Juan Enriquez and Homo Evolutis

What do the science buffs around here think about Juan Enriquez and his idea of Homo Evolutis?

I lack the requisite knowledge to determine the plausibility his ideas and claims. Is anyone familiar with any of this?

I think that his idea isn't novel or original. However, the marketing ploy of giving our "species" a new name is kind of stupid sounding. The biological marker for a species has always been whether or not we can produce fertile offspring. Unless he can prove that Homo Sapiens is unable to reproduce with Homo "evolutis"...

At 10/22/2009 7:44:15 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I think that his idea isn't novel or original. However, the marketing ploy of giving our "species" a new name is kind of stupid sounding. The biological marker for a species has always been whether or not we can produce fertile offspring. Unless he can prove that Homo Sapiens is unable to reproduce with Homo "evolutis"...

Of course it isn't novel or original, he is describing the advances being made by other people. But he is predicting things that I had never heard before - like that blind people will soon be able to see, and in a relatively short time they will be able to see better than we can see; and the same with deaf people.

As for the name, I admit it is somewhat of a gimmick. But that wasn't the main topic I was hoping to hear from those of you who are knowledgeable about these topics. Thanks for he condescending tone, though.

Eh it's just a catch phrase. No different than Marvel calling mutants Homo Superior, even though they can still breed with non mutants. It's purpose is an attempt to create a valid distinction between now and future something - it's just an incorrect way to do it, or we'd be treating any new trait, behavioural or otherwise -OMGNEWSPECIES!

At 10/23/2009 4:20:52 AM, Puck wrote:
Eh it's just a catch phrase. No different than Marvel calling mutants Homo Superior, even though they can still breed with non mutants. It's purpose is an attempt to create a valid distinction between now and future something - it's just an incorrect way to do it, or we'd be treating any new trait, behavioural or otherwise -OMGNEWSPECIES!

Meh. Appart from the fact that what Marvel made with mutants, is not evolution at all, technological advances on humans does not change the human species. If we cut off a leg of a dog, does this somehow make this not a Dog? of course not. If we remove the eyes of a human and implant a new eye, its still a homo-sapien.

At 10/23/2009 6:24:55 AM, tkubok wrote:

At 10/23/2009 4:20:52 AM, Puck wrote:
Eh it's just a catch phrase. No different than Marvel calling mutants Homo Superior, even though they can still breed with non mutants. It's purpose is an attempt to create a valid distinction between now and future something - it's just an incorrect way to do it, or we'd be treating any new trait, behavioural or otherwise -OMGNEWSPECIES!

Meh. Appart from the fact that what Marvel made with mutants, is not evolution at all, technological advances on humans does not change the human species. If we cut off a leg of a dog, does this somehow make this not a Dog? of course not. If we remove the eyes of a human and implant a new eye, its still a homo-sapien.

I think by that he was referring to our ability to someday be able to manipulate genes before we are born.

At 10/23/2009 6:24:55 AM, tkubok wrote:

technological advances on humans does not change the human species.

You think I implied otherwise? O.o