The 10% of the brain thing is utter ****e. Every single cell in the brain has a function, and all are used at some point, otherwise, why would brain damage have such an impact if 90% of the cells weren't doing anything? Also, take a look online at a Positron Emission Topography image of a persons brain. Even when sleeping, every area of the brain displays some activity. Sure, peak activity is not displayed in every part of the brain at once, but that is because each part of the brain has a separate function, and so has no reason to be fully active at the same time as every other part of your brain. There is not a single cell in the brain that is not responsible for doing anything, nor are there any areas that show limited usage. Neurons degrade if not used frequently, so if such an area existed, a post-mortem would show significant degradation. This is only found in cases of severe brain damage, where areas have been cut off. So no, in 10,000 years, we won't be using a high percentage of brain power, because there is no more to harness.
We're getting taller, fatter and less hairy, so we'll be giant ****ing blobs that look like clean-shaven Sumo wrestlers. Er, WHY!? Why THE **** would we not need fingers!? We do use more than 10% of our brain, and even if we didn't, why would our heads get larger as we started to use more?
I don't want to be alive now reading his posts. Reading them for 10,000 years would be like some nightmarish Not606 version of the story of Sisyphus.
Theres a few other points of your argument I'd like to content with. Why would climate change effect our height? The height of a human being is determined by genetics, the environment, and overall, gravity. Yes, the average height of the population has grown over time, but this is mainly a result of nutrition. Over the last 500 years, when the main increase in height has occurred, the diet of the average human being has improved dramatically. The increase in nutrients in the body means that not all the nutrients are required for simply day-to-day surviving, and some can be used for growth. Many children who suffer a debilitating illness as a child do not grow as tall, because their body has had to divert nutrients to dealing with the damage at a young age, they have not had the surplus in nutrients to grow to their full potential. Genetically, there is no longer a significant advantage to being taller, so no no selection pressure exists for people to be taller. Without the selection pressure, there is no natural selection, and therefore no evolution. Yes, there is random changes in the genes in a population, but height is very multi-factorial in this respect (there is no singular "height gene"), so overall genetic drift will play a limited role. Gravity is also a major issue, due to the strength of the gravitational field, humans could not grow much taller (3m is out of the question) because the increased strain on the body due to gravity limits growth. Some of the tallest people in the world have major issues, because supporting the mass of their body is difficult, due to the force it imparts. If you look at simulations for life on other planets, you always see a relationship between height and the strength of the gravitational field. If Jupiter could sustain life, its comparatively massive gravitational field means you'd be lucky to get anything taller than a ray. Why would climate change effect height anyway? As for thinness, genetics play a minor role in that, it is more dietary, so humans would be thinner only if there was a massive food shortage, which could be a result of climate change, but this would not be an evolutionary change.
You're probably right as he'll probably get a dozen pig-ugly females pregnant whereas your average normal person these days is having 0 to 2 children.
Well first of all, i thank the responders to this thread. For the dumbfucks who responded with utter tripe, **** off To those of you, who replied with big long posts, **** off as well. I'm pissed, i will read them in the morning/afternoon, & then i will reply to your totally utter bullshit replies, kiss my arse. Love Huth
Technically, science never 'proves' anything, it merely corroborates the theory. Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is still only a theory, but one corroborated with a substantial amount of evidence. Sorry to be a bore.
