Has Human Evolution Stopped?

[imcarthur]

We didn't evolve from them, we shared a common ancestor.

Ian

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

What I don't understand is if we supposedly evolved from monkeys and apes then why are there still monkeys and apes? (but that's a topic for another day on a different forum)
Remember, its the theory of evolution.

We didn't evolve from monkeys and apes. We are related to apes. That's different than "evolving from" them.

Scientists believe we and apes (not monkeys) had a common ancestor that lived way, way before the World was created six thousand years ago (yes, that is verrry confusing to some ).

That common ancestor split into two separate ancestors. One of them evolved into gorillas and chimps. The other evolved into you. But there was the hominids between you and the gorillas and the chimps.

The hominids weren't as smart as we are, but some of us still have some of their primitive traits. One of those traits is the sound that some of us make to express abject bewilderment. It sounds like, hummana, hummana, hummana.

Note how similar that sounds to, hominid, hominid, hominid.

You should take a course on the Theory of Evolution.

And pray that they never repeal the Law of Gravity.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

We didn't evolve from them, we shared a common ancestor.

Ian

Yup. In Canadia too.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

It is eugenics. You are making the case for a master race, not necessarily racially pure, and certainly not in a Nazi sense, but you are basically saying that the genetically inferior in intelligence or physical health will cause the species to decline by reproducing (which was/is the foundation of eugenics). Do you see evidence of this? Do you see humans, as a species, getting physically weaker, having increasingly shorter lifespans, and having less intelligence? Conversely do you see the opportunity for selective breeding to produce a strain of humans with superior health, strength, industry, and intelligence?

I think you either misunderstand or are misusing the term Eugenics. Eugenics is a movement that advocates imposing policies and practices aimed to "improve" the genetic makeup of humans.

If I were to advocate a policy that people with Down syndrome could not reproduce, that would be eugenics.

In essence, our society is currently practicing reverse eugenics. Modern medicine is allowing people with certain genetic diseases and traits to live much longer than they would naturally. Thus, they are reaching reproductive age more often and passing along their genes at a higher rate. So, in a way we are encouraging them to reproduce, not the other way around.

I suppose you could take this to the extreme and say that any advance of man has done the same thing, from making fire to finding shelter. All these things have allowed the "weaker" to survive. I suppose we would all be hairy behemoths if we had never discovered fire or shelter or weapons or what have you....

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by DARISC

We didn't evolve from monkeys and apes. We are related to apes. That's different than "evolving from" them.

Scientists believe we and apes (not monkeys) had a common ancestor that lived way, way before the World was created six thousand years ago (yes, that is verrry confusing to some ).

.

you have been watching too much Sanford & Son... One of the best shows ever!!!

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by DARISC

You should take a course on the Theory of Evolution.
And pray that they never repeal the Law of Gravity.

Throughout the history of science, theories have been found to be wrong. That is different from scientific law which has documented measurable results that can be repeated for proof.

[ronster]

Read the PARF forum here and you will be certain human evolution has come to a dead stop.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Throughout the history of science, theories have been found to be wrong. That is different from scientific law which has documented measurable results that can be repeated for proof.

correct as far as it goes; your mistake is in thinking that evolution is a "theory"

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Throughout the history of science, theories have been found to be wrong.

That is correct. Have you read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"?

I answered the question you posted. Then I suggested that you take a course on the topic because your question indicates that you don't know much about it. Except that is a theory.

Do you give any credence, at all, to any other theory of how we came to be here?

That is different from scientific law which has documented measurable results that can be repeated for proof.

That is correct also. My comment, re repealing the laws of gravity, was not tendered with gravitas (gravitas, ha ha!), it was a joke (Ha ha ha!).

..

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by RWebb

correct as far as it goes; your mistake is in thinking that evolution is a "theory"

This, from Wiki, might help him:

"The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates."

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by ronster

Read the PARF forum here and you will be certain human evolution has come to a dead stop.

Conservatively put...but, in that sense, true.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Dam I look good in that dress..and Mother told me that little black number didn't work for me...

[nota]

evolution is fact
that train left
DNA is the record of what evolved in to what and when it happened too
we can only read bits and pieces right now
but the whole story is recorded

which brings up a new evolution bit DNA and genes
we are on the dawn of self directed evolution
sure the rude crude very early stage

[pavulon]

Originally Posted by nota

evolution is fact
that train left
DNA is the record of what evolved in to what and when it happened too
we can only read bits and pieces right now
but the whole story is recorded

which brings up a new evolution bit DNA and genes
we are on the dawn of self directed evolution
sure the rude crude very early stage

Was this lifted from a Public Enemy song?

[nota]

why would you think that ??

the next stage of evolution is a very new one self directed
and that is a very revolutionary concept
some time in the near future we will be able to read DNA
a little later the ability to write DNA will be understood

so future parents will pick the ability's of their offspring's gene set
do you want bigger smarter faster stronger better looking long lived
and no more inherited diseases

[RWebb]

we can already "read" DNA; also copy it and pull it apart

the biggie is figuring out development

[Hawkeye's-911T]

Being a devine creationist I refute your unsubstantiated claims of evolution.
__________________
The REVEREND TABS the former "Master Buffeter"

You surely must mean "refudiate" don't you?

[Superman]

These questions will seem simpler and less interesting if you limit yourself to only one bong hit per day.

Evolution? I saw the future in "Wall-E".

[nota]

Originally Posted by RWebb

we can already "read" DNA; also copy it and pull it apart

the biggie is figuring out development

yes they can read chemical sequences in DNA
but that is not the same as knowing what gene does what
OR HOW SEVERAL GENES INTERACT

BUT it is coming
next they will learn how to remove or replace genes or bits of them

and a whole new form of evolution by selection not by the environment
but by the parents

[RWebb]

most DNA does not code for proteins...

------------------------------------------------

BTW, the term selection MEANS "action" of the environment that causes some geneotypes to have lower freq. in the next generation b/c the phenotypes have fewer offspring

you must want to say by us choosing ...

------------------------------------------------

finally, ability to genetically engineer/modify organisms is no panacea -- improvements will depend strongly on whether organisms have already been optimized by selection or not


but you CAN make some kick-ass pathogens and maybe extinct humans