mankind

RE: mankind

Hello Cherylin,

Well, judging by past ages, man possibly won't look much different to how he does nowadays. You seem to be asking this from an evolution/anthropological standpoint.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx

RE: mankind

Well that is an interesting question, like already said can't see that we will look much different, but the way medicine and various other techniques develope, it would be no surprise to me that you had prosthetic limbs almost as good as your own, and various transplant procedures, and you never know a man or woman of say 50 years old could with science perhaps only look 30 years old

Fashion who knows different materials would of prob been developed.

BTW i would like to come back just for a day to find out if they had found a cure for Hair loss, i still have some but would like the rest back.lol

BTW That is if the Human race still exist

Paul

RE: mankind

I doubt if we'll look any different in evolutionary terms. We will still have eight fingers and two thumbs, for example. However, I agree with Paul, we may have invented things way beyond what we know about now.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxx

RE: mankind

In his conclusion to his Origin of Species, Charles Darwin laid out the factors which he considered molded the evolution of species, in the following passage:

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

This to my mind, in substance says it all, including his assumption of an initial devine spark.

We can only modify, sub-divide Darwin's Laws, in consideration of how future mankind will develop:

Of these laws: Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction, we now codify inheritance by our knowledge of DNA and the consequences of random variations in the genome, together with deliberate variations brought about by inter-racial breeding.

Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse, is the factor that that, when, IMHO taken to illogical conclusions, gives rise to atrophied limbs or even atrophied organs. The pundits of only a few decades ago, forecast that we would now be flitting about on atomic powered personal transports, our every physical need met by robots. If anything, we now work physically harder, certainly mentally, than ever we did.

Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, may operate for the May Fly, but for the 2.5 per average human, and with aid agencies controlling to some extent most world impoverishments, the struggle for life, although very real for some, is not an evolutionary control factor.

Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms, presupposes the existance and fighting for the common pot, of a mix of humanoid types. We are all one and the same.

So, for my part, I think that, just as we would find it impossible to detect a scrubbed up and be-suited 'cave man' from 10,000 years ago in a crowd of City Stockbrokers, excepting that he would be sober, a time traveller would find it easy to loose themselves 10,000 years in the future, as long as he switches off his mad frog phone tone.

Leo