![]() |
Are we evolving(in a fast rate)?
Since the dawn of our existence, we constantly evolve to adapt to the changes of our environment, climate and other factors. From monkey like Australopithecus to our modern **** Sapeins, our brain evolves to suit our needs, and to able to logical decisions. This is the natural state.
In our modern society, scientist are experimenting with our genes, the basis of our evolution. One base pair transferred to others can change the whole identity or chemical composition of an organism, let's say humans? Who knows? Maybe we could have something that other animals have(if it's possible). This could be the artificial evolutionary theory of humans in the future? What do you think? Oh, if you don't believe in evolution, don't post. It'll be spam. |
Evolution is such a long term process that we most likely won't see any changes in our lifetime. It takes hundreds and thousands of years to see change.
|
I agree with Alex. We may not even BE here the next time a stage of evolution passes
|
Evolution isn't something that happens over night.
It has taken millions of years for any changes to take effect. So, no. We are not evolving at a faster rate. |
No, you cannot see evolution unless you go back in time (physically or mentally) and look at how animals looked before today. Evolution is a slow process that happens over a course of millions of years.
I don't even think humans are evolving. Devolving seems more like it. lolwut |
I'm not sure about anybody else, but I plan on evolving soon. Maybe into Charizard?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It took millions of years to get to where are. We won't be around to see other people evolving.
|
I think we've maniuplated nature with technology to hinder any real physical evolution, but instead we have more of a societal evolution
|
No, we aren't. We are perfectly suited to our environment.
Although we still have mutations, we are not under the pressure of natural selection, because we created our own habitat. Only when there is a significant change in the habitat and population will people evolve. And not that I care much, but I think it'd be better if you said "support evolution" because belief sounds faith based, and some creationists will get that wrong. Quote:
|
Unlike pokemon, we can't elvove in just a day.
And to me, Human's are getting dumber and dumber. Unless you mean by techlogly i don't get how the human body is elvoveing faster... I Even think Monkey's are smarter than us (sometimes). |
Quote:
But yeah, you're right - intelligence isn't inherited. Such a belief is pretty damn ancient. Quote:
Evolution doesn't always require an organism to become more complex - a decrease in complexity is a form of evolution as well, since it's an adaptation to a change in environment. Quote:
|
Quote:
:t354:TG |
...but the X-men movies say that we can spontaneous gain superpowarz!! :<
Bah...no amount of genetic experimentation will lead to real evolution. If scientists were to genetically enhance a person to be able to shoot lazars from his nipples, that trait is unlikely to be passed down to the subject's children. Thus, no evolution has taken place, just one man with the awesome ability to shoot lazars out of his nipples. :D |
To be honest I don't see humans ever evolving, our intelligence won't let us. Natural selection does not occur because we stop those unfit for survival from dying with medicine and their genes just get thrown back into the gene pool essentially halting progress. And on top of that, travel makes it impossible for isolation, which is required for evolution. We cant adapt to a different environment if genes from another environment keep getting thrown back in.
|
Quote:
Are you talking about me? Because that sounds like me. Exhibit A. Exhibit B. In other news, redheads are becoming genetically extinct and peoples' small toes are gradually shrinking. |
Quote:
|
I know that we are evolving, but the stupidity of people around me every day makes me think otherwise.
|
Evolution eh =)
Yea we are evolving... here is a sign of evolution... Human Life Expectancy is growing... mhm... this can be because of different living conditions and food eating habbits, but who knows. The reason that SO many people now are stupid is cause of the way children are raised today. After the Baby Boomers, there where more "Child Abuse Laws" which didnt let kids get punished enough. Also, After weed became huge in the 60's, we all became "Dopes". Video Games also just make kids dumber. I dont care about Statistics and tests, The young kids of the "US" will lead our country to no longer be a "World Power". Gah... China, India, Russia, and Japan will be better and stronger soon. We r Dopes. (I live in California) |
Quote:
&Scientist: Wow. But if two redheaded people have kids, aren't the chances of it having red hair higher? |
No one has commented on my examples of human microevolution.
|
Quote:
Well the best example of that would probably be immunities and such, if you want to count it. |
Quote:
|
If we could evolve into something that an animal has, like it's strength and speed, it's almost possible today.
|
Do we have floating cars that run on vegetable oil? No? Oh. I don't know.
For all I know, yeah we probably are. I mean we went from having spears to having pieces of metal that shoot spiral-shaped things fast. Go us. Also, I think we're becoming dumber than we are smarter. We've been messing with nature far too much and now we've pretty much doomed ourselves. Another go us! |
Quote:
You have no idea how many scientists are trying to get out that evolution is a load of crap. DNA is unaltering, fact. We can't simply live somewhere and our bodies know that they have to grow smarter or warmer. Humans are curious and adaptible, but not evolving. We know more than 500 years ago because of several men who have taken their curiosity to higher levels, but it doesnt mean our brains are actually getting larger or smarter. I hate it how this is taught in schools when some loon (Charles Darwin) had this overnight THEORY that we came from monkeys, so on so forth, when it's actually no more provable than afterlife and creationism. People bashing and hating Christians and Catholics because they believe in something probably just as silly as evolution. You can say this is spam, but I'm not flaming anyone and I'm staying on topic. My opinion is valued by some and despised probably by you right now reading this, thinking "What an utter dolt. Not beleiving our DNA can mutate to create us into better, more intelligent beings" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're twisting my words in your "defense" and you can't argue against any of my points because chances are, I'm right. And if you must know, I think dirt and ribs sound HELLA alot better than a big galactic explosion and millions of years later, evolving from pond scum. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh, and roughly 99.98% of scientists support evolution both as a theory and as a fact. I am a freshman and I know much more than you do. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Quote:
Quote:
By the way, there are Christian and catholic people who support evolution. Just because they don't accept rib woman and clay man doesn't mean they think religion is stupid. Please click this. And this is indeed evolution(which is the diversity of life, and that only. No big bang, no abiogenesis. Repeat after me. Diversity of life, not origins.) Don't get it mixed up. However, I will give you one chance to redeem yourself. Find fossil bunnies the Precambrian. Good luck, because you'll need it :3 Quote:
I'm sorry, but if you want to reply to this, please send me a PM. I have a feeling I will unnecessarily curse at you for being so unknowing of the facts. I hope you can entertain me and say it's only a theory. Oh...and, you research something, THEN debate it. |
And it looks like it's time for The Scientist to swoop down and kill the troll(s) clear things up.
Firstly, always differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. One has been proven beyond all doubt, and the other is tentative. Secondly, Darwin and Linnaeus neither proposed nor supported macroevolution (coming from monkeys, as EpsilonE so eloquently put it); "On the Origin of Species" only detailed examples of microevolutionary changes observed in the Galapagos Islands (e.g. finches' beaks changing). Thirdly, microevolution has been observed in almost every living thing. It has also definitely been observed in humans (note the examples I gave a few posts back). The divergence of the various races is also an example of microevolution in humans. Fourthly, the Big Bang theory is not relevant to macroevolution. I don't know why that was even brought up. |
There's small cases of evolution today.
You know more and more people are being born without their appendixes? ...ithink. |
Quote:
You do know that a child can only inherit it's intelligences from it's mother.. Even tho the father was a uber smart guy.. His children would only be as smart as the mother... Or at least that's what I learned in advanced biology.. Aka Genetics, erfðafræði in Icelandic... Anyway I don't think any of us will be a life for the next stages of evolution and I doubt the people that experience it will know it's happening... |
Quote:
Big Bang? Who's the nutter that thought that up? It's only the theory that brings us back to the beginning of our universe, which is not relevant to the evolution of humans. I have come to understand that macroevo in humans is from Australopithecus africanus----- > Hom0 sapeins. Correct me if I'm wrong. And microevo is the race differences of humans. Each race has it's own trait to adapt to different climates and land. Like Darwin's finches in Galapagos. |
Yeah... I'm a Christian and I'll tell you microevolution is a fact. I don't believe in macroevo, but I'll try not to force beliefs right here. And I'll say that Big Bang vs. Creation is irrelevant here.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not trying to argue, really. I'm simply tearing apart a slightly irate opinion as most people are wont to do from time to time. Nothing personal. |
Quote:
And since why shouldn't I say that I'm smarter? I clearly gave an obvious, credible source of speciation, which is commonly found above micro evolution. Quote:
I could've sworn I gave him a chance to disprove evolution, but I must have just imagined it. Quote:
Quote:
There isn't any truth in science alone, because science adapts to the evidence. However, science proven by math never changes because math is set in stone. I am not saying that evolution is proven by math, because I have never researched that, but when macro evolution was observed and shown to be right beyond a shadow of a doubt, you should drop your denial. And lastly, I only degrade what I don't believe in because I haven't been shown any evidence to support to contrary, or evidence has been shown against the contrary. Try to prove how a flood happened with freshwater fish and saltwater fish both surviving, since it is clearly in the scripture :/ |
dood guys didn't u know intelegent design is totally in
[/lolsarcasm] The human's ability to adjust to its enviornment is not one of genetic evolution (as we are rather similar in design to our ancestors thousands of years ago), however, due to this extremely successful trait of the human species, our children will certainly inherit that quality, which, even millions of years from now, when humans have changed form enough to be a seperate species, this quality will remain intact until the decendants are completely wiped off of the face of the planet. Quote:
|
Quote:
Dunno. |
Quote:
I apologize. I shouldn't have stereotyped you. |
Quote:
|
I know, but in a serious debate, it's not exactly a good idea to be "messing around" :p
|
Quote:
http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg My bad. |
LET'S RETURN THIS TOPIC TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENTION SIR SPAMALOT
Human evolution, on a genological level, is not progressing at an abnormal rate... at the moment. =_= But our ability to make new tools certainly is :DDDDDDDD |
Quote:
I really don't think we're going to do much more evolving at all. We've created ways do most things we need to do. (E.g. Fly, get around quickly, kill eachother) I doubt theres any more major evolution coming our way. The only evolution I could see is natural selection and becoming immune to certain diseases. |
Quote:
|
AND WE WILL CERTAINLY GROW WINGS
|
Quote:
I THOUGHTED YOU WERE SMARTS!!! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There was also this dog who...never mind, just see the non photo-shopped image. |
Wasn't that dog just born with faulty muscle mass genes? I can't remember the name of them...
|
ITT: trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls...
So is anyone going to discuss the examples of human evolution I brought up? |
Quote:
|
Oh boy is this thread full of misconceptions. I don't really have the energy to deal with most of them right now.. let alone the trolls (learn some science if you want to challenge scientific consensus, kiddies).
Quote:
Incorrect. Both have been directly observed and 'proven beyond all doubt', as you say-- though of course there is no such thing as a 'scientific proof'. Quote:
Incorrect. While Darwin's seminal title indeed contained little discussion of large-scale evolutionary changes (likely due to the social tension and lack of a good fossil record at the time), he certainly did address macroevolution in other works. Additionally, Darwin and Linnaeus have about as much to do with modern evolutionary biology as Newton does with quantum physics. |
If you think evolution isn't occurring you're an "idiot". Evolution doesn't have to be moving forward. It doesn't have to be growing ****ing wings out of your ass. It can be miniscule, FACT. In the past one-hundred years the functionality of the human toe in the "new world" has decreased. That's evolution.
Derp. inb4mybigtoeisamazing |
We're also slowly losing our sense of smell and wisdom teeth.
|
Quote:
Firstly that page discusses speciation, which can fall under macro- or microevolution. Regardless, most of the examples discuss human-induced hybrids and their genetic differences/inability to breed with the parents. Some interesting exceptions to this include the Drosophila melanogaster experiment, where a light being on or off during mating affected the stability of... a hybrid. Quote:
|
Quote:
*click* |
Quote:
None of them were observed in nature: they were all in a laboratory settting, and the crossing of the different species was done by humans. While the hybrids were not able to breed with the parents' species, the fact that a hybrid was made undermines the "natural genetic change" clause. tl;dr: do human-induced genetic changes still count as speciation/macroevolution? |
Quote:
Although we haven't seen speciation through natural causes(since it takes much more time), the assertion is that animals like chickens weren't created with useless genes*cough* dinosaur genes*cough* and vestigial body parts(like the vermiform appendix in most humans today.) Or maybe the ostrich wings for a better example. Edit: Lol, you used incorrect grammar. To be honest, I didn't check through the whole list, but I'll tell you if I saw one instance where it was actually taken in a natural setting. |
The way I see it, we're devolving. I try not to judge people as better or worse than anyone else, but the sorts of people who are most likely to breed these days are the kind of people who would set the human race back by doing so. Musicians and actors who haven't done a hard day's labor ("work" would be deceiving here; labor is more accurate) in their entire life get their choice of the litter while brilliant and/or hard-working people end up dying alone. Not only is that screwed up, it's slowly eliminating intelligence and determination from our genetics. Eventually, we'll end up a breed of apathetic fools who feel they deserve to have everything handed to them. This is already happening to a degree today. Of course, evolution is a slow process, and it tends to balance itself out. The more apathetic fools we have, the more those with intelligence and determination will be able to shine through.
This is all assuming we don't blow ourselves to hell first. |
Quote:
And that is not going to be the downfall of the human race, I'm sorry, but your righteous post isn't as applicable as you probably wanted it to be. GG tho brah. Wait so are we evolving into rocks or what...? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not a troll. I'm a human rogue on thrall. look me up, my guild is on TOC 25 hardmodes :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As for the other examples, of course they are all going to discuss hybrids-- the criteria for species separation according to the biological species concept is the inability to generate fertile hybrid offspring from a cross. Quote:
"Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population." "Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth." I think the fact that we're disagreeing about the definitions of micro- and macro- evolution here is really pretty representative of the false dichotomy between the two. Evolution is for the most part a contiguous process and not so easily subdivided-- 'macroevolution' is essentially just 'microevolution' writ large. The distinction is there primarily to aid human thought. The situation with taxonomic classification is much the same once you move away from the hard rule of the BSC-- and even that has issues, as illustrated by situations where gene flow occurs between 'species' despite a lack of any direct mating (i.e through an intermediate). I spent a fair bit of time in a phylogenetics lab last year, and I can assure you that our tidy classifications really start to break down when you look at the sequence level. We ran into a number of problems with incomplete lineage sorting-- basically some parts of species A's genome were more closely related to species B than C, while others were closer to C than B. It's a complete nightmare if you want everything to fit into neat little divergence trees. Quote:
Quote:
I'm not sure why people get this impression of decreasing intelligence. I suspect the idiots are just getting a lot louder-- courtesy of wealthy economies, widespread communications technology and increasing literacy rates. There's also been the rise of hardcore religious fundamentalism in the US (note however that it has been coupled with decreasing numbers of religious people in general). Another misconception I should address here is the idea of 'devolving'. Evolution is not teleocentric-- it is far from linear, and does not progress 'up' or 'down' or 'towards' something. Natural selection acts to generate organisms which are good at reproducing in the environment they find themselves in, and nothing else. If they happen to be better-adapted to a greater range of environments in general, or are what we subjectively see as 'better', it is purely an accessory effect. |
The advent of technology really affects our lives doesn't it? 15 yeas ago, when computer games are not so addictive as today, children usually do other things much more worthwhile. Like playing outside, reading a good book, etc. Now we see children(not to mention teenagers), sitting in front of the computer/TV/etc. . Not just sitting, but making it as if they can't live without it. The more a child watches TV, the more his/her brain became degenerate. Even educational TV won't help. Yes, we're devolving into couch potatoes, but not all.
Although they'll have their own "modern" intelligence, which means they can easily make a "battle strategy" in his game, while he'll have some difficulty in solving a simple math equation. Quote:
Quote:
-----> Caucasians ------> Polynesians(and much more races) Right? Macro evolution example: Australopithecus africanus---->blah(too long)---->blah---->*Missing Link or what*----> Hom0 sapiens Right. |
evolution happens over a long period of time e.g people don't have beards as much as they used too and we are getting fatter because in WWII rations made people fitter
just my opinion |
Quote:
|
umnm they kinda do in a way but you have a point
I'm saying lots of little things are changing basically =P but then again I'm not smart *slowly walks away* I'll stop talking now |
Quote:
*patpat* It's okay. |
roght I get it XD it lol
have a cookie! |
Quote:
As for the Flynn Effect, I suspect there is a fair amount of lying with statistics involved. I'm no professional, but I can think of a number of things that make me doubt it. Most importantly, we have IQ being used as a measure of intelligence. Higher IQ scores don't mean people are getting smarter, they mean people are getting better at IQ tests. I still maintain that we're getting stupider overall, and that genetics plays an important role in this. And as you said, natural selection does encourage adaptation. Our current society promotes stupidity and laziness (and, in fact, idolizes those who have both), and those people tend to breed more and pass those traits along. It seems pretty simple to me. |
Quote:
We won't have to adapt because we will come up with new technology so that most people would survive instead of just those fit for the new conditions surviving. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm going to add something here.
Us as humans are much too developed to develop / evolve any further. Evolution comes through natural selection and also pressure in the environment. Large amounts of a given species die off before they start adapting and evolving, humans are at a stage where we shape the environment to suit us. We're putting pressure on the environment, but we feel no pressure (except stress which isnt that big imo). An excellent example of this are insecticides and how we have to make them stronger every few years after insects get used to them. When we evolve, one main thing that evolves with us is our brain, and the human brain is already at the epitome of development. The only thing that can occur now, is an increase in the thinking power / amount of brain we use as humans only use 2% of their brainpower. IQ is not something that is human made and is flawed. Apart from the genes that you gain through natural selection (your parents), you are on your own. IQ plays a very little part. You will find that children that have a very educated, diverse life up until they are approximately 5-6 years old, will generally be smarter as this is the "development" phase of the brain. Why do you think exchange students from asia are so smart? They start school when they're 3. And talk about people not having beards anymore due to evolution.... :/ Its actually due to changes in trends. Its like asking why blazers / suits arent compulsory in high school, or uniform in america. Its due to changing trends. Evolution in humans.... Will not happen. The spine, the brain, the shape of the jaw! It is all linked to our evolution. We have evolved way too much. In the middle ages, the human brain had a capacity of 1500 CCs, this has been developed this to 1700 CCs. It is estimated that this is the maximum thinking capacity we are able to contain. Sadly, there is no place for evolution. @ twocows. We are not getting dumber, its just that education is given less and less importance. Look at my asian countries reference. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:24 PM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.