Nicker on 10/3/2006 at 04:43
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
What next... cows walking on two feet? :eek:
[insert_obligatory] Farside cartoon of cows... [/insert_obligatory]
AR Master on 10/3/2006 at 05:06
Quote Posted by Ko0K
To me it seems that they made some broad assumptions, but anyway. I'm curious as to how they arrived at the conclusion that those kids "reverted to quadrupedalism." I mean, it could also be that they made a forward evolutionary progress. I don't think anybody can be absolutely certain that the future environment won't favor 'quadrapeds.' Granted, it's not going to happen any time soon.
Our spines, skulls and limbs are not suited for quadrapedialism. Because they live in current times, using an earlier form of movement counts as "reverting".
Ko0K on 10/3/2006 at 05:33
Quote Posted by AR Master
Our spines, skulls and limbs are not suited for quadrapedialism. Because they live in current times, using an earlier form of movement counts as "reverting".
Sure. I see no reason why that shouldn't be considered true. The thing is, though, that all mutations occurred in "current times" before they evolved to become the norm, and all of them were crude at first. Anyway, just a thought for fun, I guess.
Agent Monkeysee on 10/3/2006 at 05:54
People will never evolve to be quadropeds because we'd round all the mutants up and stick them in Turkey.
also because any human giving up their hands for simple locomotion would be utterly unable to function in a world of dextrous manipulators i mean seriously are you nuts the selective pressure against quadropedalism is IMMENSE it's like trying to compete against an airline by taping cardboard wings to a bike
Convict on 10/3/2006 at 06:07
What you forget is that the poorer you are, on average the more kids you have. The "selective pressure" you speak of would probably put them on a disability pension and they may well have more children than the average (in a first world country I am talking).
Agent Monkeysee on 10/3/2006 at 06:10
Quote Posted by Convict
What you forget is that the poorer you are, on average the more kids you have. The "selective pressure" you speak of would probably put them on a disability pension and they may well have more children than the average (in a first world country I am talking).
You have got to be shitting me.
Gingerbread Man on 10/3/2006 at 06:11
YAY! HERE WE GO! :D
Low Moral Fiber on 10/3/2006 at 06:15
It won't let me stream the Benny Hill music in this thread can an admin fix? thx
Convict on 10/3/2006 at 06:16
I'm just looking at what could be rather humorous irony AM. What part do you disagree with? Poor people do tend to have more children than rich people in first world countries. If the gene/s that causes this problem are reproduced more often because they cause people to be poor, then the condition would become more and more prevalent over generations. Of course, it's only something like 30 generations since Jesus so in reality no real change in the population would occur in the next 10000 years or whatever (beside genetic engineering may get rid of it anyway).
Agent Monkeysee on 10/3/2006 at 06:22
What do I disagree with? That someone who can't use their hands is fucking useless to society and there's no possible way they could possibly outbreed PEOPLE THAT CAN USE THEIR HANDS. How do you not understand that this would be a crippling handicap?
Jesus christ, do you think people with cerebral palsy are the next step in human advancement?
Besides who the hell would breed with a quadroped. Gross.
