Human Evolution
Cronos
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Whats you theory?</div> What is your theory on the future of human evolution? Where is the human species headed for in the next 1 - 2 million years?
My personal theory is based on previous evolution. Provided the environment does not change drastically over the next 1 - 2 million years, I would expect future humans to have larger brain mass, be taller, more dextrous and brighter (more intelligent, not skin colour). These things will most likely happen in the next few aeons and may continue. What is less likely, but there may be a chance of it happnening is that humans may develope more appendages. So, in 2 million years or so, Humans may posses up to three or four arms.
Of course, thats only presuming that the environment does NOT change over the next 2 million years. Any number of climactic and cultural changes could drive human evolution into different paths, subspecies and innumerable mutations.
For example, if the world were to be submerged to the point such that the earths land surface was one tenth of what it is now, people may spend all their times living on boats and such and you get a water world situation where humans follow a very dolphin-like path of evolution.
Of course, theirs also nuclear war/ice ages which would force humans into space or underground.
Zero G humans would essentially be big butter balls of fat and brain, perhaps over BILLIONS of years of evolution they will form gargantuan organisms (one human being one cell), but that is highly unlikely. Of course, humans living in lower gravity environments would adjust to gravity, radiation, and other local environmental effects, hell I could go on all day about this, but this is a discussion forum, so, Discuss!
My personal theory is based on previous evolution. Provided the environment does not change drastically over the next 1 - 2 million years, I would expect future humans to have larger brain mass, be taller, more dextrous and brighter (more intelligent, not skin colour). These things will most likely happen in the next few aeons and may continue. What is less likely, but there may be a chance of it happnening is that humans may develope more appendages. So, in 2 million years or so, Humans may posses up to three or four arms.
Of course, thats only presuming that the environment does NOT change over the next 2 million years. Any number of climactic and cultural changes could drive human evolution into different paths, subspecies and innumerable mutations.
For example, if the world were to be submerged to the point such that the earths land surface was one tenth of what it is now, people may spend all their times living on boats and such and you get a water world situation where humans follow a very dolphin-like path of evolution.
Of course, theirs also nuclear war/ice ages which would force humans into space or underground.
Zero G humans would essentially be big butter balls of fat and brain, perhaps over BILLIONS of years of evolution they will form gargantuan organisms (one human being one cell), but that is highly unlikely. Of course, humans living in lower gravity environments would adjust to gravity, radiation, and other local environmental effects, hell I could go on all day about this, but this is a discussion forum, so, Discuss!
Comments
The reason I'm talking about sociological evolution is because we will design new humans based on the societal structure that will be supporting them. The real struggles now are not based on promotion of our genes, but proliferation of ideas about how we live our lives, including the search for a social/economic/governmental structure that best suits us. This very discussions thread is a battleground for the genes of society.
Going further, if our genetic evolution is based on the needs of our societal organism, maybe there will be different kinds of humans, designed with different specialties in mind. I can just see it now, a debate on how much diversification of the genome we can handle: on the one hand, we could have too much racism(speciesism?) and become divided if we are too different, and on the other, we could fall into stagnance forced by the fact that we're all cut from the same DNA, making it unlikely for anyone to have an original idea.
Physically, I guess we would take the most convenient form that technology would recommend. Perhaps big butter balls of fat and brain, yes, or maybe bipeds just a little different from ourselves now, with funny ears and hairless legs, at least in the near term. Personally, I would like to be a super sex machine capable of multiple speeds and come with a little bunny head attachment. And be able to eat lots of cheeseburgers. Yum, cheeseburgers. But there would be no use for me considering that everyone would be grown in a bottle anyway, and eat cheeseburgers through osmosis. What was I talking about? Ganja > yo mama.
Yeah, the future is going to be one crazy-**** mofo. G'night.
Well human race is going to get dumber and dumber until we get that stupid enough to nuke each other until we are extinct <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
There you go short and sweet <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
1. Takes more than two million years to evolve extra limbs.
2. Have a look at Greg Bear's sci-fi novel, "Darwin's Radio". Future evolution may be centred entirely on communication and multitasking.
3. There's no guarantee we're still evolving, or indeed that anything in this region of the universe is. Entropy could even now be getting its revenge on uppity organisms with the temerity to increase in complexity and functional order, and we wouldn't know, 'cuz we'd all be getting dumber <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
4. The human brain is pretty close to maximum efficient size. Any bigger and we're fighting the law of diminishing returns, ie each increas in overall size requires a disproportionately large increase in bloodvessels, sheathing, fat, physical protection, and areas devoted to coordinating all that extra RAM.
5. Neanderthals had bigger brains than us <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yikes, very "Brave New World." I certainly hope we don't go down this path. Personally, I have no problem with cloning and genetic engineering as we use them now and in the near future, but carried to their logical conclusion they become very scary things. Perhaps we would be better off avoiding them entirely?
Kid 1: He looks like a monkey?
Kid 2: George Bush looks like a monkey!
Kid 1: What?
Kid 3: George Bush looks like a monkey?
Kid 4: George Bush doesn't look like a monkey
Kid 1: Yes he does, he-
Kid 2: Yeah, I saw it on
Kid 3: What?
Kid 4: No he does-
Me, Snapping At Them: Everyone looks like monkeys. We evolved from monkeys.
Teacher: Laugh (actually, she laughed, she didn't just say laugh).
In any case, I doubt the human race survives long enough to evolve beyond 6 fingers, which we sort of left behind in the first place.
There is also little reason to believe that the human race will make significant leaps in intelligence. Sure, we will uncover more information and accumulate more knowledge, but the mental abilities of humans won't change much. Although it would <i>seem</i> like a more desireable thing to breed intelligent people, this isn't the general trend. I get called an elitist for having this point of view, but the people who <i>should</i> be breeding aren't, while those who should not be are the ones breeding out of control. This leads to a downward trend, not a positive one.
My Hypothesis: We're not evolving.
Sure, evolution happens, as in stuff changes to better suit a situation, but since when? The best we've been able to confirm that our dating techniques are accurate are based only on data based on calendars that are only several hundred years old, when evolutionists talk in terms of several million years. If there was any good evidence of evolution of the human species, it has long since been destroyed by situations brought upon it by the nature of its demise, erosion, and planetary land mass changes. Not to mention the stuff presented as evidence of human "missing links" are dead but apes and monkeys which are supposed to be our "cousins" are still alive today. If our "missing links" were more easily killed off than apes and monkees, how the hell do humans exist today? And where the hell are their "missing links"? And how do you explain that peices of skeleton aren't all different because of deformaties from disease, human intervention (like child bone shaping in various past cultures), or the way they died? Most of the "we evolved from apes" line of accepted reasoning seems to be based mostly on theory based on a little fact.
Personally, I think Darwin liked to learn and read books, and when he went on his trips around the world he got high on more than just an animal planet. What, like while he was looking at plants, he didn't try a little "local culture"? Hey, it wasn't that long ago in our history that Coca-Cola really did contain a "harmless" addictive substance called cocain aka coke, so its not like people in the past getting into stuff that we get all "icky" at today isn't possible. I think I even remember reading about how Benjamin Franklin liked his pipe, or something, ALOT.
Here's my theory based on the various scientific laws and facts, we were created. All the animals were created. All the plants were created. All the celestial bodies were created.
This doesn't mean that I'm saying evolution doesn't exist, hell, its all around us every day showing itself in all we do, but not on the scale that this thread buys into. The fastest evolving things in today's biological world are bacteria and viruses, but even those haven't completely changed into something as far apart from each other as an ape and human. And so this leads to the final part of my theory, evolution was merely the means by which we were engineered into being, so unless we alter ourselves through personal engineering, we aren't going to evolve.
So, I figure the only way you're going to get "smarter" or get more arms is to use some cybernetic interfaces - a computer screen is cybernetic interface and look how its changed our world -, robotic appendages, synthetic drug supplements, and genetic manipulation. How is that any different that the evolution of the ideas of the tool and raising children?
Oh well, I just think the way most people view what they teach as evolution in school classrooms is fact, when it states clearly it is a theory, is just crazy, so I came up with my own theory.
<!--QuoteBegin--Relic25+Mar 4 2003, 10:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Relic25 @ Mar 4 2003, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I get called an elitist for having this point of view, but the people who should be breeding aren't, while those who should not be are the ones breeding out of control. This leads to a downward trend, not a positive one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I share the same view, its what comes out of personal observation and demographics. I blame alcohol for taking on those two targets with one stone, making people stupid and helping them breed more! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> If that makes me an elitist too, "elite" me up! <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now, where was that SciFi novel I put down...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cronos, do you have any idea how unlikely this is? Even by an intense period of diversification or change this would still take ten of millions of years. The last time the Earth witnessed a gain of a set of limbs was with the evolution of Sarcopterygians (think coelocanth), which was a few hundred million years ago (I can't remember exactly, I think it was before the Devonian though). Since tetrapods have come to land, no amniote groups have evolved new appaendages, not legs, not new arms, not new legs, no new tails, they have all just modified the original structures they came to land with. Evolution generally works with what it has.
Relic, I do not think i could have put it much more succinctly. Excepting of course the statement 'those who should not be breeding'. I find even the thought of eugenics immoral. Can you sincerely judge one human being more worthy of breeding than another? Would this prejudice be that much different that racism or credism? The hippy phrase 'free love' may see protesting light again in the future.
CanadianWolverine your opinions largely reflect those of the 'old world creationists' with perhaps a little less tact. And yes, it is a theory, but one that i believe in as much as gravity.
We are continuing to evolve, any species that pops 'em out with variations and has some die before breeding is subject to natural selection and hence evolution. we've managed to 'freeze' some of our domesticated plants evolutions, perhaps you've heard of the threatened banana crops because their genetic code is static (ie, they're almost complete clones).
aside: i'm itching for debate on this topic...
You may not know Wurmy, but I do. He's doing this sort of genetics thing for a living (weren't you study to me a molecular biologist or something equally dull, Wurm?), so watch out on the debate. He's a man-eater... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
You obviously know nothing about dating artifacts. We don't look at fossils and say, wow, this has lots of dust, it must be, say, 500000000 years old. Carbon dating based on the very regular (on average) decay of carbon, and I think it's ridiculous to say that carbon dating techniques are inaccurate on the order of 10000x or more(if you think everything was created 6003 years ago or whatever). I don't see how someone could deny that certain fossils are hundreds of millions of years old. UNLESS of course you think that the creator made people and plants and animals and also made fossils with just the right amount of carbon isotope to fool the silly scientific folk into thinking that everything had been around a lot longer than it actually was. What an evil god, hehe.
But regarding evolution, I would agree that the age of the artifacts that show the existence of trilobites or dinosaurs many many years ago do not show on their own that evolution is the case. But since the more basic organisms are dated as very very old, and more complex (more evolved) ones are dated as very old, and human stuff is only dated as plain old, I think it does lend itself toward an explanation from evolution, besides the actual plain-as-day obvious hit-you-in-the-face very strong evidence for the mechanism of evolution through comparing the features and dna of different organisms.
Anyway, we *have* been able to confirm that our dating techniques are VERY accurate because we can measure the half-life of carbon very accurately. We have plently of C14 around to do so, hehe. So don't bother discounting carbon dating if you want to attack evolution. Although you can feel free to call Darwin a pothead all you want. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is such a self-centered and short-sighted view that it makes me want to scream.
Just because you can't "see" evolution happening at the speed/scale you want it to means it doesn't exists? And just because we're human and we're so great, evolution has nothing left to do with us?
Gimme a break.
We simply differ on the subject of morality. That's all. I stay as far from 'morality' as I can as a determining factor in my philosophies, and no, I do not wish to get into a long, fruitless semantic debate over what 'morality' is. I have zero problems with eugenics, but then, I'm siding with balance and numbers, not subjective morality. Have no fear, however. Eugenics as a standard will never flourish in a world run by humans.
As to your first question, I answer, "You bet." Why? Because I trust no one else to make that call for me, and there is too much gray area to do anything other than to take that judgement on a case-by-case basis, which could <i>only</i> be accomplished by me as an individual. Of course, I would be subject to the same judgement (and I don't have a problem with that). Quite the paradox, isn't it?
To your second question, my answer is, "Very different." I'm not personally excluding a population based on a group facet (as in race or religion). I'm saying that I've met quite a number of truly deficient and irresponsible individuals who are reproducing at an astounding rate. The vast majority of individuals that I know would make effective parents and raise intelligent, responsible progeny have chosen not to do so. In simple numerical terms, the people I know who are capable of contributing value to humanity and to existance in general are rapidly drowning in a deepening sea of waste flesh.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to play devil's advocate here (fascinating discussion, btw) - is it morally wrong for a genetic counselor to advise parents not to have children because of their high risk of birth defects, Down Syndrome, leukimia, etc. that are showing up in the parents markers and history? That could be somewhat analagous as what Relic is talking about. What about parents who are convicted child molestors? Drug abusing child beaters? Isn't that a form of eugenics as well, especially considering what we know statistically about the children's chances of becoming the same things (ignoring the nature vs. nurture argument for a second)?
It's hard to find an analogy that fits this type of situation, so I'll use the stock market. If you're not a registered broker you cannot give out official stock advice; if you're not the would-be parent of the child, you should not give advice either.
Hope that made sense and is not taken the wrong way <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cronos, do you have any idea how unlikely this is? Even by an intense period of diversification or change this would still take ten of millions of years. The last time the Earth witnessed a gain of a set of limbs was with the evolution of Sarcopterygians (think coelocanth), which was a few hundred million years ago (I can't remember exactly, I think it was before the Devonian though). Since tetrapods have come to land, no amniote groups have evolved new appaendages, not legs, not new arms, not new legs, no new tails, they have all just modified the original structures they came to land with. Evolution generally works with what it has.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont pretend to know everything there is to know about everything. The extra limbs statement was just my idle speculations coming through and nothing more.
Genetic engineering for specialisation can only, in my humblest opinion, work against the species as a whole.
Why have humans survived so far on the surface of this insignificant planet? Simply put, we are generalisers and not specialisers. We are omnivores, we eat either plants or animals, we create tools to do our work instead of evolving implements to do specialised tasks, we can live in a range of environments from the cold wastes of antarctica to hot savage heat of the deserts. Right now at this moment in time, we are developing the technology to survive in space and on other more hostile planets and so once again our generalising, being non specialised, is what is allowing us to expand and survive. Specialising for specific tasks destroys this. If you gentically engineer a "mining class" of human, he is inferior to the proper generalised human in some respects and superior in others. Sure, he might be able to survive cave-ins, elevated CO2 levels and rock dust in his lungs, but at what cost? Will he be able to live on the surface due to his genetic enhancements? Will he be able to switch to a better job if he so wishes? Or will the genetic engineers make him stupid on purpose to keep him a docile good worker?
Unless it's adapting to drastic environmental changes, specialisation will only work to limit our chances of expanding into the cosmos.
As to the human brain not being able to get any larger, I beg to differ.
The human brain has plenty of potential for further enhancement. It ran into an evolutionary hurdle a while back. You see, the brain was getting larger, but it had already occupied all the available space in the cranium. The solution? Crumple up. This is why brains are "Wrinkly". If you spread your brain out, such that it didnt have any wrinkles (I'm not too sure on this) it would occupy the area of a large television set. Naturally, this is very inconvenient to the organism. Future brains may simply captilise on this method by introducing further wrinkling.
Furthermore, although Neanderthals brains were larger then Homo-Sapiens brains, (once again, unsure on this) I think it was a larger frontal lobe that allowed Homo-Sapiens to advance faster and develop superior weapons to defeat the Neanderthals. This dosent mean Neanderthals as a species were inferior, they simply used their brains differently, as our ancestors did back then and now. We use our brains differently from the first Homo-Sapiens, we can think abstractly much better. Back then, the concept of zero and negative did not exist in the human mind. I remember imagining the concept of negative numbers in primary school many years ago when the teacher wrote 2 - 5 on the board instead of 5 - 2. In the future, our ancestors may think even more abstractly, perhaps my great grandchild a few thousand years down the road will imagine the concept of a square root at the age of four? Who knows?
Biological evolution might be "dead" or at least dormant. But, cerebral evolution is most certainly not.
Consider this. If you made a model of how your brain viewed your body, by how much area was dedicated to parts of the body, your hands and face would massive, not just massive, frigging huge! your arms, hands back and legs would be much smaller by comparison. This is becuase the hands spurred brain development, the brain develpment spurred the evolution of the hand and so on. Think about it, the keyboard, mouse, pen, all of these designed to be used by the hand. The monitor, Tv, designed for use by the eyes (which are an extension of the brain).
Evolution, for humans at least, is now a matter of the mind. How far can the mind evolve? Will our descendants tire of these weak fallible bodies and transfer their conciousness to machine equivalents?
And on another note, every normal human is born with an equal chance. It is sometimes irregularities with the mind that allow them to excel in areas, for example, Autism. Otherwise, a normal persons potential for intelligence is determined by Family background (how they are raised) and by educational opportunities.
Now If I did believe in evolution I don’t think it would be such a dramatic change. Because we are at a point time when we know almost everything about how the human body functions, therefore if we started to grow another arm our brains would reject it, the science community would think of it as a physical handicap, and most likely the unfortunate person who grew the 3rd arm would just have it removed.
For a fairly disturbing view of where we may be headed, watch the movie Gattaca (notice that the name is spelt with only the 4 letters denoting genoic combinations; A, T, G, and C. Something that I just only noticed). If you can get ahold of the DVD copy, there is a very good minute long schpiel against genetically engineering human beings. Basically saying that the vast majority of those which current society views as being influental would have been more or less eliminated by this process. Einstien was dyslexic, Lincon had Teberculosis(i think that is what it was) (sp?), and many others that we view as being great humans. As it says, who is to say that you are perfect.
"The human race has come to a great point in its evolution, the point at which it can direct its own." (loose quote)
Because we are at a point time when we know almost everything about how the human body functions, therefore if we started to grow another arm our brains would reject it, the science community would think of it as a physical handicap, and most likely the unfortunate person who grew the 3rd arm would just have it removed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Be careful. This fallacy has led to many scientific blunders in the past. In the late 19th century, the scientific community thought that there was no point in studying physics because there was nothing left to be learned. However, that has drastically changed, and continues to change.
I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just trying to get you to see that it is a very real possibility that there may be better ways for understanding the human body and how it may have come into being: through evolution or creation. Who knows, we may even find a stamp saying "made by god" on every little sub-atomic particle in the universe.
"The fool thinks himself wise, while the wise man knows himself to be a fool"
"It is better to have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
And I seriously doubt we know HALF of everything there is to know about human physiology. If we knew <i>everything</i> we'd be able to manipulate someone into the most perfect human.
Evolution takes many generations to affect the species not just an offspring it has to out reproduce its counter parts first
When we get into genetic engineering I feel that the first wave will most likely be enhanced clones raised by single parents. Due to social acceptibility I don't feel that there is any possibility that someone will be altered in such a large manner as to even be distinguishable on the street. It will probably reach a borderline, much like breast implants have, where it's just impossible to tell the difference at first glance. Mental enhancements will be the focus of change.The second wave is impossible to predict since it will be largely based on social acceptance of the first wave.
There will never be a need for specialized people for a specific job since I believe we will much more likely build smart machines faster than we'll build dumb people (going back to the miner reference).
oh well, just my $0.02
Sorry to say, but we know jack **** about how the body functions. Take immunity as an example. We cant cure HIV/Aids, we dont know precisely how the brain works and wouldnt you know it? Bacteria and viruses are adapting to our antibiotics as we speak. We are learning new things everyday, but I think that there is a long long way to go before we can safely claim that we know a fair bit.
What defines a human? There is no clear definition on that subject. My personal definition would be along the lines of "Anything capable of thought at any time". Think about it, it covers artificial intelligences, aliens, anything capable of rational thought can easily classify as "human". To be human, you must have a consciousness, or be capable of possessing a consciousness.
Also, some people are missing the point. What will happen to the human species in the next two million years? I love the talk about the genetic engineering and the "rightness" and "wrongness" about it.
And since god seems to be showing up quite a bit, just a little about my personal views. In my personal view, the entire universe is a sentient organism and we are but the tiniest most insignificant parts of it. The universe is scarcely aware of our prescence, just as we are scarcely able to percieve infinity.
Back on topic, providing the great technological strides we've been taking continues upon it's exponential path, we'll probably have filled the entire galaxy by 2 Million years AD. And here comes an interesting question posed by cybernetics; The hive mind. Will individual humans give up their individuality to become part of a greater whole? Will humans achieve immortality in a hive mind? Would the hive mind be directed by an individual, or would it be the "Collective Concsioucness Of Man" is this where we are headed?
Most people seem to be considering mans evolution to be at an end. For this planet, maybe. Think further. Think more on galactic terms, how will mankind adapt and survive the galaxy if not the universe? If nature is any model, then we may come up against other sentient species, and our role as generalisers may come up against specialisers and other generalisers...
Oh, and by the way, has anyone read the novel "The Time Machine" by HG Wells? It concerns an alternate path where humans specialise over a period of 800,000 years or so.
Just one last thing, Homo-Sapiens as a species appeared only 100,000 years ago. Our most ancient ancestors, appeared 1-2 million years ago. One hundred thousand years is nothing on an evolutionary scale, and yet look how much humans have changed over that period of time! From grunting apes to poetic people, I believe that human evolution is about to explode over the next few million years, contrary to becoming stagnant. If humans relegate themselves to be planet bound on this mudball, indeed, we WILL become stagnant as a species and eventually die out. If we expand into the cosmos, we will become invincible short of concentrated efforts to exterminate us...
As Relic has already been pointed out, evolution occurs via the process of natural selection and mutation.
Those with beneficial mutations lived, breeded and competed better then those without that mutation. Hence those without the mutation eventually died out and the mutated species become the base or the norm for that species.
Following on from this, beneficial mutations were any which helped you survive and beat your competitors.
Now, when peoples physical abilties have no impact on their ability to survive, what is a beneficial mutation, one that will prosper and spread to become the norm ?
For an evolution to occur at the present, a mutation has to occur that means those with that mutation will be <b>much</b> more likely to breed then those without. I can't think of anything that will be such a 'strong' mutation to propogate throughout the species, unless the enviroment changes soon.
Just as extra info if ur hugly over weight then, now this is proven, ur actualy not as bright as us thinner people, there will always be exeptions but u have less blood and therefore O2 in ur head so it cant work right....weird.
Edit: Just for those to say God made us all, a few questions if u will.
1. is ur god real? and if so then are the other gods fake?
2. ur god must be pritty po'ed with the world atm
3. the evidence is there that we evolded from apes y cant u understand?
not that im against any religion or put any down but i realy cant understand some peoples devotion , god should worship u guys, after all u created him
I believe with the welfare state, any evolutionary pressures are either too small to have an effect, or are too complex to possible determine.
Anyway, civilisation has not been around long - I find it extremely unlikely that the current world we live in will hang around long enough for it to have any evolutionary effect.
Of course, if World War 3 breaks out, that might create some evolutionary pressure.
I like bananas...maybe we DO have a common relative in monkeys!? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Oh and the statement by Charles Darwin was never "Humans evolved from apes" but "Humans and Apes share a common ancestor". (replace Apes with Primates, or Monkeys - it still means essentially the same)