Homo Futuris Options

[shivani]

I was watching a program , which suggests that Apes evolved into Homo Sapiens, not only because of adaption, but also that the process was driven by some genes inside us. We remembered what we have to become, and that memory helped us become human.

But the process is not yet over. We are still evolving.
Most of the information available is in french though .

Any other info on same??

MJ ???

[Mandrake]

Since Bibhas is a biologist by profession, I wouldn't dare to discuss things on an unscientific basis with him. Hence I was resisting from putting my thoughts here.

But, on second thoughts, I think it would be interesting to put them here anyway

I have tangled with Bibhas earlier on this issue too, where I stated that I do not believe in the evolution theory.
Almost an year later, nothing has changed in my belief on that.

And about the point that our genes 'remember' what we are supposed to be only reinforces my pet theory of genetic time-locks. That our genes have encoded data that will be available to us only when we cross a certain number of biological years.

Besides, the Human Genome Project has thrown up some mind-boggling surprises that make is take a solid second-take on what we had thought/assumed so far, only complicates matter further...

That inspite of the so-called 'evolution' we still use only 10% of our brain should really start us thinking. Why, as per the rules/laws/whatever of evolution, the unused 90% didn't shrink into nothingness? Why does the brain have no sensation like other parts of the body?

No, I don't think we understand ourselves yet. So the Homo Futuris will certainly happen, but with a major surprise embedded in there: Homo Futuris will surprisingly be Homo 'Pastis' , the man we've all known before - the kind of people that existed as mentioned in the epics - those who could harness mental powers... those who realized that nature had to be protected, as it was a key element....

[bibhas]

Since Bibhas is a biologist by profession, I wouldn't dare to discuss things on an unscientific basis with him. Hence I was resisting from putting my thoughts here.

MJ, aap jaise "ashtavadhani" ke munh se aise shabd achche nahin lagte.

I have tangled with Bibhas earlier on this issue too, where I stated that I do not believe in the evolution theory.
Almost an year later, nothing has changed in my belief on that.

Wow! Has it really been that long? Chaliye, let me hope the 2006 edition will be more successful.

And about the point that our genes 'remember' what we are supposed to be only reinforces my pet theory of genetic time-locks. That our genes have encoded data that will be available to us only when we cross a certain number of biological years.

Would like to hear more about that theory sometime, we did touch upon it last year.

That inspite of the so-called 'evolution' we still use only 10% of our brain should really start us thinking. Why, as per the rules/laws/whatever of evolution, the unused 90% didn't shrink into nothingness?

IMO this is one of those sayings that's not to be taken literally. The following is the way I interpret it based on my knowledge of neuroscience. The 10% use doesn't mean we are only using one part of the brain and not the rest. How do we use our brain? For every little act of the brain, we make connections between nerve cells called "synapses". The more synapses we associate with a particular event or task, the better we remember it or perform it. What we think of as "100%" refers to the potential number of synapses that can be formed in a human brain. We use varying amounts of that potential depending on the needs of our everyday life and the stages of our life. We discard old unused synapses and we continue to make new ones as our needs change. What does it mean to be using 100% of your brain? Simply using up all of the potential I am talking about. Do we really want to do that? Because that comes with its own onus of having to maintain all of the information and ability which needs additional resources. With the amount we use now, the brain already consumes a majority of the nutritional input of our body.
Think of it as your 100GB hard drive which is full with music you've been downloading from HF. And then Unni uploads a Gigabyte of music you're dying to download. What are your choices? What would you do (assuming you don't have the ability to add more gigs)? Wouldn't you rather have all that memory as "potential" space to download the music you love and only use part of your hard disk and fill it with music that you actually listen to, rather than fill it up with music that's melodious but you don't listen to for whatever the reason might be? If you do choose to do this, would you simply eliminate all the unused space on your HD?

Why does the brain have no sensation like other parts of the body?

Au Contraire, Brain has all the sensation and there would be no sense of sensation without the brain! When Bhabhiji holds your hand on valentine's day, how do you know that ? The sensory nerve terminals on your palm are sending electrical impulses to your brain which interprets them, decodes them and then tells you via return impulses through the motor nerve that controls your hand muscles to return the gesture by pressing on her hand gently. If your brain did not exist, then there would be nothing but a few microamperes running through your body! I know I know, that's too much biological mumbo-jumbo, give me some real proof, right? Try this sometime, go into absolute darkness, put on as many blindfolds on your eyes as you'd like and spend a couple of hours like that. Pre-arrange with someone to turn on the lights at some random instant of time during that period. You know that the lights are on the instant it happens! How do you know that? I'll tell you how that happens after you try it and are convinced that you knew when the lights went on with all the blindfolds on your eyes.

No, I don't think we understand ourselves yet.

I couldn't agree more with you on that, my friend!

-Bibhas