Before anyone posts it up, I'm not interested in what the WWW has to say, I want peoples views on this,

I think that they are. I read National Geographic which stated that every 1 million years, humans have had a major "jump" in evolution.

It also stated that none of the other Great Apes have shifted accordingly because there is a more "aggressive" dominant species above it....us, if you follow the Darwin theory. That's why Mammals came into their own after the Dinosaurs got wiped out. Before then the largest fossilised mammal found is no larger than a chicken.

What do you think??

Yeah we're still evolving. I dont know in what way, but I dont think humans will ever survive long enough to experience it anyway.

I did read somewhere that humans will lose the little toe at some point in the future, as their is little use for it, but i'd be suprised if the species lasts long enough even for that to be experienced.

Actually, I dont beileve in evolution. God created everything in 7 days.

Are we stil evolving?

Boy, I certainly hope so! :(

I've heard that about the Little Toe as well.

I also read that our Brain will carry on getting larger, so Hips on Females will to accommodate bigger headed babies. You get all sorts of 'domino effects' from this (larger backbones to support pregnancy etc) There was a piece about redundant organs disappearing (Appendix etc)

The counter argument is that due to Social constraints, health care etc the gene responsible for Diabetes will not disappear. Natural selection would have caused this to have disappeared(a nice way of saying diabetics would have not reached a reproductive age

I don't think humans will evolve much more unless there is some catastrophe that forces us to.

The usual evolutionary factors such as physical strength, size, camouflage, hunting skills and diet are no longer an issue where our survival is concerned.

The more the above issues are catered for by technology, the less we humans need to adapt to survive. As for the brain getting larger to accommodate this new technology, we have forgotten more of our ancestors' knowledge than we will ever need to learn.

Survival of the fittest dictates evolution. Now, fitness is no longer an issue.

I heard on the radio that Americans are getting shorter and Europeans are getting taller.

Probably as a result of eating too many McDonalds!

Originally posted by MrHelicopter
I heard on the radio that Americans are getting shorter

That's cos you can only stack manure so high, before the pile collapses:rolleyes:

Of course humans are still evolving. You only have to look at what's happening in Iraq right now to see how wonderfully civilized we're becoming.

social change is not the same as evolution.

If things carry on the way they are i'd say we are evolving in a way which we would not like.

Ie. the smartest and most sucessfull people often have few or no children. Whilst lower down the social scale families are often large.
IF (that's a big if) sucess can be attributed to any genetic factor then we are breeding successfull people out of the gene pool.

Then there are things like MS - normally no-one with MS would live long enough to reproduce, and as it's a recessive gene occurences of it would stay at a stable level. Modern medicine allows people with MS to live for longer and to reproduce, which has the effect of increasing the spread of the defective gene.

The arguments against evolution, ie no evolutionary pressure are not correct. It's just that the pressure is no longer to be the fastest, the strongest, the best at finding food. Different pressures means that evolution will take a different path.

Hopefully in the near future (on an evolutionary scale) humankind will take responsability for it's own development and people will decide for themselves how to evolve (for themselves or for there offspring).

Can someone offer an ideas on why, when evolution (Darwin Theory) took place, and we evolved from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys i.e. some evolved, some didn't, and why are there no species inbetween??

species often branch. Probably due to specific evolutionary pressure in a geographical region, or a advantageous mutation in a population that is somehow isolated from other populations of the same species.

We aren't supposed to have evolved directly from monkeys. They are our closest living evolutionary cousin. We both evolved from some earlier type of monkey.

Originally posted by jackthedog
Yeah we're still evolving. I dont know in what way, but I dont think humans will ever survive long enough to experience it anyway.

I did read somewhere that humans will lose the little toe at some point in the future, as their is little use for it, but i'd be suprised if the species lasts long enough even for that to be experienced.

This is exactly what evolution is not.

Originally posted by markham
Survival of the fittest dictates evolution. Now, fitness is no longer an issue.
I disagree, all we need is a major catastrophe like disease or famine and we're right back in the thick of things again. Just because our local Asda hasn't sold out of baked beans yet does not mean we're home and free.

Chris.

Originally posted by jackthedog
Actually, I dont beileve in evolution. God created everything in 7 days.

wow i would have thought if he was almighty he would have managed it much quicker.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
I disagree, all we need is a major catastrophe like disease or famine and we're right back in the thick of things again. Just because our local Asda hasn't sold out of baked beans yet does not mean we're home and free.

Chris.

Please read my entire post and you'll see that I made this point at the beginning.:thumbsup:

Evolution is an infinite thing - it just happens so slowly that we don't notice it.

I'm not anywhere near a evolutionary theorist but this idea that our toes are shrinking because we don't use them enough is not what evolution is. A basic definition...
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species

Our toes don't shrink over time because they are not used enough, our bodies don't have some kind of programming that says 'hey I haven't used my toes in 10 years I'll just let them drop off and give my kids smaller ones"

Originally posted by jackthedog
Actually, I dont beileve in evolution. God created everything in 7 days.

Wow! A real living breathing fundamentalist! So if God is perfect and the Bible is God-breathed, why the need for four different gospels?

(Of course, maybe you're not a fundamentalist and i'm just getting over-excited, but I would love one to talk to about this kind of stuff.)

Answers asap pleeeaaaase!!!!

There would have to be some positive advantage to loosing said digit in order for us to evolve in that way.

Good call Cyclone.

Theres more to selective pressures than mere survival. The need to procreate is just as important in evolution, and to procreate humans need to find mates. Sexual selection is present throughout nature and is undoubtedly present in Homo sapiens too.
One theory claims that our enlarged brains, our ape appearance, the size difference between males and females, and various other factors are all consequences of sexual selection. Medicines, technology and abundant shelter will never affect the role sexual selection plays in the evolution process, but culture itself may.

It is almost impossible to guarantee that our sexual desires, choices and behaviours are guided by our own and our potential mate’s genetic make up, rather than being guided by the culture we live in.
Whatever the case one fact remains: Sexual selection - on whatever level – occurs. As long as it continues to occur there will be a selective pressure present, and evolution will occur.

e.g
Women prefer taller men = Men getting taller = Women prefer taller men

But then what if the woman herself isn't tall?

Any offspring (male or female) will inherit some or none of either parents genes. And if the gene determining height is inherited by the male from his short mum.....................

I guess the thinking here is that short men will get "bred out" and so will the women.

Your Gene's are 50% from your each of your parents.

No Johnjo.

What I'm saying is that a tall father doesn't necessarily mean tall sons. Only if BOTH parents are tall can it be safe to say that the kids will (probably) be tall.

For short men to be 'bred out', then all short people would have to desist from breeding (male and female) and that will never happen. So therefore the status quo will remain the same as now.

If this makes sense to anyone out there I'll be well surprised:thumbsup:

I need a moment!!! phew!! :roll:

Basically (I think) -

There will always be tall people having tall kids.
There will always be short people having short kids.
And there'll always be short+tall couples having a mix of short+tall kids.

And it will stay like this unless height becomes a factor in survival.

For instance, if supermarket checkouts raise their counters to two metres, or bus roofs are lowered to one metre!!

(I MADE THAT LAST BIT UP):loopy: :thumbsup:

Thinking about it deeply: I actually believe that I am evolving all the time, almost on a weekly basis.

I become clumsier the older I get for starters, and become less surprised when I fall and head the occasional pavement or trip up and graze my elbows on loose gravel.

I am rapidly evolving into a politically detached creature and am becoming less and less bothered by materialistic things by the hour.

And by God SM, you've proved it over this last few weeks.

Could it be you're evolving into an APE?:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

A preference for taller men would breed out shorter men + women. As overall short men would be less effective at breeding.

Evolution occurs to species, adaptation and change occur to individuals.

Originally posted by Cyclone
A preference for taller men would breed out shorter men + women. As overall short men would be less effective at breeding.

Only if breeding when standing up - unless they are especially lucky ;)

Originally posted by Cyclone
A preference for taller men would breed out shorter men + women. As overall short men would be less effective at breeding.

Evolution occurs to species, adaptation and change occur to individuals.

But....... there is already a preference for good looking partners(always has been) but we haven't managed to breed out the uglies yet. In fact, there are more of them now than there ever was before!:rolleyes:

ah -my dear watson, elementary.

Re: the preference for attractive partners, it goes both ways, so the ugly breed with the ugly, thus perpetuating the ugly strain of humanity (ps - attractiveness changes based on social factors).

Whereas the tall thing only applies from women to men. So short men get less and thus produce less offspring. Short and tall women all go for the tall men, the lucky chaps.

I strongly support the theory that we are all directly related to our relatives, and, may I add, are still evolving.

Indeed, it has been proved conclusively that the Earth evolves on its own axis once every twenty-four hours.

Originally posted by Cyclone
ah -my dear watson, elementary.

Re: the preference for attractive partners, it goes both ways, so the ugly breed with the ugly, thus perpetuating the ugly strain of humanity (ps - attractiveness changes based on social factors).



But what about ugly footballers? They've all got cute birds. This means that footballers kids will be 50% ugly and 50% cute and therefore will perpetuate the ugly gene cos the male uglies will follow in their dads footsteps and marry cute birds while the female ugly offspring will go into politics (as they already do) and pass a law giving uglies equal rights to marry cuties (ney, make it compulsory) and so on, ad infinitum!

Have you noticed how some really ugly parents manage to produce some really stunning offspring ?