Lennart Kiil  wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler"  wrote in message 
> > Michael Ragland  wrote or quoted:
> >> Michael Ragland  wrote or quoted:

> >> MAYR: There's absolutely no chance of the human species evolving. First
> >> of all, we can never speciate. We cover every niche, every spot on the
> >> earth, so there's no opportunity for isolation. Moreover, I do not feel
> >> there's any natural selection in any positive sense going on right now.
> >> Of course, there are those who have talked about eugenics, but we all
> >> know that eugenics is impossible for many reasons. I can't see the
> >> development of man into superman or anything like that.
Theoretically we
> >> could have cultural evolution and develop higher and better concepts.
> >> But if you have no basis for a change in genes, then unfortunately you
> >> can only develop through cultural evolution.
> >>
> >> Tim:
> >> Ernst Mayr doesn't have a clue about human evolution :-(
> >>
> >> MR:
> >> How so? I think Mayr was referring to Darwinian evolution.
> >
> > "There's absolutely no chance of the human species evolving."
> >
> > The statement is idiotic.  Does Mayr think all humans have
> > equal numbers of children?  Has he forgotten about the
> > existence of sexual selection?  What on earth is he thinking of?
> 
> Not so fast. That fact that not all people have equal numbers of children 
> does not necessarily warrant evolution, especially not in any directional 
> sense. Such a claim relies on the premise that on average there is some kind 
> of correlation that connects the people having more children with a certain 
> genetic makeup.
> 
> The same basically goes for sexual selection.

That doesn't make the statement that we are not evolving any less
stupid.

There's a reasonable book-length treatment putting the case for humans 
evolving in modern times faster - if anything - than before - due
to being in an environment which is different from the one they
evolved in - and because the difference in reproductive success
between the most successful reproductives and the least in modern
times is likely greater than at any point in history - i.e.
the Guinness record holders for offspring lived rather recently.

The book is: "Children of Promethius" - by Christopher Wills.

> > As for speciation, it seems *highly* likely that strains of
> > asexual human clones will arise in the near future. [...]
>
> what is your concept of 'near future'?

The first human clones?

Cloneaid says they have 13 cloned human babies so far
[on http://www.clonaid.com/news.php].

I don't know if that is true - but at least that number of
human clones will probably exist by this time next year.

Some celebrities are already thinking about it:

``"[...] in reality I think it'd be great if cloning would exist," said 
  Schwarzenegger. "I would clone four or five of me: one to take care of 
  the family, one to take care of the filming, one to go out and direct 
  movies, one to go into politics, one to go and play golf all day 
  without feeling guilty."''

 - http://tinyurl.com/66o2m ;-)
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/7/04 6:06:06 AM