Has evolution stopped with humans?

[otseng]

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?

[Abs like J']

Before proceeding with this topic, I'd like to see something supporting the claim that evolutionary biologists believe human beings to be the pinnacle of evolution. Given the understanding of evolution, I can't imagine any making such a claim or even holding such a personal belief. By contrast, it seems the creationists who believe humans are the pinnacle of evolution, as the emergence of any other dominant species at anytime in the future would undermine the perception that we are the special project of a god to whom all the world was given.

Now, as to the questions... we are constantly evolving from one generation down to the next. Whether we will ever evolve into another species cannot be known as we can't foresee into the future what kind of natural obstacles we may face. In either case, evolution certainly has not stopped with humans. It's still happening every day all around the world, and if some natural catastrophe were to wipe out 99% of the population with humans included tomorrow, that 1% could still persist.

No, evolution has not stopped with humans.

[otseng]

Before proceeding with this topic, I'd like to see something supporting the claim that evolutionary biologists believe human beings to be the pinnacle of evolution.

You're right. When I search on Google for "pinnacle of evolution", instead of homosapiens, I get results about homosexuals.

OK, instead of saying pinnacle of evolution, humans being are the most evolved. Would that be a fair statement?

No, evolution has not stopped with humans.

How are humans being physically evolving?

[Rancid Uncle]

humans being are the most evolved. Would that be a fair statement?

Humans are not the most evolved. Evolution isn't a scale where micro-organisms are the least evolved and higher mammals are the most evolved. Humans are very poorly evolved for a lot of things like swimming and eating leaves. I would say humans are best evolved for our human role in the ecosystem.

[Alan]

Humans are not the most evolved...

Let me shock your sensibilities. Don't we remember the posters in HS biology classes where the evolutionary tree peaks with a picture of a human? Anyway, strictly speaking, I agree with Uncle, the complexity of an organism is a doubtful measure of status in an ecosystem where humans would die off rapidly if simple microbes were to fail first.

t would seem that having evolved most recently, apparently from the most simple to the most complex, that humans are the newest model, and we tend to believe that the newest model auto is the most advanced. But the difference between a microbe and a man is not that much; indeed, humans are far less important in the scheme. Think otherwise? Better bone up on your ecology. If bugs die, mankind will be wiped out despite any countermeasures. But if mankind dies, bugs will live on happily.

But please don't ask if bugs go to Heaven or have souls.

[otseng]

My point in this topic wasn't really to debate on how much humans have evolved, but has evolution stopped with humans? Any takers on giving us evidence that humans are physically evolving?

[Abs like J']

Humans are still evolving, but we are more or less removed from the natural pressures that were imposed upon us during most of our evolutionary history. This is why we don't see evolution to the same extent in our own species today as we may see in other contemporary species. Were a global epidemic to sweep through the world missing only those with particular immunity, we would still see survival of the fittest, which the genes of those who survived defining the future course of our species.

Observation of genetic drift and the founder effect allow us to see how relatively isolated populations separated from genetic variation develop differently from the population at large.

The species that stops evolving is a species that will be swiftly dealt with through matters of nature, no matter how withdrawn a particular species may become from natural pressures. And if we were to somehow cease evolving, the lives of other species undergoing evolution would certainly not mourn or cease existence upon the planet. In fact, in becoming further removed from natural pressures and achieving more control over our environments, for a great deal of the world's biology we have become a dominant force of natural selection.

We are still evolving and the door is open to the future as to what we may become. It may happen that through catastrophe of immense proportions we are introduced back into the wild and natural forces that shaped our evolution for thousands upon thousands of years. It may also happen that such a catastrophe might wipe us from the face of the earth, allowing the same evolutionary process that led us to become such a dominant species to provide just such a spark for another.

[otseng]

Observation of genetic drift and the founder effect allow us to see how relatively isolated populations separated from genetic variation develop differently from the population at large.

The link you provided shows how people devolve with less genetic information being passed down. Furthermore, these additional digits would be considered a deformity rather than adding any benefits.

[Abs like J']

You're correct in stating that among a society of ten fingered persons Ellis-van Creveld syndrome would be seen as a deformity. That doesn't change the fact that such cases are examples of continued human evolution though, which is what you asked for is it not?

[otseng]

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.