 | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) Not a bad point, but it must be stipulated that since humanity is *part* of nature, then the traits we, as agents of nature, elect to favor will survive and be passed on in a manner exactly consistent with evolution. I'm not sure that the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Doing the Discover Mag Rag (Was: At last, a Federal program we can all support.)
|
|
(...) Well, if you're only looking to maintain the status quo of scientific integrity, Weekly World News isn't too much of a leap away from Discover! I don't follow many science journals too regularly, though I'll pick up an occasional Scientific (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) Macroevolution, yes. Microevolution, no. (which is why switching away from Ciprox is a good idea, hold it in reserve if we can) (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) "Dead end" has an air of finality that can't be declared with any confidence when speaking of evolution. It may be the case, though I don't think so, that we've created a temporary stall on evolution, but even then, it's not world-wide, and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) to (...) Have you read the novels "Last and First Men" and "Starmaker" by Olaf Stapledon? They deal with exactly those issues but on a grand scale, and are *exceptionally* humbling reads. Highly recommended! Jennifer (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Doing the Discover Mag Rag (Was: At last, a Federal program we can all support.)
|
|
(...) We get New Scientist, it tends to be a bit "current" but it is a good read. The range of articles in it means one can spend and afternoon with it, or just a cup of coffee. It does not have the depth of Scientific American, but the detail is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Confused?...
|
|
Tut Tut Santosh, I thought I was cynical. Next you will be telling us this war is also about Central Asian oil & gas, that Bush met with the Taleban before he was elected, that Unacol proposed the pipeline across Afghanistan, that Unocal (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Doing the Discover Mag Rag (Was: At last, a Federal program we can all support.)
|
|
(...) I would favor Scientific American but that's just because I've never read the other two. I find SA to be a very absorbing read. But it's not a read while watching TV sort of rag, you need to give it your full attention to get what the articles (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) Right. Or at least closer. What I'm getting at is that evolution is a natural process that produces changes in organisms in response to changes in environment (including the changes that occur in other organisms) but that we are now choosing, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Confused?...
|
|
Talk about double standards... Saw this on another forum, apparently its been emailed about. Confused? Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys? Use this handy guide to differences between Terrorists and the U.S. Government: (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) 2030: designer human v5.0 The baby can change its own nappy. :) Scott A (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) Is it not our intelligence which separates from rest of the animals? Is that not the key to our evolution, or do you think it is incidental? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Doing the Discover Mag Rag (Was: At last, a Federal program we can all support.)
|
|
(...) (Not that Discover magazine really has anything to do with Discovery Communications Inc., but still...) So here's a little story. I'm in the position where, to compliment my National Geographic collection, I'm looking for a subscription to any (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Why Do so many hate America"... or is it "Why does America hate US?"?
|
|
Let me first go over the article itself, before I comment on the response Larry posted. (...) One explanation, yes. (...) Inside its borders, yes. (...) That gets to the point. (...) This argument leaves me behind ... (...) Very true. (...) Again (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) I understood Larry's point differently, in that optimistically we might never go extinct (technology propelling us beyond the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe...), but in terms of biological evolution we're more or less at a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) of (...) tend (...) We may, in the end, cause our own extinction, in which case I guess you could say we're currently in the process of stopping our evolution, but I think it's a pretty big stretch. As I've said before, I think humanity will (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) Except to stop it. Which we are in the process of doing, and which was my original point! ++Lar (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) to (...) "wrong (...) That may be so, but I would think that most people who have a middling understanding of evolution would agree that intelligence has little (if any) effect on it. (...) right (...) No. Read the question again. I was (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) A couple of eminently debatable assertions. *Read Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" for a perspective on the furphy of IQ testing -- recent editions include a refutation of the premise and methodology that inform "The Bell Curve" c/ race /class. (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
|
(...) Though admittedly a generalization, this trend in intelligence:breeding rate is based on an evolutionarily insignificant stretch of time. Further, even in the hypothetical example, the judging of intelligence based on academic achievement (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
