Human Evolution

Welcome to Fun Advice!

Yes, evolution of humans is a continuing process.

Since the human species is so well adapted to being able to modify its habitat in order to keep up with environmental changes, it may not be too likely that the human species would evolve or branch into another species, but it is most likely that there could be changes to human form or capability.

Yes, as long as there are selection pressures - things that make one individual more likely to survive than another* - there will be evolution. The selection pressures we apply to ourselves in our societies are likely far more significant than natural selection by now, though. For example, many genetic abnormalities - downs syndrome, severe autism, propensity to cancer, etc - were once very highly selected against, as individuals with them were much less likely to procreate. With modern medicine, however, this is much less the case. At the same time, we introduce our own artificial selection pressure. I’d give examples, but I can’t think of any that aren’t considered controversial and/or non-PC. :)

• Roughly speaking.

Probably not. The so called “NATURAL SELECTION PRESSURE” stopped to affect the human species, and this should be the driver of the further evolution. There are data on that the average brain volume of the present human population is even smaller than that was few thousand years ago. But that is not 100% sure what I answered, this is only a guess. It is difficult to say anything about million years changes when you observe the events for few 1000 years. Anthropologist say that the modern humans are about 200 000 yo old, and evolutionary constant.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml

What have species got to do with anything? Species are a human convention, not something fundamentally biological. What exactly confines mutations to human-drawn boundaries?

For 5, I said “occupying the same niche”. Bacteria don’t hunt gazelles, and tigers don’t reproduce in massive quantities in your gut.

For 6, Macro Evolution makes no such claim. Differing chromosome numbers and structures prevent crossbreeding within species. And what has that to do with the claim of #6?

7: Meaning?

8: Please link to some peer reviewed research showing there to be anything wrong with genealogical trees.

9: That’s not a scientific hypothesis, it’s a religious view. Please stick to science, not theology.

Perhaps you should consider that evolution is considered just as much a fact by scientists in the appropriate fields (geneticists, cellular biologists, etc) as gravity is by phsicists. The only ‘controversy’ is amongst laypeople such as ourselves and in the media - largely started by those with a religious agenda, pushing “intelligent design”, which as I outlined earlier is not a scientific theory but a religious proposition.

You appear to be devoted to attempting to discredit legitimate scientific theories that conflict with your theological views, however, so I guess there’s no point arguing. Believe what you want - just realise that it’s a belief, not a scientific proposition, and your choice to ignore the evidence does not make the evidence any less credible (nor does it make you a biologist qualified to claim an entire field of science has “got it wrong” based on no more than a lay-understanding of it).

“you also need to realize that aging EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT. how can you ask where we came from without considering all possabilies?”

Read what I posted above earlier - “evolution as theory and fact”. I’m not going to repeat myself here, since you can quite easily read what I’ve already posted.

“Evolution is not a fact like gravity. thats the stupidest thing I’ve heard yet. you accuse me of being close minded. lok in the miror.”

I never accused you of that. But I do feel like I can now justify calling you willfully ignorant, since I already explained exactly what you think you’re refuting.

“intellegent desine is as much a siecntific theroy as anything else.”

In order for something to be a scientific theory, it has to make testable predictions, and be disprovable. ID does neither.

Given that you’ve demonstrated you’re not even reading my resonses fully, I don’t see any reason to continue arguing.

blankman: If you’d read the article I linked you to, I’m sure you would have seen the distinction. Evolution is a fact insofar as evolution is the gradual adaptation of organisms over time. We have repeatedly observed this, both in real-time (for example, in bacteria and fruit flies). Evolution is also a theory, which attempts to explain how that process takes place (through mutation and natural selection).

Like it or not, the overwhelming (and I do mean overwhelming) scientific consensus is in favor of both evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. It’s the best way we have to explain the observed facts.

Judging by your ill-informed attempt at refuting carbon-dating, though, which shows a basic misunderstanding of the science involved, though, I’m guessing you’re not actually interested in informing yourself about the scientific facts. Which leads me to wonder: What exactly makes you qualified to assert for certain that a theory is incorrect, if you haven’t bothered to inform yourself about the details of the theory?

Eventually humans will most likely evolve at least somewhat. Evolution happens due to mutations occuring at birth. The genes are then passed down to the offspring. For example, it is theorized that the reason people have eyes colored other than just brown is because of someone having a genetic mutation that caused him/her to have blue eyes. After years of combinations and possibly more mutations, other colors occured such as green, and hazel. The way mutations don’t usually have a major negative effect on the animal is simple: if the mutation reduces the animals chance of living, the animal usually dies, and doesn’t live to reproduce. If it helps, the animal will usually succeed and be able to reproduce. In the case of having blue eyes, it didn’t help or hurt the person or had them, so there is as good of chance of him living as there is anyone else. The next mutation scientists think people will have is losing our wisdom teeth, since in todays world, we don’t need them. In addition, we may also lose our pinkey toe, as it is not a necessity. And, a new mutation for koalas is beginning as well. The first blue eyed koala was born. Your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren when picturing a koala may think of it with blue eyes.

“Years of research in both theories” leads to you conclude that “there is only 6 palces in the world where that rocks layer like evolution says it would” and “carbon full life is 11400 years”.

What I know of intelligent design is that it is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions, and it’s not falsifiable.

Perhaps you can tell us which of these you disagree with (and why):

1. DNA Mutations can cause differences in the structure or behaviour of an organism.
2. The differences caused by mutations can be either harmful or helpful.
3. A helpful mutation increases an organism’s chance of survival and reproduction, leading to more organisms with that beneficial mutation.
4. Genetic diversity in a population provides for the existence of neutral mutations, allowing organisms to develop new capabilities that require multiple mutations to develop gradually.
5. More sophisticated creatures are generally more successful than simpler ones occupying the same niche.
6. Because of 3 and 5, there is a gradual change from simpler organisms to more complex ones.
7. The geological record confirms this, showing a gradual progression from simpler organisms to more sophisticated ones occupying the same niche.
8. The geological record provides sufficient evidence to create a geneaological tree of organisms.
9. Humans and apes had a common ancestor.
10. 1-8 indicate that all organisms likely had a single common ancestor. Something else?

I really don’t know why I’m bothering - perhaps in the vain hope of an honest discussion unaffected by (irrelevant) theological nonsense.

blankman: The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact . The theory does not rest on a single fossil, or on “6 palces[sic] in the world”.

Your understanding of radioactive decay is flawed. There is no such thing as a “full life”. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time it takes for half of it to decay into another form. Thus, in 1 half life, half of the material will have decayed. In two half lives, 3/4 of the material will have decayed, and so on.

I dont hink we will evolve anymore unless the planet goes through a major change of machines take over and make us robosapiens lol

evolution never happened

there is only 6 palces in the world where that rocks layer like evolution says it would. the chart that shows humans, dogs, fish, ect… was proven wrong 50 years ago another grant mony thing theres no way they got all they say they can from LUCY

the half life of carbon is 5700 years wich means in 5700 years carbon will decay by half. that means carbon full life is 11400 years so in that long a carbon molucule will completly gone. so if the earth is 4.5 billion years old how can you tell by carbon dating? they use index fossiles to determind the age of the dirt then say the know the age of the fossile by the layer of dirt circlear resaoning I could go on and on

you also need to realize that aging EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT. how can you ask where we came from without considering all possabilies? intellegent desine is as much a siecntific theroy as anything else. Evolution is not a fact like gravity. thats the stupidest thing I’ve heard yet. you accuse me of being close minded. lok in the miror.

In that case 5 dosent make sence 6 thats excatly what is said if we all came from that same thing some where one creature had to birth a diffrent creature of diffrent Species 7 the geological record as you call it excist only in books 9 theres no way to consider every possable explanation while being close minded.

1. agree but still with in the same species
2. agree
3. agree but within the same species
4. agree
5. dissagree. A strain of bactirea is more likly to survive than a tiger. smaller isn’t simpler 6)disagree have you ever seen @horses birth a dog? thats what macro evloution says 7)Only when aranged in a certaint order.
6. disagree. these trees have been proven insuffent by the secintific community
7. humans and apes have a common creator not a common ancecter. thats like saying a battel ship and an aircraft carrier have a common ansester, no they have a common creator
8. aging common creator

Prehaps if I continue I will get you to see the error in your logic just caues evolution have been shoved down your throut all your life dosent make it a fact

blankman I’d like to know how study leads you to think that macro evolution means “species giving birth to other species” It is genetically impossible and not at all what evolution postulates. Maybe you are trying to make evolution look ridiculous. I’d hope that you are joking, but I have a feeling you are saying this out of ignorance.

If you are serious, I don’t know what you’ve studied but it’s certainly not evolution. Sounds like creationism claims on evolution. We’ve seen illustrations of species followed changing into it’s currunt form. But what evolution is, is a gradual continuum, not distinct species changing into others. And as arachnid said, “species” are a human convention to aid in our own classification.

the evidence for evoultion is flawed and EVOLUTION ISNOT FACT

the only true evidence for evolution is micro evolution wich is small changes with in a speices. FYI my “ill-informed” is the result of years of research in both theroies. what do you know about intellegent desine? excues the spelling