What specific knowledge base do you have that makes your disagreement worth noting? Would it not be better to say you didn't like what he had to say? Unless of course you too are an evolutionary theorist and I didn’t realize it.

John Hawks has an excellent dissection of the "future of humanity" prediction: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/future/curry_morlock_future_2006.html

The look-alikes project did not impress me. Mostly, only faces are shown, the body types could have been highly variable. The pictures are in black and white, and skin pigment could also be variable, making the people look less alike. And the biggest reason this didn't impress me is when I was under 21 in college, it took litrally no work at all to find someone over 21 who looked JUST like you so you could get a copy of their ID for going to the bars.

Keith, your point is well taken, but I do have an answer. People often assume that my linking to something signifies my endorsement of the content. So it's worth noting when that's not the case (this is my blog, after all). P.S. It doesn't take an evolutionary theorist to see the difference between beauty trends and obstacles and catalysts to procreation.

Being a student of evolutionary theory myself, I can say that the article about what the human race may or may not become is bollocks - pretty much written to be sensational, not scientific. By positing that we diverge for reasons of selection...well...don't you think we would have done that already? For the vast course of human history, sexual selection within our species has been based on the very reasons presented in that article - we've been doing this for millions of years! That article also relies on a lot of generalised sociological and cultural assumptions that I think are questionable at best (ie "Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.") And a lot of people forget that most of the phenotypic traits pointed out in the article are controlled by entire suites of complex gene interactions...and some of which are not necessarily "indicators of health, youth and fertility." And at the core of this - why would humans evolve to their own physical detriment? Mutations only disseminate throughout the gene pool and change the species itself if it confers some sort of adaptive advantage. Sure, it is possible our "chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food." - but is that all we use our chins for and if not, how would this change affect those other functions?

As a species, I think we are getting further and further from any chance of evolution through natural means. In this case, the author cites mostly physical characteristics - characteristics which can already be artificially modified by way of plastic surgery. I assume as time goes on, these modifications will become easier so appearance on a genetic level will likely have very little bearing on any future evolution of the species.

If receding chins is all the people of the year 102,000 have to worry about, then I'd say that did pretty well for themselves.

As long as there's a significant number of people in the world playing stringed instruments our pinkies are safe.

Howlin', given the anecdotal reports of stringed instrument playing as a catalyst for procreative activities, I'd say pinkies are not only safe, but they could ultimately increase in length, strength and reach.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):