How much further can humans evolve?

[Dutch 924]

"It is not the strongest of a species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." - Charles Darwin

In my opinion, humans cannot evolve any further. We have stable climates, medicines to combat illness before evolution can take hold and no natural predators. In fact, it is so easy to survive in this world that it is more likely for devolution to take place. You can see it happening now. Studies have shown that obesity in the UK and US is increasing, and average IQs are decreasing with each generation.

 

[Zeriu]

edit: double post.

 

[Zeriu]

None, because macroevolution is false.

We can always continue with Micro-evolution but as for Macro-evolution (such as us coming from apes) that is scientifically impossible, Macro-Evolution is pure sci-fi seeing as both the Law of Biogenesis and the second law of thermodynamics both go against Macro-evolution. Though Micro-evolution is a very well proven thing and is constantly happening.

You guys are kidding... right?

Wow. Education is really fucked up wherever you people are from. Statistically you lot are bound to be either from an islamic state or from the USA. Eitherway... holy fuck. Can't you just read the Wikipedia page to know why you are so utterly wrong and there is nothing but a "time-scale" difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

Just... wow. I don't know where to begin. If someone wants to get a stab at it, okay. Or just recommend this people to read a fucking book.

Please enlighten us oh great master of scientific law. prove Macroevolution to be law instead of the theory that it currently is. Also explain how it was Mutation when in fact most mutations result in the death of the creature instead of it becoming a new species or better. Take the four winged fruit fly. its extra 2 wings are useless and cripple it. We have never once found an anatomical mutation that benefits any species in any way. Also almost every "missing link" that has been found has generally come up as a severe case of rickets disorder.

1. Read this for the definition of scientific theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theories#Pedagogical_definition

2. If certain mutations reduce the survivability of species, and the species is not currently extinct, it has some other trait that balances or even overcomes that handicap. Natural selection means "survival of the fittest", where fittest doesn't mean perfect. It means that species that still survive today must have certain traits that might leave it vulnerable in some cases, but a survivor in most.
Just read the second paragraph in this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Evolution_by_means_of_natural_selection

3.You are correct in the fact that most mutations have no effect, or are detrimental, but the ones that are beneficial will be more likely to increase the survivability of the species.

4. Read this section of the Wikipedia article for confirmation that macro-evolution is not a hoax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution#Misuse
If you don't trust some guy who wrote the article please consult the sources he referred to.

5. Keep your opinions to yourself, if you want to discuss science you should provide facts.

evolution is as real as gravity. this is a scientific thread, micro evolution is a word creationists made up when people started seeing the effects of evolution in simple lifeforms, so please...GET THE FUDGE OUT!!!!!

excuse me, but can you read my comment again? I'm the one with the facts. I'm on the evolution side.