Romans 1:22
"A telecommunications company has developed ‘Mindy’, a “grotesque” 3D model to show how “consistent use of smartphones, laptops, and other tech” will change our bodies.
"A telecommunications company has developed ‘Mindy’, a “grotesque” 3D model to show how “consistent use of smartphones, laptops, and other tech” will change our bodies.
According to the company, which supposedly “sourced scientific research and expert opinion”, “humans in the year 3000 could have a hunched back, wide neck, clawed hand from texting and a second set of eyelids [to protect from excessive screen-time].” Such “radical evolutionary development” could also mean a permanently bent elbow, and perhaps a thicker skull to protect our brains from cellphone radiation.
The charitable assumption is that the expert sources were misunderstood or misrepresented. For example, although texting can lead to ‘text claw’, it does not change the DNA for making hands. So future generations will not be born with it.
Concerning brains and radiation, even if the ‘right’ skull-thickening mutations arose by chance in some individuals it would go nowhere. That is, unless the hazard was severe enough to eliminate most of those with ‘normal’ skulls before they could pass on their genes to their children.
This unscientific speculation is promoting the fantasy that all living things developed unaided from chemicals. But where is the academic outcry against this thoroughly discredited Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics)?
Perhaps many now see evolution as a sort of ‘magic force’? Supposedly, it transformed microbes into microchip manufacturers. So, given a few centuries, why shouldn’t it conjure up extra eyelids when required? Yeah, right."
The charitable assumption is that the expert sources were misunderstood or misrepresented. For example, although texting can lead to ‘text claw’, it does not change the DNA for making hands. So future generations will not be born with it.
Concerning brains and radiation, even if the ‘right’ skull-thickening mutations arose by chance in some individuals it would go nowhere. That is, unless the hazard was severe enough to eliminate most of those with ‘normal’ skulls before they could pass on their genes to their children.
This unscientific speculation is promoting the fantasy that all living things developed unaided from chemicals. But where is the academic outcry against this thoroughly discredited Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics)?
Perhaps many now see evolution as a sort of ‘magic force’? Supposedly, it transformed microbes into microchip manufacturers. So, given a few centuries, why shouldn’t it conjure up extra eyelids when required? Yeah, right."
CMI