I know that evolutionists and the like, like to spend time on this forum so I will ask, Do scientists come up?

Question

with their hairbrained theories by watching Sci-Fi movies or reading Sci-Fi books or something? Have you seen the latest where some scientists is theorizing that the human race will eventually evolve into two species, one beautiful with good physique and smart and the other ugly and small and dumb, did he get that from H.G. Wells or something? Check it out in Yahoo news. What a joke LOL ROF

Answer 1

I saw that article and was wondering the same thing.

Answer 2

I'm just as surprised at that article. I'm surprised this guy was hired by a decent school like LSE, I think it's a shame. I'm usually a strong defender of academic freedom, but this just seems like a case where a man, though intelligent, has no scientific background and starts making up some science fiction. It's wonderful for science fiction because it allows for a scientifically possible explanation - but what's ironic is as a philosopher, he doesn't realize it's culturally impossible/unrealistic.

It's funny too because one of the popular science questions that commonly gets asked here is "Will humans evolve wings" and the like, and usually it gets shot down pretty quickly. But here we actually have an established professor at LSE, no less, saying something like this.

-----------

I just read this more (the direct LSE report), and have concluded, not only do I just disagree with his conclusions, his conclusions are just poor science.
He contradicts himself scientifically: he says sexual selection will be important, but fails to realize that sexual selection would probably help preserve skin and hair colour diversity; coffee coloured skin is just wrong, it's one thing that early geneticists even before Mendel recognized that we're not all the same; coffee coloured skin is based on high-gene flow which would prevent the species diversion that he suggests; his mention of technology is the only thing I agree with; but he should recognize that technology will likely include gene treatments, and that's where things get very unpredictable...the problems go on...

Answer 3

Most scientists take their answers from years of research with reproducible results. There are some theories which might seem strange, but they are based on principles that make sense. The article was talking about social/natural selection. After so many years, it believes there will be one group with has more genes that leads to those qualities. Basically, it takes about artificial selection in evolution.

The Scifi movies actually gets their ideas from scientific research although some of them are extrapolating those ideas beyond our current and limited view of science.

Answer 4

There's a difference between what a single scientist comes up with, and what the *entire scientific community* agrees with.

A *HUGE* difference.

Second, when a scientist talks to a newspaper, and they throw in gratuitous photographs from 50's sci-fi movies, it may surprise you to learn that the photographs are not part of the scientist's research.

In summary, while getting your science form the "Daily Mail" is a step up from Creationist sources like answersingenesis.com or drdino.com ... it is still a lousy place to get your science.

Answer 5

Usually its the other way around, SF authors build on the ideas that are cutting edge science that the general population hasn't caught on to yet.

Regarding the theory presented by Oliver Curry, after reading the articles, it seemed to me that statements that were similar to Wells did not come from him but from journalists who were trying to draw attention to their articles

Answer 6

There's no Science Pope.

That is to say, what one guy says has to be testable and observable if anyone is going to take him seriously, and they'll have to be able to replicate his results. Since we're talking about the future, it's all speculation. And given 100,000 years, who knows? Speciation has occured in shorter periods of time.

Answer 7

I read one of the articles and it was just speculation on the process of sexual selection.

What I find more interesting than the article is the way you questioners totally misunderstand the article; the principals behind it and use the article as a thinly veiled attack on evolutionary theory.
Your first sentence exposes your ideological bent.

Answer 8

I wasnt impressed by that article. Yes our life expectancy will go up and probably things such as height and physical features, but i do not think we will split into two species.