LOL!!!! I empathize... in all respects. "Does that make us a self-evolving species?" I dunno. Depending on your standpoint, the whole thing could be meaningless. For example, if you know something about the Dalai Lama's background, where would you place him in the species?
P. ----- Original Message ---- From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:45:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster? Indeed, to me, evolution means change to deal with the environment. It makes me wonder, as we largely control our environment these days, some of these "evolutionary" changes are in response to our own actions. does that make us a self evolving species? as for the selective breeding, we should get right on that. ohh, the sacrifices some must make for science. (not me, as im getting married next sunday to a very jealous woman whos an excellent shot with a handgun. but others im sure would sacrifice in my place) On 12/14/07, PHILIP WINESTONE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hah! Few people are paid to think... at least not in the way you and I define thinking. That's another story. Somebody took me to task (mildly for a change) for saying that humans are not necessarily improving... But when the word "evolution" is used, it implies that improvement is in the works. Otherwise it would be devolution. Now as for "selective breeding" - well, I haven't bred enough (with women) to know if I was being selective (on a statistical basis)... Perhaps that's the secret. Perhaps that's all I should say... P. ----- Original Message ---- From: R.C.Macaulay < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:59:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Are humans evolving faster? Howdy Philip, You are not being paid to think. <grin> Breeding shows in horses, dogs and women. Go to any dog pound, college, welfare office, local high school or ghetto. Hurricane Katrina provided an excellent example of the result of "selective breeding" strategies by thinkers. Who would have thunk it? Richard Philip wrote, >There are exquisitely beautiful cave paintings in France, dating back about >15000 years. There are even more exquisite paintings - again in caves in >France - dating back 35000 years. Does this indicate that perhaps there were >wonderfully cultured people over 35000 years ago, and that that culture was on >a downward trend? According to PD Ouspensky - a very unusual thinker - >evolution comes in cycles, not in an upwardly trending linear fashion. "Where is the evidence?" you say. Well, it took only about 3000 years to almost totally bury the pyramids... And evolution - in terms of humans improving - depends on how you measure "improving." Just a thought. -- That which yields isn't always weak.
