Has evolution stopped with humans?

Post by **otseng** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:14 am

Evolutionists believe that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. But, will there ever be something else that humans will evolve into? Or has evolution stopped with humans?

adherent · Post by **adherent** » Mon May 03, 2004 6:22 pm

Well, according to evolutionists we shouldn't be able to tell if we've mutated for the better until about another few thousand years pass.
And besides, evolution isn't supposed to stop with anything. It is limitless because organisms will never find a perfect utopia so they will just keep adapting. And as for us humans, we might evolve into some of those martians:)

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Tue May 04, 2004 1:48 am

otseng wrote:I would like to see an example where humans physically evolve so that it would cause them to "adapt better". X-men type evolution would be a good example, though it doesn't have to be that dramatic.

Since we've never really been that remote from each other, the best example is the physical characteristics amongst the various human nations. Dark skins acclimated to arid regions, and pale skins acclimated to cold regions.

I predict in the future a decrease in body hair and perhaps a decrease in the size of the average human frame and musculature.

Post by **otseng** » Tue May 04, 2004 8:39 am

Corvus wrote:
Since we've never really been that remote from each other, the best example is the physical characteristics amongst the various human nations. Dark skins acclimated to arid regions, and pale skins acclimated to cold regions.

I predict in the future a decrease in body hair and perhaps a decrease in the size of the average human frame and musculature.

But, the DNA is (practically) the same with these changes. There are no fundamental differences with people having different melonin levels or differing heights.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Wed May 05, 2004 2:28 am

otseng wrote:
Corvus wrote:
Since we've never really been that remote from each other, the best example is the physical characteristics amongst the various human nations. Dark skins acclimated to arid regions, and pale skins acclimated to cold regions.

I predict in the future a decrease in body hair and perhaps a decrease in the size of the average human frame and musculature.

But, the DNA is (practically) the same with these changes. There are no fundamental differences with people having different melonin levels or differing heights.

You asked for an example of where humans have adapted and I gave you one. You didn't ask for a specific macro-evolution example. Macro-evolution in humans would require isolation of a group followed by drastic enivironmental change. Quite simply, all we'll see is a great deal of micro-evolution in the future. Humans now have reached the state where they can change their environment to suit them and have no need of changing themselves to suit their environment.

Post by **otseng** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:22 pm

Corvus wrote: You asked for an example of where humans have adapted and I gave you one. You didn't ask for a specific macro-evolution example.

I should've been more specific, what examples of macro-evolution of humans are there? I readily recognize that micro-evolution occurs in all life forms.

I guess implicit in your answer is that there are no examples of macro-evolution of humans.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:37 pm

otseng wrote:
Corvus wrote: You asked for an example of where humans have adapted and I gave you one. You didn't ask for a specific macro-evolution example.
I should've been more specific, what examples of macro-evolution of humans are there? I readily recognize that micro-evolution occurs in all life forms.

I guess implicit in your answer is that there are no examples of macro-evolution of humans.

Well, if there were, they wouldn't be humans any more.

Post by **otseng** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Corvus wrote:
Well, if there were, they wouldn't be humans any more.

But, don't we have plenty of animals now that exist that were predecessors of other animals? Just because animal A turns into animal B doesn't mean animal A would entirely disappear.

Humans now have reached the state where they can change their environment to suit them and have no need of changing themselves to suit their environment.

So it means that humans have stopped (macro) evolving?

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Thu May 06, 2004 8:20 pm

otseng wrote:
Corvus wrote:
Well, if there were, they wouldn't be humans any more.

But, don't we have plenty of animals now that exist that were predecessors of other animals? Just because animal A turns into animal B doesn't mean animal A would entirely disappear.

Oh, yes, otseng. But that only happens when animal A no longer has to adapt to survive The word macro-evolution usually means splitting a species in two. So one group of animal A splits from the main group, and undergoes environment pressure that changes it into animal B. Meanwhile, animal A becomes subjected to enough environmental pressure that it becomes something that no longer resembles what we would call animal A. Instead we call it animal C.

Change the words Animal A to "primate descendent", "animal B" to "humans" and "animal C" to "apes".

So, yes, it doesn't mean it would entirely disappear. But it does mean that it could change so much it no longer resembles the original creature.

Humans now have reached the state where they can change their environment to suit them and have no need of changing themselves to suit their environment.

So it means that humans have stopped (macro) evolving?

Well, for now. We're relatively comfortable and have no need to adapt to a drastic alteration of the environment. I can't foretell the future, however. A comet could hit the earth, pollution could be so bad that we'd be forced to change... then there's the fact that our brains are being used now more than any other age, especially for abstract purposes. Expect an increase in brain sizes in the next million years.

There are actually some creatures that have no need to adapt, simply because for millions of years they have been suited to niches in the ecosystem in areas that have not undergone much change. There are some unusual ones, like a particular variation of crab/spider, that drifts along like a jelly fish. I mention this creature because it's really, really neat-looking. Unfortunately, I forget the name, so I can't find a picture.

adherent · Post by **adherent** » Thu May 06, 2004 10:27 pm

Corvus:
So, yes, it doesn't mean it would entirely disappear. But it does mean that it could change so much it no longer resembles the original creature.

Well even though it doesn't resemble the original creature, it might still be the same creature. Unless of course they can't breed. But we still don't know if an organism can't breed successfully with its ancestors. We will never know for sure until maybe a, Time machine?

Post by **otseng** » Fri May 07, 2004 1:52 pm

Corvus wrote: We're relatively comfortable and have no need to adapt to a drastic alteration of the environment.

Isn't everything relatively comfortable? Ecosystems are self-sustaining and life can go on happily unless some drastic happens (like human intervention).

I can't foretell the future, however. A comet could hit the earth, pollution could be so bad that we'd be forced to change...

We might be forced to change, but how would the (genetic) change actually come about?