The following Dodgers have been smited by the JDK for their crimes against Jam:
All the girls! for picking on the JDK and damaging his already delicate self esteem!
The Basserd Who Nicked Copper's Stuff For the offense of nicking Copper's stuff. You are a tw*t, whoever you are and we all hope you get run over by a tram in Nottingham. Or Liverpool. Or whereever else they have trams!
Copper For the crime of playing with her Wii instead of her Jammie pals!
A question had been posed by a member of my team at work which I thing can be addressed by the Bored Boarders, given that we are a think-tank of the finest, keenest brains in the world. Er... and Stead.
So then. It's kind of a 2 part question about evolution:
1) Have apes gone as far as they will go on the evolutionary ladder? Will they evolve further, and if so, in what way? Presumably as we have evolved from apes, there is a chance that in a couple or three million years, apes will evolve into more human like animals and Charlton Heston will have all sorts of trouble... Or will human intervention effectively stunt this evolution?
2) Have humans reached the pinnacle of their evolutionary career? Given that we care for the sick, the weak and the old in a way that the natural world never does, is our natural evolution over? Will we continute to evolve using artificial means?
You are still thinking like a creationist. Which is fine...but doesn't work when postulating evolutonary questions. Evolution is not directed or planned - hence there is no 'ladder'. The concept of superiority comes only when you consider a creator. The process of adaptation 'designs' species to fit into a certain environment. We are adapted to our environment (albeit a social one, we live in groups etc) no more or less perfectly than an ant is adapted to a specific environment. So, other apes are adapted to their environment (and will change as and when their environment causes a shift in the population) as will we. We won't get 'better' or 'worse' - we just change.
An example: Tall men are more attractive, have more mating success, and therefore have more offspring. The next generation is (on average) taller. = evolution. Substitute tallness for kindness, goofiness, baldness etc - still evolution.
Sure, but our common ancestor to some species is closer than others. We split from chimps 5m years ago (ish), so they are the closest thing to our common ancestor (although not the 'same' thing).
Give us a chance. I've been in an intensely dull meeting for the last few hours.
Now, I was hoping to spark a bit of debate here about what the far future holds for apes and humans, but all you did was expose yourself as a semantic pedant. Like we need another one. Tut.
I would point out that these are not my questions, but were posed by a colleague who was interested to see what the Jammie community had to say on the subject.
Now. You say that 5 million years ago we were kinda monkey-like (yes, yes, but with no tails). We've changed a lot since then. So the thrust of my enquiry is to ascertain what you think we'll be like in another 5 million years. Same for our chimpy friends.
And what is your anti-creationist obsession all about anyway? All I did was put it forward as an alternative theory ages ago. Like the spagetti monster dude. You seem fixated on creationism. Are you scared of it? Worried that it might actually be true because your so called hard evidence is kinda flimsy? Hmm?
I doubt that apes will become more human-like. Apes will not share humans evolutionary steps mainly due to human intervention. I believe they will become smaller and smaller as time goes on. We are destroying their habitat, like we are so many species, that they will have to adapt to smaller amounts of food. The smaller apes will be able to survive because they require less food. I could see them becoming more human-like in the fact their diets could change allowing for a more diverse diet to survive, humans are garbage disposals after all.
As for your second question. I believe that humans are working against survival of the fittest. If we would just let people die off from disease, then evolution would take care of "cures" for those diseases. But instead we insist on prolonging human life through science and trying to cure these diseases on our own. Also we allow these disease-ridden people to have offspring. Thus propagating the disease to the next generation.
I don't mean to offend anyone and these are not my personal desires/beliefs whatever. I am just trying to present an argument from a pragmatist point of view.
So, I was thinkin', while I was pulling into my road after work this evening... does it count as evolution if I run over the three kids who rode their bikes out in front of me at high speed causing me to slam my brakes on.
"Am I to understand, Mr JDK, that your defense for the murder of these three children is 'survival of the fittest'?"
"Yes, your honour. The 'fittest' being the ton of metal, plastic and rubber screaming towards them."
