Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, no-one thinks the elite will be choosing the characteristics of their new baby? As soon as that time comes (and it is not very far off now), we will have a definite 2-tier society where the ones who can choose will choose and the ones who cannot, will be left without insurance.
Even now, I look at humans and cannot find a way how the different characteristics 'evolved' and where is the continuing evolution trend if it happened previously in history?
All dogs are supposed to evolve from a wolf, so where is the evidence for this in fossils?
Yes it is. The idea that every differentiated set of physical characteristics is going to cross-breed into identical slush is hilariously nutty and linear-minded. You've been watching too many episodes of Star Trek or other shows full of what TV Tropes calls, I think, "Planet of Hats" - every person on a planet is of identical appearance, dress, culture, religion, language...
Earth is vast and diverse enough that differing superficial characteristics - let's call them "races" for short - will persist as long as there is a planetwide population. We are not all going to look like the browner takes on Jesus (or whatever) in 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years. Only when/if humans are reduced to a small and geographically compact population could a single 'blenderized' morphology result.
It's good to know you know everything about the future.
Speaking as an evolutionary biologist -- there is no genetic basis for categorizing humans into distinct or separate "races". If you sequence human DNA and try to categorize those sequences into races, you will fail. There are no specific sequences or markers for doing so. The concept of "race" evolved to facilitate tribalism and justify prejudice.
If anyone is interested in the anthropological aspect of "races," the December 1918 issue of National Geographic is entirely devoted to the "Races of Europe." The overall thrust of it heavily relates to which groups were distinct cultures and who warred with who. It does provide somewhat of a shorthand way of understanding the conflicts that led to various wars. What I found particularly interesting is that the racist thought of today is an incredibly dumbed-down degenerate version of what once was a method of distinguishing and describing cultures. Certainly racism was present in that era, and certainly portions of populations engaged in blind hate, but is was interesting to read an educated discourse on the subject.
Speaking as an evolutionary biologist -- there is no genetic basis for categorizing humans into distinct or separate "races". If you sequence human DNA and try to categorize those sequences into races, you will fail. There are no specific sequences or markers for doing so. The concept of "race" evolved to facilitate tribalism and justify prejudice.
Considerable effort was expended in the 19th century to develop a formal definition of race, all of which failed miserably.
When molecular structure of DNA was first identified by James Watson and Francis Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory within the University of Cambridge in 1953, it sparked a lot of effort in the late 1950's to come up with a formal definition of race.
It was fairly quickly determined that the different ethnic groups of Africa had more variation in DNA than the rest of the world, leading to the obvious conclusion that length of time on the planet was more important than continent of origin.
The classical definitions of race referred to some simple physical (phenotypical) traits, and were no more scientific than saying a whale and a fish are related because they live in the water.
Many people feel that the census bureau in the USA unscientifically maintains the distinction between race and ethnicity decades after it was debunked scientifically. The census bureau tries to get around this problem by asking people to "self define" their race.
I still see 'race' used as a sample type in medical studies, presumably because of a weak genomic correlation. But that is likely to trend toward obsolescence as individual genetic scans become widely available.
At some point in the future (If we survive that long) everyone will be the same color so "race" will be an necessary term.
Race and gender will be eliminated within 72 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
