fully evolve. Some are getting mutations that are not healthy. I do not know how far animals will adapt. I do acknowledge that evolution exists, but it may be very limited for animals, maybe to where they just adapt to earthen environments. Think about it and reply when you can.

[Phi for All]

Well, you pose an interesting point. Here's my speculation on the matter. If you observe the crust, atmosphere, and waters of the Earth, solid moves both water and gas. So, could it be that there has to be a solid in the center of the Earth moving the magma in convection currents?

 

Hot air (gas) can move a balloon (solid). I think you're applying what you observe a little too liberally.

 

I do know that the mind and body of humans evolve, but I've never really seen animals evolve.

 

Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency within a population over time. Individuals do NOT evolve. Some creatures have such a short life span that we can directly observe the evolutionary process over many generations. Take a look at fruit fly experiments that have been going on for quite some time to see members of the animal kingdom evolve.

[pwagen]

Well, you pose an interesting point. Here's my speculation on the matter. If you observe the crust, atmosphere, and waters of the Earth, solid moves both water and gas. So, could it be that there has to be a solid in the center of the Earth moving the magma in convection currents?

I know nothing of geology (or whatever science would apply here), so I can't really say how it all works. The inner core, however, is apparently solid. Out of curiosity, do you think that, according to your speculations, this is a sign the Earth was constructed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

 

Sorry for the broken up quoting below. It's the only way I know how to respond.

 

I do know that the mind and body of humans evolve, but I've never really seen animals evolve. I've seen their breeds mix,

and there are quite a few mixed breeds that get cancer and many other physical problems.

Their mixed breeds are evolution at work though! That's a problem I've seen with people who don't understand the actual workings of evolution (more on that in a bit). Two parents making a baby IS evolution, whether we're talking about dogs, humans or chipmunks. The offspring gets DNA from both parents and becomes more or less a mix between them. The longer this goes on (generation after generation), the more dissimilar the offspring will be to the original couple. And I hope you agree that this is what we see in both humans and animals.

 

When looking at this specific process, of producing offspring and how the genes are passed on, ask yourself what the difference is between humans and other animals. It's still a passing on of DNA, any way you look at it. New species then evolve by isolation of a group of a specie from another group. For example, take a look at donkeys and horses. They are quite similar, look similar and are pretty closely related. While they're closely related to each other to produce offspring, they're too far related for this offspring to be able to reproduce, in most cases. Given more time, it's likely that donkeys and horses will drift apart so far genetically, that they won't be able to produce offspring.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

 

 

There may be a limit to breeding that doesn't allow animals to be intellectual in the same way as humans. Therefore, animals might or might not fully evolve.

There is no such thing as "fully evolve" though. Evolution is an ongoing process without a set goal, so it makes no sense to say that one species is fully evolved, or even more evolved than anything else. Sure, if you move a polar bear and a cheetah to the African steppes, the cheetah is more adapted to the environment. But it's not "more evolved". Neither are humans, although we've happened to evolve to the point where we are extremely adaptable, which is why we've settled more or less everywhere on the planet. You could call that being more evolved, but I doubt it would be an accurate description.

 

I do not know how far animals will adapt. I do acknowledge that evolution exists, but it may be very limited for animals, maybe to where they just adapt to earthen environments.

Ah, but opposed to adapting to what, exactly? You make it sound as though we could expect a squirrel to evolve to be able to breathe sunlight, allowing it to travel through space without a suit, which isn't what we should expect. Every species adapt to the environment they're living in, or they die out. They don't adapt to environments they have no reason to adapt to, if that makes sense.

[John Cuthber]

There can be no sensible disagreement with the observation that the Bible contradicts itself

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

It is, therefore, at best an unreliable source.

You can not rely on it as evidence for science.

 

on the other hand, countless experiments and observations show that evolution happens in things other than humans.

 

So, when you start by saying "I think that only humans evolve. This I say because if you look at the Bible..." you are not going to get very far on a scientific website.

[menageriemanor]

If you want to understand how animals evolved, you need to put your bible down, and actually study EVIDENCE. I cannot comprehend how you can say animals haven't evolved and you can see no evidence of it, unless you are blind, and your understanding of them is some member of your family is saying, we're passing a cow, now, there's a giraffe, there's an oranutan, without you ever seeing them.

 

How do you not see, on a tiny scale, and tiny timeline, how dogs have been specialised, and how the different dogs crossed SHOW changes from dam and sire and not comprehend what you are seeing? It appears the word EVOLVED is being used by you as a substitute for some sort of recognition of IQ. If you don't comprehend what evolve involves, before you invent theories that involve the collected wisdom of desert goat herders, with rewrites by every unpleasantly dominating group of men using it to push their own agenda, throughout western culture, put aside your distorting bible lense and concentrate on what has been established by research based on EVIDENCE. The bible may be a treasure to Christians, but to many educated people, it is an irritating, illogical, brutish farce, no more true than Tolkien, far more savage, judgemental and nasty, infinitely less entertaining and in fact, a huge impediment to educating large groups of people in wealthy, 1st world countries.

 

.

[JrPahoodneyMan]

I wouldn't say that just because the core might be solid, that it was constructed. It may have been a natural solid more dense and more capable of withstanding heat, so I wouldn't know if it is exactly natural or produced. I am just making a guess with my speculations, just as all theories start out as a speculation.

And I am not saying that individuals evolve, but their minds do as they learn. The physical bodies do evolve over generations, I know that, and I accept that. I am just making a guess at what humans' next evolutionary traits might be in the distant future.

I see now that animals do evolve. But how much is the real question. There is a capacity limit on evolution, population, an much more. I just want to learn how far creatures evolve. And if we do make it to space, I am not sure if animals can come with us. What if they can't adapt and survive?

The reason for my question is because, as you say, we have become more adaptable. Animals might not be able to adapt to space, because their genes might not change quite as quickly. I'm not saying they won't adapt to space, though.

And eventually humans might have to adapt to artificial gravity and artificial lighting. The sun has been unstable for hundreds of thousands of years, according to experts. It could explode into a red giant at a moment's notice. And another reasoning for my speculation on the possibility of the universe being artificial, what keeps the sun hot after it collapses from a red giant into a white dwarf?

Edited February 24, 2013 by JrPahoodneyMan

[pwagen]

And I am not saying that individuals evolve, but their minds do as they learn.

I wouldn't say their minds evolve. I'm not even sure "mind" is applicable to other species. But let's assume it is. The mind of a dog would develop from birth as it grew older. While a lot of its behavior can be said to be instinct, it'll learn when it's time for feeding, what human commands mean (sit, stand, roll around), learn not to walk outside of the garden unless in a leash. However, the individual dog will always be limited by what nature's given it. Their minds won't "evolve" into being able to speak or do calculus, for example.

 

I am just making a guess at what humans' next evolutionary traits might be in the distant future.

Don't go too far though, it might turn ugly!

http://www.sivatherium.narod.ru/library/Dixon_3/01_en.htm

 

I see now that animals do evolve. But how much is the real question. There is a capacity limit on evolution, population, an much more. I just want to learn how far creatures evolve. And if we do make it to space, I am not sure if animals can come with us. What if they can't adapt and survive?

Well, humans as well as most other terrestrial animal we know of, have evolved to a certain environment consisting of breathing oxygen and drinking water. So as long as those criteria are met, why wouldn't they be able to join us in space? After all, we're not evolved for breathing sunlight (to go back to an earlier example), yet we've managed to send people to space. We've sent animals as well, and they seem to have been fine.

 

Neither we nor other animals are likely to evolve to the point where we can live in the vacuum of space. Say we land on another planet in the far off future, will animals be able to adapt to that planet? Sure, if the place is hospitable to begin with, they'll surely evolve to live there, perhaps even branch off into different species given enough time.

[Phi for All]

And I am not saying that individuals evolve, but their minds do as they learn.

 

An individual human mind learns but does NOT evolve. The terminology used in science is, as you can imagine, required to be as precise as possible. Don't make the mistake of using the word "evolve" for anything an individual in a species does. Evolve has a very specific meaning, just like "theory" doesn't mean "an idea I've been pondering for some time now".

 

I see now that animals do evolve. But how much is the real question. There is a capacity limit on evolution, population, an much more. I just want to learn how far creatures evolve.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "a capacity limit". Every creature on the planet that has its skeleton on the inside of its body evolved from a common ancestor that you would call a fish smaller than your thumb. It's rivals were armored on the outside and really tough, but these fish with backbones and vertebrae were agile and fast and survived to keep breeding, each successive generation with adaptations selected for wider and more varied environments. The sheer numbers and enormous amounts of time gave chance and coincidence a breeding ground for all life you see today.

 

And if we do make it to space, I am not sure if animals can come with us. What if they can't adapt and survive?

 

The reason for my question is because, as you say, we have become more adaptable. Animals might not be able to adapt to space, because their genes might not change quite as quickly. I'm not saying they won't adapt to space.

 

It really depends on the animal. Tigers are awesome creatures and one of the fiercest of the big cats alive today, but leopards are much more adaptable and will most likely flourish as tiger populations dwindle. It will be interesting to see which animals can be cultivated offworld.

[JrPahoodneyMan]

Yes there is a great chance that animals will adapt to space, and minds change, but don't evolve, but the thing is, not all animals shed all their fur, and in space, they would also need to change to being smaller and adapt to artificial heating. As mass of the body changes to adapt to less potent gravity, it likely gets smaller because it won't need as much mass to support it. Yes, the chances of things getting ugly is a chance, too. There is also a chance that everyone in the distant future may look the same and just not be attractive. Look at the idea of aliens. That is the image that I think of when I say evolved-looking human form, this is why I came up with my speculation, and I hope that is understandable.

Many UFO sightings have been reported, as you see on some other people's posts, and there is a great chance that humans are the only ones capable of harnessing technology, that chance being if they are real and are human.

I am not trying to be strange in any way, just speculating, as is the norm. But seriously, think very deeply about this. The chances are high.

[Phi for All]

Yes there is a great chance that animals will adapt to space, and minds change, but don't evolve, but the thing is, not all animals shed all their fur, and in space, they would also need to change to being smaller and adapt to artificial heating.

 

What does fur have to do with it? And why do you think animals will adapt differently to "artificial" heating? Ambient temperature felt by any animal is going to be the same if it's caused by the sun, electric coils or a forced air system. What do you think is going to be different about the way we heat our habitats that will cause animals to shrink?

 

As mass of the body changes to adapt to less potent gravity, it likely gets smaller because it won't need as much mass to support it.

 

Why is the gravity going to be less potent?

 

Yes, the chances of things getting ugly is a chance, too. There is also a chance that everyone in the distant future may look the same and just not be attractive. Look at the idea of aliens. That is the image that I think of when I say evolved-looking human form, this is why I came up with my speculation, and I hope that is understandable.

 

Ugly is a cultural perception. It's highly doubtful that the entire race will consider itself ugly. Traits that take generations to develop will be absorbed into our culture just as gradually. Even if we end up looking the way you think, I'm sure along the way we'll consider that to be attractive.

 

Many UFO sightings have been reported, as you see on some other people's posts, and there is a great chance that humans are the only ones capable of harnessing technology, that chance being if they are real and are human.

I am not trying to be strange in any way, just speculating, as is the norm. But seriously, think very deeply about this. The chances are high.

 

Not really, when you consider the sheer number of possible life supporting planets out there. I would never say "the chances are high" we're the only life forms capable of creating offworld-capable technology. I wouldn't even say that about our own galaxy, let alone the whole universe.

[menageriemanor]

Teach me to not keep coming back to see what is going on.

 

I should have welcomed you, but you shocked me. I truly don't want to come across as mean, or trying to make you feel I'm wanting to give you a hard time. It is GOOD that you want to think, and understand, but I don't think you realise just how appallingly you have been educated, in the field of science. Your suppositions are really the equivalent of giving a 5 yo the money for, and responsibility of purchasing the weekly family food. Lollies, ice cream and chips. That's got to be great, eh? That's the science equivalent of some of the things you have proposed.

 

You use established scientific words with an established scientific meaning, in totally inappropriate ways, which, initially, is confusing, and once recognised, makes your craterous gaps in education and the understanding of biology, etc., shocking to many, and so terribly sad.

 

As a species, we have discovered so much, have discovered the extraordinary way things work, AMAZING, beautiful, logical WORKING theories of how the world works, yet, in reading your genuine, questioning post, it appears you received an appalling evidence twisting and/or evidence free science education, where science words have invented meanings. PLEASE, understand the scientific meaning of THEORY, for example, compared to the use of the word in fashion boutiques. If, indeed, it has ever been used in the latter.

 

If you want fast evolving, you want fast breeding maturity. That has nothing, necessarily, to do with intelligence, tho' it might, and, whether something changes depends on the stability of living conditions and the challenging conditions it is in. Potentially, with some animals, sexual maturity at 6 months, 5 years, insects in weeks... their potential to adapt is far greater, potentially, than humans.

 

Where does the obsession with fur changes come from? Do you see bare skin as 'advanced'? Frankly, as old bodies sag, get fat, I would FAR prefer to have humans furred. Aesthetically, fat old cat or dog or cow wandering around naked, is far easier on the eye, than a fat old woman or man - I use myself as a prime example. Tho I would opt for wire/rough coated coat, myself, to blur the worst effects. Not a long furred coat - couldn't be bothered with maintenance. When young, a short, satin black summer coat would be gorgeous. Or tortoiseshell or brindle... Far less worry about skin cancers and wrinkles...

 

Again, this time, you use the word EVOLVE as a simile for learn or to be educated. If a human brain actually evolved in it's own life timeline, from the education it had, from mother/father to child, that child would live with parents that seemed to be substandard, mentally from the birth of the child.. Our brains change, insofar as we individuals witness, in surrounding generations, not at all. Our brains have evolved amazingly, but over time. You are still thinking with the overnight arrival of Adam and Eve, 6000 year old life of Earth brain - or correctly, EDUCATION. or perhaps, ANTI education

 

The great joy, the great comfort, is education can be corrected, quickly, joyfully, and throughout, SO interestingly. Reality of science will thrill, entertain, and will sometimes hit you with a HUGE, joyous recognition, that NOW everything makes sense, now you can believe something and RELY on it to not collapse when challenged by evidence. No reliance on FAITH to just block out inconvenient facts you cannot explain.

 

In many sentences, you can substitute FAITH for GULLIBILITY.

 

Arguing science from a bible education is like debating cookery with an expert, from the study of Dr Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham.

[Moontanman]

I wouldn't say that just because the core might be solid, that it was constructed. It may have been a natural solid more dense and more capable of withstanding heat, so I wouldn't know if it is exactly natural or produced. I am just making a guess with my speculations, just as all theories start out as a speculation.

The Earth core is a solid ball of mostly iron and nickle hotter than the surface of the sun but made solid by the huge pressures of the rest of the planet. As the Earth formed it heated up from impacts, gravitational collapse, and radioactivity. Most of the heavier elements like iron and nickle sank to the center while silicates floated on the top...

And I am not saying that individuals evolve, but their minds do as they learn. The physical bodies do evolve over generations, I know that, and I accept that. I am just making a guess at what humans' next evolutionary traits might be in the distant future.

There has been some speculation on that, i have no idea if any of it is accurate in any way...

I see now that animals do evolve. But how much is the real question. There is a capacity limit on evolution, population, an much more. I just want to learn how far creatures evolve. And if we do make it to space, I am not sure if animals can come with us. What if they can't adapt and survive?

Biologically i see no reason why animals can't adapt to anything we can...

The reason for my question is because, as you say, we have become more adaptable. Animals might not be able to adapt to space, because their genes might not change quite as quickly. I'm not saying they won't adapt to space, though.

With out technology humans are unlikely to adapt to space either...

And eventually humans might have to adapt to artificial gravity and artificial lighting.

Why would this be a problem?

 

The sun has been unstable for hundreds of thousands of years, according to experts. It could explode into a red giant at a moment's notice.

citation needed please this is not what mainstream science says..

 

And another reasoning for my speculation on the possibility of the universe being artificial, what keeps the sun hot after it collapses from a red giant into a white dwarf?

you seriously need to learn to use google...

[JrPahoodneyMan]

Adapting to artificial heating means losing fur over generations. You see, Humans are adapting to artificial heating by losing hair. Artificial heating is at a universal level, which means animals and humans no longer need hair or fur, so eventually they shed it and are thus evolved to fit their new environment. This is what I mean. And the smaller the object producing the gravity, the less potent it is. You can tell by the difference of potency between Earth and the moon.

Adapting to artificial lighting and artificial gravity are not an issue. They will become, if the artificial gravity is invented, an inevitability. Humans are likely to adapt if the technology is invented and we travel into space.

[pwagen]

Adapting to artificial heating means losing fur over generations. You see, Humans are adapting to artificial heating by losing hair.

Got anything to back that up with? Heat is heat, no matter where it's coming from.

 

Artificial heating is at a universal level, which means animals and humans no longer need hair or fur, so eventually they shed it and are thus evolved to fit their new environment.

They don't magically "shed" their fur when it gets warm, that's not how evolution and natural selection works. If the fur isn't impacting survivability in a negative way, it's not selected against, so there's nothing to say they won't keep their fur, regardless of them not needing it. It can really go either way.

 

Adapting to artificial lighting and artificial gravity are not an issue. They will become, if the artificial gravity is invented, an inevitability. Humans are likely to adapt if the technology is invented and we travel into space.

So are other animals. You have yet to show why animals other than humans wouldn't be able to adapt. After all, our species was once not human. And we evolved and adapted. There's nothing special with us in that respect.

[Phi for All]

Adapting to artificial heating means losing fur over generations. You see, Humans are adapting to artificial heating by losing hair.

 

Citation, please? And where does clothing come into play in your hypothesis?

 

Artificial heating is at a universal level, which means animals and humans no longer need hair or fur, so eventually they shed it and are thus evolved to fit their new environment. This is what I mean.

 

Hair also protects us from the UV end of the light spectrum.