the future of humankind depends on old dudes banging young chicks

[Marlowe]

now this is science i can get behind. guys over 35 need to start banging young chicks in order to ensure the future development of the human race. you know, it's a tall order and a great responsibility, but i for one am up for the challenge! who's with me????


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over
Julia Belluz

Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert.

Fathers over the age of 35 are more likely to pass on mutations, according to Professor Steve Jones, of University College London.

Speaking today at a UCL lecture entitled “Human evolution is over” Professor Jones will argue that there were three components to evolution – natural selection, mutation and random change. “Quite unexpectedly, we have dropped the human mutation rate because of a change in reproductive patterns,” Professor Jones told The Times.

“Human social change often changes our genetic future,” he said, citing marriage patterns and contraception as examples. Although chemicals and radioactive pollution could alter genetics, one of the most important mutation triggers is advanced age in men.

This is because cell divisions in males increase with age. “Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error,” he said. “For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on – each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.

“For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation.”

Professor Jones added: “In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children.” He cites the fecund Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is reputed to have fathered 888 children. To achieve this feat, Ismail is thought to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years.

Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. “In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21.”

Decreasing randomness is another contributing factor. “Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now – about the size of the population of Glasgow.

“Small populations which are isolated can evolve at random as genes are accidentally lost. World-wide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. We are mixing into a glo-bal mass, and the future is brown.”

[lutz]

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Medicine killed evolution.

[Dirk]

Being a 35 year old man, I will start accepting application to help continue evolution immediately. Please send a resume (with picture of course) to apply to help me help the species continue to evolve. I feel it is my duty to help the species. Ugly chicks need not apply, as I want to beautify the future as well.

[Duemellon]

I'm an old dude? WTF?

I'll do what I can. Gotta finish my return to college 1st. I mean, I don't wanna just be making uncared for baybees. Oh, I guess cohabitation & marriage might come along with that. After 3½ years it's getting pretty clear it's what's gonna happen for us.

However, back to the idea that somehow humanity is going to change it's actual genetic makeup through natural selection & find physiological advantages for our environment is misguided.

The only thing that dictates your gene set is passed on is if you reproduce. Reproduction in our global society is based less on traits that are helpful in our society & more on asthetic attributes. Which means that, unless asthetic attributes are helpful in our global society (& they are, for financial opportunities, favors, & opportunites to further reproduce).

So, I can say that what will happen is that people will become more "beautiful", but even that is limited to regional & sub-social opinions. In no way will growing that 6th digit ever become "cool", nor will having a larger head to hold greater brain power be better either.

Money & looks are how you get laid. Being a debonair ugly fug can help, but it's nothing like a fat wallet in Adonis' pocket.

[markalot]

We had our kids over the age of 35, so I'm officially pro evolution.

I'm not seeing any mutations ... yet.

[cockney rebel]

I've been looking for work

[Arkansas]

I'm on that.

[Chespo]

He cites the fecund Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is reputed to have fathered 888 children. To achieve this feat, Ismail is thought to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years.Let us take a moment to tip our hats to Moulay Ismail Ibn Sharif. Considering that his excessive copulation probably didn't begin until the age of 26 when he inherited his 500-strong harem along with the Moroccan dynasty, and that it's reasonable to conclude that he wasn't really siring children into his 80s (if he even lived that long, since records vary), this guy managed to build a new capital city, make war three separate times with the Ottoman Turks, and expand his empire through conquest while actually maintaining a much higher daily average. The world just doesn't produce men like that anymore.

[Marlowe]

Let us take a moment to tip our hats to Moulay Ismail Ibn Sharif..

dood, tell me about it!! moulay looks at chumps like wilt chamberlain and gene simmons, shakes his head and laughs his ass off, then regroups himself and sniffs a bit as he mutters "amateurs..." and he ambles back into the boudoir for some more lovin'. many point to bob beaman's long-jump and say it was the longest-standing record before being broken, but moulay outshines them all.

[Tweeks_Coffee]

So all you females need to quit being so greedy by going for the "young and hot" guys. Stop thinking about yourselves for a minute and go get knocked up by someone over 35. For the sake of humanity, of course.

[upwithpeople]

If you follow the link, there's a photo of Professor Steve Jones.
http://bsd.org.yu/~bilke/culture/images/dr_strangelove_merkwurdichliebe.jpg

[patio]

And then there is this other study which shows children of older fathers have higher rates of bipolar disorder, autism, schizophrenia, etc... (http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2008/09/02/2008-09-02_older_fathers_more_likely_to_have_kids_w.html) Are these things we should select for?

[drougan]

So the future of humanity is to increase the rate of evolution and genetic mutation thus resulting in speciation and a whole new species?

What a bunch of crap. You know what happens with genetic mutations? Mutants! Also, older fathers are associated with increased levels of autism in their offspring, so it ain't all spiffy.

Why again does the human species need to evolve anyway? In this author's mind it's so he can get laid, seemingly.

[Tweeks_Coffee]

So the future of humanity is to increase the rate of evolution and genetic mutation thus resulting in speciation and a whole new species?

What a bunch of crap. You know what happens with genetic mutations? Mutants! Also, older fathers are associated with increased levels of autism in their offspring, so it ain't all spiffy.

Why again does the human species need to evolve anyway? In this author's mind it's so he can get laid, seemingly.

I dunno, from what I've seen genetic mutation is pretty sweet.


http://www.rwrinnovations.com/productpages/x-men_cover.jpg

I, for one, welcome our new mutant overlords and would like to remind them that I can be useful for menial errands that they deem unfit for their superior abilities.

[Buzzstein]

Evolution is still happening though. We can't stop it. There will always be factors that will change our overall genetic make up(s). In the lab we will come up with some interesting traits to pass on to people and future human like beings. That and/or we will evolve into robots. In a sense robots will be our children...maybe more like children of the corn, but they will be conceived by us. It's evolution baby!

[lutz]

What are the odds that the guy who came up with this: a) is 50, and b) hasn't got laid since he was 30?

[Buzzstein]

What are the odds that the guy who came up with this: a) is 50, and b) hasn't got laid since he was 30?

Hmmmmm I think they are pretty good. :)

[mistergugi]

What are the guys that under 35 supposed to do? Are we supposed to wait around until we come "of age" or should we be gettin' busy so as to hone our skills?

[Duemellon]

Evolution is still happening though. We can't stop it.Actually, I'll disagree.

I'll bet that our evolutionary progress has been dramatically stunted since we developed reliable transportation overseas. Once transportation has lifted the barriers isolating large populations in certain environments. Now we have one giant environment for us to evolve in. The swapping of genes from one extreme environment to another is going to reduce the specialization.

The most frequent attributes used to determine who breeds successfully are attributes unrelated to succeeding in the "natural" world. So again, we're stymying this.

[the happy prole]

That is exactly wrong. Bigger gene pool= good for species' ability to evolve.
If you don't swap genes, evolution can't happen except by the odd mutation.

[patio]

Actually, I'll disagree.

I'll bet that our evolutionary progress has been dramatically stunted since we developed reliable transportation overseas. Once transportation has lifted the barriers isolating large populations in certain environments. Now we have one giant environment for us to evolve in. The swapping of genes from one extreme environment to another is going to reduce the specialization.

The most frequent attributes used to determine who breeds successfully are attributes unrelated to succeeding in the "natural" world. So again, we're stymying this.

On the other hand there could be a increase in the speed of evolutionary change with this increased mixing. It would be kinda hard to know if the net change has decreased or increased.

[patio]

That is exactly wrong. Bigger gene pool= good for species' ability to evolve.
If you don't swap genes, evolution can't happen except by the odd mutation.

It is good for survivability/fitness, doesn't necessarily translate to ability to evolve.

[miami2112]

i disagree. humans are no longer under the constraints of natural selection.

humans have escaped evolution/adaptation in the natural world. once humans invented society, we escaped the natural pressures of survival (hunting, gathering, surviving the elements, etc...) and passing of those genes to our offspring.

for example, a rabbit that cannot run as fast as other rabbits could be an easier target for predators, while rabbits that can run faster could escape the predation pressure. presumably, the slower rabbits get eaten before the faster rabbits and before they can reproduce the slow genes into the next generation, eliminating the slow running genes from the gene pool. a slower running human does not have to outrun a predator and can survive quite nicely in our society.

for evolution/adaptation to occur, there has to be a selective pressure eliminating those not as well adapted to the environment. evidence of human society suggests otherwise. we survive with detrimental genes, that in the natural world foraging for food everyday, would decrease our chances for survival and reproduction of our genes: myopia, diabetes, to name a few.

the only potential selective pressure on humans today are bacterial diseases that can kill victims before reproduction, eliminating those genes out of the gene pool. and with our medicines, i'd argue that chance is slim.

[miami2112]

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Medicine killed evolution.

invention of society killed natural selection on humans.


However, back to the idea that somehow humanity is going to change it's actual genetic makeup through natural selection & find physiological advantages for our environment is misguided.

The only thing that dictates your gene set is passed on is if you reproduce. Reproduction in our global society is based less on traits that are helpful in our society & more on asthetic attributes. Which means that, unless asthetic attributes are helpful in our global society (& they are, for financial opportunities, favors, & opportunites to further reproduce).

So, I can say that what will happen is that people will become more "beautiful", but even that is limited to regional & sub-social opinions. In no way will growing that 6th digit ever become "cool", nor will having a larger head to hold greater brain power be better either.

Money & looks are how you get laid. Being a debonair ugly fug can help, but it's nothing like a fat wallet in Adonis' pocket.

youre suggesting sexual selection, where mates are choosen for color of feathers, size of antlers. there is no evidence that sexual selection is occuring in the human population, and if so, what traits are being favored? there's a broad spectrum of variation in humans, if i accept that beautiful can be quantified (which it cant) there is no evidence of humans becoming "more beautiful" over succeeding generations.

[Duemellon]

On the other hand there could be a increase in the speed of evolutionary change with this increased mixing. It would be kinda hard to know if the net change has decreased or increased.That was already addressed by saying that the specialization is lost because groups are no longer isolated nor specialized.

To create diversity a group has to be isolated from their "parent group" for many generations. That isolation can be due to land barriers or even the specialization of a food source within the same environment. Since we have transportation & communication capable of circumventing the world in less than ½ a day, we pretty much removed most of the isolation possible for multiple generations.

Sure, there are still pockets were people self-isolate (Amish, racists, & theists), but even after 2-3 generations it's bound to have "fresh genes" injected into it's lineage. There are very few exceptions such as isolated tribes & multi-generational incestuous families (ick).

We have taken control of selection in a conscience matter. Unlike animals, we are aware of how we are chosing our reproductive partners & make decisions that aren't based on the natural world. Furthermore, because of our inventiveness (technology) we are able to change the environment to fit what we want our bodies to do. This will be furthered by our control of genetics, but when we did that we are no longer allowing nature & chance to dictate our success.

[frizgolf]

When the aliens land and start penetrating our air with their subliminal mind control vapors, I want a pocket of humanity somewhere on the planet with a mutation that is immune to it.
Yes. Some high-mountain New Guinea tribe is the future of the planet, and will eventually fight off the invading aliens.

[Duemellon]

invention of society killed natural selection on humans.I will say the "society" was not the sole, nor major, factor as many other animals demonstrate clear societies that are actual "cultures" passed through generations & taught to strangers. This has been seen in birds & primates at least & is different from an "ant society" where instinct plays the major part in the organization.

I will propose that technology is what removed us from "natural" selection.youre suggesting sexual selection, where mates are choosen for color of feathers, size of antlers. there is no evidence that sexual selection is occuring in the human population, and if so, what traits are being favored? there's a broad spectrum of variation in humans, if i accept that beautiful can be quantified (which it cant) there is no evidence of humans becoming "more beautiful" over succeeding generations.The reason why I quoted "beautiful" was to emphasize how it's still subjective & unrelated to success. When thinking completely naturally & objectively, every single person should be seeking older guys of girth & ill temper OR seeking young women of girth & large boobs. Their faces won't matter. Their skin smoothness won't matter. Their body odor nor personality would matter. The fact they are "girthy" shows they have excess resources. The large boobs shows they have milk-factories for the kids. Your ill-temper shows your aggressiveness & protective nature. Their age shows a long line of continuous success.

As for the idea that animals select based on asthetics, it's true but not quite true. There are birds that are attracted to males who are more "red", but the males get "red" by eating more of the preferred food. Therefore, natural selection chose an appropriate survival trait with inappropriate reasoning. True, if the birds found a way to be red without the food source they would short-circuit the method & the birds would evolve or die out.

[Marlowe]

Yes. Some high-mountain New Guinea tribe is the future of the planet, and will eventually fight off the invading aliens.

speak for yourself, pal. i, for one, welcome our new insect overlords!

[Buzzstein]

We have taken control of selection in a conscience matter. Unlike animals, we are aware of how we are chosing our reproductive partners & make decisions that aren't based on the natural world. Furthermore, because of our inventiveness (technology) we are able to change the environment to fit what we want our bodies to do. This will be furthered by our control of genetics, but when we did that we are no longer allowing nature & chance to dictate our success.

But are we really taking control of selection? Or do we just think we are? I think our choices and decisions and development of technology are all a part of evolution. Just because we have a higher level of consciousness of our actions doesn't mean we stop evolving or that it's not "natural." I believe everything that has or ever will happen is "natural." Look at how technology has evolved and changed the way we do things. Humans may have a certain amount of "control" over what they do but it's still a random process. We are all individuals and we can't control what other humans do so random and unexpected things are still going to happen and natural selection will still occur. It doesn't matter how much control we think we have, chance still dictates our success.

[Duemellon]

It doesn't matter how much control we think we have, chance still dictates our success.Luck is shorthand for "I don't know how it happened" & chance is fiction.

I know what you (& FGolf) have been saying for some time. That because we exist in the natural world & came from the natural world, we are inexoribly tied to the natural world & anything we do, being derived from the natural world, means it's "natural".

I disagree with this inclusive statement.

You can look at a mouse & say it's a different type of animal than an ape or a whale, but if you look back far enough they all shared the same shew-like anscestors. We could conclusively call them all "shrews" but that white-washes the origins of their distinct differences.

Because we can author non-organic self-replicating individuals, those non-organic individuals are a derivative of the natural world. However, any descendents, varied or clones, would truly never have existed without mankind's intervention. A brand new line of self-replicating individuals has been created & the natural development of such things has a peer.

When/where do new epochs begin & end? Who decides? Is it worth deliniating the history of Earth when it all falls into the category of the existance of our solar system? Our galaxy? Even that distinction could be wiped off in favor of simply saying "existance" to denote the moment something started existing at any time through all of time.

[frizgolf]

Well, who, or what, created the seeds for primordial life here in our world (or galaxy)? Could it be that it was all some science experiment and we're not really "natural" in that same sense?

[Duemellon]

Well, who, or what, created the seeds for primordial life here in our world (or galaxy)?

Answer:
Your mom.

[dannyboy]

Luck is shorthand for "I don't know how it happened" & chance is fiction.

I know what you (& FGolf) have been saying for some time. That because we exist in the natural world & came from the natural world, we are inexoribly tied to the natural world & anything we do, being derived from the natural world, means it's "natural".

I disagree with this inclusive statement.

You can look at a mouse & say it's a different type of animal than an ape or a whale, but if you look back far enough they all shared the same shew-like anscestors. We could conclusively call them all "shrews" but that white-washes the origins of their distinct differences.

Because we can author non-organic self-replicating individuals, those non-organic individuals are a derivative of the natural world. However, any descendents, varied or clones, would truly never have existed without mankind's intervention. A brand new line of self-replicating individuals has been created & the natural development of such things has a peer.

When/where do new epochs begin & end? Who decides? Is it worth deliniating the history of Earth when it all falls into the category of the existance of our solar system? Our galaxy? Even that distinction could be wiped off in favor of simply saying "existance" to denote the moment something started existing at any time through all of time.

Could it be that things can be separate and distinct and completely interrelated at the same time?

It's only the limitation of the human mind that feels the need to subdivide and categorize.

[Duemellon]

Could it be that things can be separate and distinct and completely interrelated at the same time?

It's only the limitation of the human mind that feels the need to subdivide and categorize.Yep. We love patterns & relationships so we're the only ones making an abstract deliniation. Animals, however, also make pattern-based decisions & treach that tradition. So we aren't the ONLY thing that much divide & categorize on instinct.

As for distinctly related, yep. That was the point I was making. I was saying, however, that the point of saying "it's natural" versus "man made" is a distinction between categories we generated. Yep, the distinction itself is man made.

However, that distinction, when talking about what is "natural" v. "man made" means the very definition of "man made" means it wouldn't'v occurred except for man's deliberate & conscience intervention.

[The Big Crunch]

For years now I've been trying to explain to the hot young twenty-seomthings I meet at bars that if they don't hook up with me at the end of the night, then the whole human race could be in jeopardy. Judging purely on my sex life (or lack thereof), I can only guess that today's young women just don't give a crap about humanity. :(

[patio]

That was already addressed by saying that the specialization is lost because groups are no longer isolated nor specialized.

To create diversity a group has to be isolated from their "parent group" for many generations. That isolation can be due to land barriers or even the specialization of a food source within the same environment. Since we have transportation & communication capable of circumventing the world in less than ½ a day, we pretty much removed most of the isolation possible for multiple generations.

Sure, there are still pockets were people self-isolate (Amish, racists, & theists), but even after 2-3 generations it's bound to have "fresh genes" injected into it's lineage. There are very few exceptions such as isolated tribes & multi-generational incestuous families (ick).

We have taken control of selection in a conscience matter. Unlike animals, we are aware of how we are chosing our reproductive partners & make decisions that aren't based on the natural world. Furthermore, because of our inventiveness (technology) we are able to change the environment to fit what we want our bodies to do. This will be furthered by our control of genetics, but when we did that we are no longer allowing nature & chance to dictate our success.

That doesn't make any sense. And why are Amish, racists and theists grouped together? What about hippies?

Isolation leads to less diversity. Genetic drift = bottleneck/founder effect = less fitness.

You can't prove (other) animals are not aware of how they choose their partners.

This is a dumb thread.

[frizgolf]

Answer:
Your mom.






Damn. I'd better get to reproducing STAT.

[Duemellon]

That doesn't make any sense. And why are Amish, racists and theists grouped together? What about hippies?Who said it was limited to the Amish, racists, & theists? You have artistocrats, classists, etc.Isolation leads to less diversity. Genetic drift = bottleneck/founder effect = less fitness.Who's arguing against that? Those groups self-isolate even though they have every technological & genetic capability to do otherwise.You can't prove (other) animals are not aware of how they choose their partners.WTF? There are differences between being social-driven, opportunity-driven, instinct-driven, & such.

[TripleShockPowa]

Another factor is the weakening of natural selection. “In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98 per cent of them are surviving to 21.”[/i]

Some people should die; that's just unconscience knowledge!" - Jane's Addiction

[lutz]

Luck is shorthand for "I don't know how it happened" & chance is fiction.After reading Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, I totally agree with this. And what you said about humans wanting to see patterns and relationships. It's the reason we can see a bunch of random splodges on a rock, or a piece of toast or something, and go "Wow, it's the face of Jesus!"

[the happy prole]

We are part of nature, thus everything we do is part of natural selection. Just because we have overcome physical barriers doesn't mean we don't evolve.

Look at say, Fiddler crabs. The males have a huge claw that doesn't confer any real strategic survival advantage in and of itself but it still impresses the female Fiddlers. That gives big-clawed male Fiddlers an advantage when it comes to probability of reproduction so the trait survives. It happens all over the animal kingdom.

If we stop needing legs because we can teleport ourselves with machinery, maybe at some point our legs will disappear. If we become a computer/logic-based society, our brains just get larger.

What you guys are doing is like saying that because we built a plane, gravity no longer exists. Well no, it still exists and acts upon objects according to the laws of physics. That hasn't changed.

[lutz]

Of course human evolution hasn't stopped. But there are factors which can affect the rate of evolution, and I think we've managed to slow it down quite significantly (though really, who can tell? No-one's going to live for a million years and be able to see if that's true).

[the happy prole]

Right. All this technology hasn't been around for very long and the human species overall is relatively young. Some catastrophe could wipe us out tomorrow or send us back to a stone age like existence.

Alternatively, we may be near the point where if we find a particular gene that is weak or that is strong we can just fix up a DNA code sequence via technology instead of waiting for 1,000 generations. So arguably we'll be evolving much, much faster if you want to look at it that way.

[Duemellon]

Look at say, Fiddler crabs. The males have a huge claw that doesn't confer any real strategic survival advantage in and of itself but it still impresses the female Fiddlers. That gives big-clawed male Fiddlers an advantage when it comes to probability of reproduction so the trait survives. It happens all over the animal kingdom.

If we stop needing legs because we can teleport ourselves with machinery, maybe at some point our legs will disappear. If we become a computer/logic-based society, our brains just get larger.Nature(subset) = [evolution, man-made]
The idea humanity is inescapably "natural" because they came from natural events is often used to downplay how distinct the concept of "man made" is within that same realm. There's nothing that can exist with nature because nature, in actuality, includes all of reality. If it exists it only exists because reality exists.

Deliberate, Abstract Choice versus. Circumstance & Luck
The aspect that makes something specifically "man made" versus falling under the "natural" description is where a person uses free will, pattern recognition, & memory retention to deliberately manipulate naturally occurring events how they cognizently choose. This ability has been found in other animals, but no other animal relies on it as heavily nor leverages it in so many aspects of their life.

Evolution's Absurdity
When you gave the example of the crab with the larger claw & how that aspect isn't beneficial to it, I also addressed this with the point about the "redder birds". There's more to it, in that, when you have a development of a pattern based on attributes that aren't related to "the real process" (without a true causational link), you get evolution like that.

Evolution is Taking It To An Extreme
I will assume that some point in that crabs' evolution having a larger claw was particularly helpful. A beneficial evolutionary development occurred when the females were instinctually hardwired (through chance) to go after those with the larger claw. Due to that development, however advantageous it was at one point, the selection process encouraged claw growth in males to the point of absurdity. The crab still has to balance this attribute with the basics of survivability, hunt/gather, evade, reproductive capabilities, etc. After all, if the females only want big claws but all the big clawed ones actually can't function long enough to reach puberty or are incapable of reproducing, the crab ends.

Man-Made Mating Choice v. Natural Selection
In comparison to us, though, we are doing much along that same line. How many times are people being selected for breeding for characteristics which maintain our current physiological makeup? How many are chosen for attributes unrelated to success outside of a supportive society? How many, who have a physiological advantage, are actually overlooked because that difference is "unattractive"?

Evolution Absurdity Trumps Evolution Practicality
As you were suggesting that one day we may (or are currently) going to see our legs atrophy because, evolutionarily speaking, we have no need for them to succeed in our world of technology. I will say, very clearly & without any fear of being wrong, this will NEVER happen as long as society continues to value asthetics unrelated to actual survival. It would be helpful for humans to no longer waste energy developing & maintaining the "vistigual" legs, but people will still rather mate with legged people than unlegged people due to the concept of "beauty". Humanity will not look dramatically different for the rest of eternity because we base our mates on social pressures more than natural pressures.What you guys are doing is like saying that because we built a plane, gravity no longer exists. Well no, it still exists and acts upon objects according to the laws of physics. That hasn't changed.Evolution exists for us but our choices for mating is based on social pressures. Therefore, our evolution will continue to increase successful breeding for those who satisfy those social pressures so much more so than any physiological changes possible.

[Marlowe]

Alternatively, we may be near the point where if we find a particular gene that is weak or that is strong we can just fix up a DNA code sequence via technology instead of waiting for 1,000 generations. So arguably we'll be evolving much, much faster if you want to look at it that way.

yes, that's 100% right. i 'do' think that humans haven't finished evolving naturaly, but the laboratory-based evolutionary actions will subsume that 1,000 fold, easily, not to mention the eventual fusion of technology/computers with biology.

a millenium from now, people will look back at us the same way we look back at neanderthals.

but having said all of that, i'm still gonna work the angle of this story and try to bang a few 19 year olds. we all gotsta do our part.

[classicgrrl]

scientists and researchers who get their 15 min saying stupid shit suck.