• Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Are we evolving(in a fast rate)?

Charon the Ferryman said:
Well, that's unfortunate. I was going to take you for an intelligent person who forgot to back themselves up. Now I realize you're someone who's too hasty to jump to conclusions to come up with reasonable evidence.

I apologize. I shouldn't have stereotyped you.
Click to expand...

Quit taking me so seriously. I'm just messing with you.
 
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
 
Charon the Ferryman said:
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
Click to expand...
k.

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.
 
Royal Genesis said:
k.

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.
Click to expand...

Certain families have great features. There was this one family in Kentucky(or something like that) with nearly indestructible bones, but it will be hundreds of generations before most or all of the human race gets it, considering they reproduce before they die out.
 
Luck said:


Certain families have great features. There was this one family in Kentucky(or something like that) with nearly indestructible bones, but it will be hundreds of generations before most or all of the human race gets it, considering they reproduce before they die out.
Click to expand...

I think I heard about this. Didn't they have other problems, though? Like, most of them couldn't swim because their bones were too dense and heavy.
 
Screw the rules said:
I think I heard about this. Didn't they have other problems, though? Like, most of them couldn't swim because their bones were too dense and heavy.
Click to expand...

I think that can also be used as an advantage to become better swimmers, but this does show that one size doesn't fit all. These are the actions of the blind watchmaker.
There was also this dog who...never mind, just see the non photo-shopped image.
 
ITT: trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls...

So is anyone going to discuss the examples of human evolution I brought up?
 
The Scientist said:
ITT: trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls...

So is anyone going to discuss the examples of human evolution I brought up?
Click to expand...

Probably not, because not much people care about redheads or their near vestigial small toes. But does that mean we have the capability of our feet being altered to be more fit for explosive leaps of speed instead of long, continuous distances, if natural selection allows it of course. An example(in case my wording was even worse than I thought) is our dear friend the cheetah, which really fails since the humans will be running after it long after the cheetah is tired.
 
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).
The Scientist said:
Firstly, always differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. One has been proven beyond all doubt, and the other is tentative.
Click to expand...


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'.
The Scientist said:
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).
Click to expand...


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
 
Idiomorph said:
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'.
Click to expand...


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.
Idiomorph;5122056[/SIZE said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll have to go through more of their books to decide for myself, but again, speciation can apply to microevolution (I think Darwin referred to the finch beaks as speciation) or macroevolution.
 
Last edited:
The Scientist said:
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.



I'll have to go through more of their books to decide for myself, but again, speciation can apply to microevolution (I think Darwin referred th the finch beaks as speciation) or macroevolution.
Click to expand...

Although speciation can fall into either category, more often than not, it is above the micro evolution level. That just seems like too much instances for all of them to be just micro evolutionary.
*click*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top