NASA To Blow Up The Moon?

[atomic7732]

Yes, Mars does have uncontrollable axis.

[hbmp88]

Let me explain, sorry if there was any lack of evidence. In about one thousand years Mars could be on its side, changing the deserts to ice caps. Ocean life extincts because no tides, no moon light(very important to coral reefs), currents changed by tidal tsunami. Like I said it's not really about light, its the plants and corals that really need moonlight(many plants bloom at night). If something never hit the earth and created the moon, the earth used to spin in an 8 hour day. The impacting planet hit at an angle and they believe we are so rich in iron because its core later impacted the earth and was absorbed. That explains the longer lived core and why the earth didn't turn up like Mars, or else we would have(all the heat escaping the core until it died). The faster rotation would make constant storms, much like jupiter, leading short stubby plant life and different types of animals. One small change changes the whole evolutional time line, and to me this seems like a lot of changes. There probably would have never been dinosaurs or mammals, just fish(maybe not even).

[FGFG]

now it is clearer , however the rotation of the axis of mars every thousends of years doesn't mean that life could not evolve. Animals and even plants migrate after all.

[hbmp88]

We haven't evolved at all in the past 6k years.

[Bla]

I think our brain has been one of the fastest evolutions, and I think even if we look back 6000 years we might be able to see a small difference.
But ofc, evolution happens over longer time than that. Depending on how accurately you measure it. We constantly evolve, ofc, but we can only see the changes over a long time.

[hbmp88]

For example the mixing or races is a type o evolution and yet it can happen in 50 yrs.

[Dan Dixon]

Evolution is driven by natural selection. Human genetic change is now driven by both natural selection and human intervention.

In the same way humans have shaped species of pea pods and dogs, humanity is collectively altering its own genetic direction and is not longer at the whim of natural selection.

[FGFG]

About the axis. The evolution isn't joint to a point of the planet. Species can learn to move, look at all the animals that travel thousends of kilometers every year. The uncontrollability of the axis will bring to a change in the local climate every hundreds of years, far less than what we are doing to our planet with global warming, in this moment (in fact a lot of plants and animals started to migrate...). Moreover the global climate of this hypothetical Earth will remain the same or near it.

[qwew80]

Bye the way, solar winds play a very large part in evolution and genetic mutations.

[FGFG]

[...] humanity is collectively altering its own genetic direction and is not longer at the whim of natural selection.

I have to disagree with you.

If we consider that natural selection is actually the selection driven by the ambient, we can tell that there is actually a selection in humanity.
The ambient of humanity (in the Occidental society) is no more "Nature" where we have to find food to survive. We fixed the problem with technology and the life style is much higher. Now the ambient is the society: for example we are growing generation by generation because taller people are nicer...

Thoughts? (should I create another topic?)

[hbmp88]

Evolution is driven by natural selection. Human genetic change is now driven by both natural selection and human intervention.

In the same way humans have shaped species of pea pods and dogs, humanity is collectively altering its own genetic direction and is not longer at the whim of natural selection.

This may not be your point but we can't tell someone you can't have kids because you're dumb or you contain a genetic disease. We may be able to do this with animals but not sentient beings. So our technology has to make up for our bad genes until we figure out how to change the genes of an unborn child(probably when it hasn't developed yet), which will be a great discovery but probably something very difficult to do.

[FGFG]

Yes, it is correct, but we haven't reached such a tech level.

But when we will reach such a level families (rich first, and poorer after) will start to change genes of their children for beauty (green/blue eyes, taller, etc.). You can say: "Hey! That's no more natural selection!", but the beauty is relative, and it is relative to the ambient: our society. Just look at the "beauty model" on TV.

[hbmp88]

Yes, it is correct, but we haven't reached such a tech level.

But when we will reach such a level families (rich first, and poorer after) will start to change genes of their children for beauty (green/blue eyes, taller, etc.). You can say: "Hey! That's no more natural selection!", but the beauty is relative, and it is relative to the ambient: our society. Just look at the "beauty model" on TV.

People can be beautiful and smart! A first.