Subspecies Divergence By Artificial Modifications

Objectively speaking, is it possible for a population of a few hundred thousand humans to potentially diverge from the rest of humanity, becoming their own subspecies by artificial or technological means?

What would be the implications if some population formed their own squid people cult society, for example, and began genetic experiments to splice octopus or cuttlefish DNA or RNA into their genomes through genetic modifications or formed a cyborg society and implanted nanobots in their population? Would it work?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Cult of Passion

    >is it possible for a population of a few hundred thousand humans to potentially diverge from the rest of humanity
    Yes, but without environmental pressures (the natural pressures experience by lifeforms that induce evolutionary changes) it requires a moronic amount of incest and a lot of time.
    >by artificial or technological means?
    No. These will all just alter or modify the organism manually, evolving back to the original direction. Cripser stuff Im not adept in, I dont think it pases down (?).

    >squid people cult society
    Yes, its called Tribe of Dan, cephalopod and mollusc.
    >splice octopus or cuttlefish DNA or RNA
    Holy shit...yeah, it already "does". I believed it was chromosomal (but could be BioElectric), as I am not so certain the molecular signiture is carried over, hence the DNA was swapped over the millions of years but the BioElectric signal remained.

    Tracking down these bloodlines has been the purpose of my around the world tours, Ive come across many, many distant relatives as well. Relatives of old friends too. Small world and repeated "DNA" combinations are everywhere.

    >Would it work?
    Thats basically all it does. It does "rest", ot crashes hard, for weeks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >incest
      ah ok, it's the moronic opinion of a namegay

      • 1 month ago
        Cult of Passion

        Speciation. Get your PhD before LARPing on IQfy youre not a moronic burnout.

        Two humans of the same race are technically incestuous. Mathematically speaking. Safety wasnt the word used, nor do I care about your shitshow understanding of Biology in a response. You cant interbreed in the same pool forever, dumbass..............

        Thats when the species has to either A: incest, or B: Divergent reproduction far away from another people.

        t.EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Subspecies is a wholly arbitrary paraphyletic designation. You could declare every single individual their own subspecies if you wanted. Your question fails out the gate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It is fairly arbitrary, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't, for example, declare identical twins separate subspecies.

      Anyway, it's generally characterized as genetically distinct groups within the same species which experience breeding isolation from one another. E.g. groups on two different islands or groups with 2 different mating periods or groups with 2 different dick and vegana shapes.

      Obviously tons of shit get called separate subspecies when there is regular hybridization between the groups and for cases of geographic isolation, the line between separate populations and separate subspecies can get murky as frick, but there are *some* clear examples where it could be consistent and useful to apply a categorization below species to shit. E.g. black bears and polar bears.

      >But those are separate species
      Like frick they are. Taxonomists are being slow as dicks to clean up pre-DNA dumbfrickery.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It is fairly arbitrary, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't, for example, declare identical twins separate subspecies.
        If you want to play stupid games with moronic technicalities, then monozygotic twins are not truly genetically identical and therefore yes you could. That should be obvious but have a random citation about it anyway https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-020-00755-1

        I've no idea what the purpose of your post is as it doesn't change what I wrote or tell me anything I didn't know.
        >but there are *some* clear examples where it could be consistent and useful
        Consistent 'a priori', no. Hence my remarks. Useful, yes. Paraphyletic designations much the same as all designations are ultimately a matter of utility, with the added issue of subspecies being they have no consistent basis on top of being paraphyletic and therefore not truly mapping to biological evolution. I have to assume you misunderstand my remark and so, to clarify, it was not to dismiss any possible utility from such labeling notwithstanding its intrinsic flaws.

        It is important to do so anyway given how people otherwise well-meaning but ignorant may be duped by /misc/tard bullshit like this

        https://i.imgur.com/xfJL6wD.png

        >is it possible for a population of a few hundred thousand humans to potentially diverge from the rest of humanity, becoming their own subspecies by artificial or technological means?
        Why not ? It already happened naturally.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It is important to do so anyway given how people otherwise well-meaning but ignorant may be duped by /misc/tard bullshit
          It is neither bullshit nor is it contradicted by anything you wrote, even your erroneous hyperboles ("wholly arbitrary", "[all] subspecies being paraphyletic).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >nuh uh!
            What a profound and compelling retort.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >is it possible for a population of a few hundred thousand humans to potentially diverge from the rest of humanity, becoming their own subspecies by artificial or technological means?
    Why not ? It already happened naturally.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is it objectively possible for an artificially divergent population that separates from homosexual Sapiens by cross-species hybridization with other animals like reptiles, cetaceans, etc - using mRNA or genetic splicing though?

      If so, would it take millions of years or tens of thousands?

      • 1 month ago
        Cult of Passion

        No, thats GMOing, that isnt Evolution (which requires far more variables than humans have the ability to manipulate...to include the electromagnetic fields of the environment.

        Environmental Genetics, Horizontal Gene Transfers, and Psychology as that is the brains 'area' and if the body is broken but the mind is fine the organism would simply accept its new normal, but if its unable to it can play a major role in gene expression and induced evolutionary event (like when humans go through chromosonal changes).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Would absolutely be possible. You could crispr tf out of humans from a technical perspective, no problem. Easiest would be insertion of one or a few genes that add some kind of function. For example a favourite of geneticists is to make animals glow in the dark, by adding the genes to produce luciferin and luciferase. You coyld change pretty much anything where you understand which genes are responsible for which trait. A few obvious ones would be increasing stamina, muscle mass, size etc. Changes to basic anatomy would be more challenging, since that is usually controlled by a lot more genes and you are more likely to mess up. Depends on the change though. Adding a tail or webbed fingers would be pretty simple. Adding functional gills is probably almost impossible, since its so far off from the mammalian body plan.
        Would in any way be a long and drawn out process and with likely a ton of unexpected setbacks, but no reason why you couldn't have a very different GMO human in a couple of centuries (except for ethics and all that)

        • 1 month ago
          Cult of Passion

          >Would absolutely be possible
          Youre taling out of your ass, what was your field? Biology? Genetics? None of the above?

          >since its so far off from the mammalian body plan

          Mmmm, no, no to all of what you posted.

          Go back.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Biologist actually. Not a geneticist, but thats part of the basic education as a biologist and I keep up a little what is happening in the field.
            (You) on the other hand don't even know if changes to the genome with CRISPR are i heritable or not

            >is it possible for a population of a few hundred thousand humans to potentially diverge from the rest of humanity
            Yes, but without environmental pressures (the natural pressures experience by lifeforms that induce evolutionary changes) it requires a moronic amount of incest and a lot of time.
            >by artificial or technological means?
            No. These will all just alter or modify the organism manually, evolving back to the original direction. Cripser stuff Im not adept in, I dont think it pases down (?).

            >squid people cult society
            Yes, its called Tribe of Dan, cephalopod and mollusc.
            >splice octopus or cuttlefish DNA or RNA
            Holy shit...yeah, it already "does". I believed it was chromosomal (but could be BioElectric), as I am not so certain the molecular signiture is carried over, hence the DNA was swapped over the millions of years but the BioElectric signal remained.

            Tracking down these bloodlines has been the purpose of my around the world tours, Ive come across many, many distant relatives as well. Relatives of old friends too. Small world and repeated "DNA" combinations are everywhere.

            >Would it work?
            Thats basically all it does. It does "rest", ot crashes hard, for weeks.

            Pro tip: they are changes to the genome, so yes, of cause they are and if you are unsure about that one, you shut probably not be talking about genetics at all. The rest of your ramblings ITT are pretty meaningless too.
            Small chance at redemption: why is it called CRISPR CAS, and how does it work? No wiki.
            I'm not clicking your video, but I assume its something about mammalian embryos developing gills for a brief time and then losing them later? Yes you could make changes to retain them, but that doesnt give you functional gills. They need to be properly integrated into your circulatory system and you need a way to stream water past them, which requires extensive changes to your oral and nasal cavities, pharynx, larynx and neck. Thats 100s of genetic changes and everything needs to work just right, or the result is not viable. We dont know enough about all the different interactions of genes and embryonal development to pull that off.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            >Biologist
            Technician*.
            >they are changes to the genome, so yes, of cause they are and if you are unsure about that one, you shut probably not be talking about genetics at all
            Sorry, but my citation if from Micheal Levin, you have an issue with that go ahead an take it up with "The Field™".

            >The rest of your ramblings ITT are pretty meaningless too.
            Yep, cited Michael Levin a few times, YOU GOT FILTERED.
            >Small chance at redemption: why is it called CRISPR CAS, and how does it work? No wiki.
            YOU GOT FILTERED, homosexual.
            >I'm not clicking your video, but I assume its something about
            YOU GOT FILTERED, homosexual.
            >We dont know
            (YOU) got filtered, homosexual.......

            >Thats 100s of genetic changes
            Youre not a Biologist, youre a Chemist LARPing a Biologist.

            Gene expression is beyond you.
            >Not a geneticist
            I know.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, there has been a divergent branch evolving for a long time. See fhe morons that believe in safe and effective, mail in ballot harvesting, etc. They are a lesser human.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kek, kinda expected.
    Have to disappoint you again, not a lab rat and not a chemist.
    Not giving you and more (you)s
    Have a nice day

    • 4 weeks ago
      Cult of Passion

      >not a lab rat and not a chemist.
      Didnt ask, I informed.

      You dont know shit about CRISPR, its a medical technology, it has virtually zero to do with Evolutionary Biology, its dead end in that respect.
      [dump it in the trash]
      Thanks, but Im not a idiot.

      >kinda expected.
      Yeah, LARPing on IQfy while being filter IS OBVIOUS TO DOCTORS.
      >Not giving you and more (you)s
      EXACTLY.....SCIENCE TO YOU IS "POWER DYNAMICS".

      YOU ARE NOT A BIOLOGIST.

      YOU ARE A WOMAN.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, we already have the technology pretty much. The problem is you need many test subjects and there will be many failures. It is a huge economic investment which would take decades.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *