How much further can humans evolve?

[Torrasque]

We are still evolving, and as any organism, we can evolve indefinitely.
Just because we have machines and what not, doesn't mean we have stopped evolving, there is just less environmental stressors on our species.
I imagine when global warming intensifies, you'll see evolutionary changes pick up.
I am just curious as to what happens first: we evolve naturally, or we evolve ourselves... Genetics is gonna really accelerate this century.

 

[BK-110]

Evolution is not a process with an goal. It leads nowhere. Instead, it is a continuous adaption of a species to its surroundings. We will further evolve along with our changing environment, although, at some point, there will be a change which we cannot adapt to, leading to our extinction.

 

[DracoSuave]

How is having blue eyes a genetic defect

Because when it comes time to fire red laser beams out of our eyes at the Pierson's Puppeteers that personally offend me, the blue irises will absorb the red light, thus causing the pew pew laser beams to not be pew pew nor laser beams.

Man, this is a SCIENCE discussion!

 

[KennardKId5]

I don't have high hopes for the human race, especially if "The Situation" and Kim Kardashian keep having sex.

 

[Danik93]

Yes! We are getting taller, more muscles, bigger breasts and are becoming more and more good looking in every generation. That's just whats happening on the outside. the inside is a different thing, there we are getting less and less resistant against diseases.

 

[JasonKaotic]

Wings.
Hurry up and give us some goddamn wings, nature!

More seriously, our lifespans are getting longer.

 

[direkiller]

Theres no big guiding hand choosing which genes would be most fit for passing on, and which are not usefull anymore, hence we won't loose our pinky toe, or our appendix, unless having those stops us from pro-creating.

This. It's why males have nipples despite them having no function at all.

and i suppose eventually someone will be born without an appendix.

You do realise that the appendix actually has a function right?

Actually there's no scientific evidence that it does. Everyone's still arguing that.

There are theories that it MIGHT have something to do with the immune system, but a lot of people think it's entirely useless.

OT: Technically there's no extent to how much any race can evolve.

Well, there is one. If a race evolves to a point where it no longer dies, then there would be no natural selection and thus no evolution.

But whether that's possible is debatable.

there's a tree in California that's about 4,700 years old
some sponges are over 5000 years old

unless stop by external factors some things will just keep living

 

[Zipa]

I hate it when scientists and others alike say thing like "humans can't evolve." They don't look at the bigger picture, humans have evolved from neanderthals (is that how you spell it?) over millions of years and the CAN evolve, just not while natural selection has gone out the window with handicapped people and those with less desirable natural traits can roam around breeding. Personally I'd like the old meat and two veg to be refined a bit more, it always looks a bit of an after thought.

We didn't evolve from neanderthals, they were a completely different species that died out though certain characteristics of the neanderthals did outlive the species due to in breeding with homo sapiens (us)

The point I'm trying to make is that we're expecting humans to evolve over a period of ten thousand years, being generous, but that is a tiny number in comparison to how many years it's take us to get to here and still pathetic when looking at a species that has evolved fast, like certain types of fish, their name escapes me right now.

Oh I know that, as a species humanity has evolved massively faster than other species where changes take millions of years.

You think that's fast? Look at dogs. They evolve over a few generations.

OT: I can't remember where i heard this, but it has been said to me that science has a theory that we will eventually lose our pinky fingers. Sorry to all musicians.

I doubt we would lose our pinkys since there is no evolutionary reason to do away with it, a few people might mutate and not have one and possibly have already but its not a benefit to the species so unlikely to happen

I think that is precisely why they are saying that. It's useless, so eventually it will disappear. It a useless relic that will eventually drop off since there is no reason to have it.

It doesn't work like that, our genome is not going to suddenly change and remove a finger unless there is a advantage to losing it which there is not. We still have a tail bone and we don't need that and haven't done since we began to walk on two legs and not live in trees.

 

[direkiller]

apparently we are getting taller. Thats evolution right?

yes it is.

selective through sexual preference.


we are getting taller, smarter (by 3% every decade), the dominant digit on the hand has changed in just the last 20 years (from forefinger to thumb, because of the "tools" we use) blonds are likely to go extinct and i suppose eventually someone will be born without an appendix.

its not standing still

in fact recent developments have shown that changes are happening far faster than they previously though possible (the dominant finger thing really shocked evolutionary scientists)

Regarding the appendix thing. Even if someone was born without an appendix, it's not like that would spread very far. Because a (I'm about to sound stupid) takey-out-appendix-operation, isn't a difficult procedure nowadays, and it's not like its a desireable trait for the opposite gender. Other stuff it correct though.

appendectomy is the word your looking for

 

[DJ_DEnM]

Wait till 2012.

The studies say the world will change, not that it will end :/. For all we know we could evolve.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

As soon as we make technology an extension of us as opposed to a tertiary entity, we will see a pocket of humans explode forward in evolution and essentially cement themselves and their ancestors as the top tier of humanity.

Those that are rich now are most likely the future leaders of our world indefinitely - we're not far from it, the recent English man living with a plastic heart proves it. Unwieldy at the moment but as soon as something becomes viable its development reels off exponentially.

 

[intheweeds]

I hate it when scientists and others alike say thing like "humans can't evolve." They don't look at the bigger picture, humans have evolved from neanderthals (is that how you spell it?) over millions of years and the CAN evolve, just not while natural selection has gone out the window with handicapped people and those with less desirable natural traits can roam around breeding. Personally I'd like the old meat and two veg to be refined a bit more, it always looks a bit of an after thought.

We didn't evolve from neanderthals, they were a completely different species that died out though certain characteristics of the neanderthals did outlive the species due to in breeding with homo sapiens (us)

The point I'm trying to make is that we're expecting humans to evolve over a period of ten thousand years, being generous, but that is a tiny number in comparison to how many years it's take us to get to here and still pathetic when looking at a species that has evolved fast, like certain types of fish, their name escapes me right now.

Oh I know that, as a species humanity has evolved massively faster than other species where changes take millions of years.

You think that's fast? Look at dogs. They evolve over a few generations.

OT: I can't remember where i heard this, but it has been said to me that science has a theory that we will eventually lose our pinky fingers. Sorry to all musicians.

I doubt we would lose our pinkys since there is no evolutionary reason to do away with it, a few people might mutate and not have one and possibly have already but its not a benefit to the species so unlikely to happen

I think that is precisely why they are saying that. It's useless, so eventually it will disappear. It a useless relic that will eventually drop off since there is no reason to have it.

It doesn't work like that, our genome is not going to suddenly change and remove a finger unless there is a advantage to losing it which there is not. We still have a tail bone and we don't need that and haven't done since we began to walk on two legs and not live in trees.

Why did we ever have a tail bone then? Because we used to have tails. Its a vestigial at this point, but once was not. By that logic we would still have tails for mobility.

I know this is from a Wikipedia article, but to go through each of its sources would make this post unnecessarily long. This is an excellent example of that though. Here we have a tiny tendon in the arm which has no function any longer. Also, it is actively disappearing from humanity.

From the 'Human Vestigiality' article:

"The palmaris longus muscle is seen as a small tendon between the flexor carpi radialis and the flexor carpi ulnaris, although it is not always present. The muscle is absent in about 14% of the population, however this varies greatly with ethnicity. One study has shown the prevalence of palmaris longus agenesis in 500 Indian patients to be 17.2% (8% bilateral and 9.2% unilateral).[32] The palmaris is a popular source of tendon material for grafts and this has prompted studies which have shown the absence of the palmaris does not have any appreciable effect on grip strength.[33]

The levator claviculae muscle in the posterior triangle of the neck is a supernumerary muscle present in only 2?3% of all people[34] but nearly always present in most mammalian species, including gibbons and orangutans"

 

[Tommeh Brownleh]

We're certainly getting a lot dumber.

 

[Treblaine]

Probably a whole lot sexier.

See, when populations of other species have found themselves in a land and time of plenty with more than enough resources for everyone, the main determinant of genes is sex: who has the nicest plumage.

So that means bigger hoo-hahs and longer shlongs. Probably we are going to adapt to maintain a healthy/sexy weight as all the fatties never get laid.

But humanity is no where close to be universally free from want, many of us as a species still struggle to survive long enough to pass on our genes successfully (that means to both have children and keep them alive so they can have kids of their own once older). But adaptations to that are mainly biochemical. It is likely that in parts of the world large populations will develop immunity to HIV unless the health authorities find a way to eradicate the disease.

 

[Hectix777]

Evolution is kinda tough for me since I'm a Christian, but at the same time I acknowledge scientific fact, but I still believe in God. I believe God gave humanity(if not all sentient species in other galaxies) gave each of the divine spark. The ability to be creative and think. I think that's where evolution came in, maybe subconsciously the early homo erectus' DNA realized the need to evolve and started changing.

Man may try to see it's self as separate from nature, but we are still classified(according to the age old Animal, Mineral, Vegetable chart) as not only animals but mammals. We're still a living species not deities. We'll evolve either at our own rate, the need to evolve, or by scientific means. Who knows, maybe in 50 or so odd years when man has mastered FTL travel so we can colonize livable planets in other galaxies, someone could have invented a serum that changes the DNA of the colonists to let them live there(like making them capable of breathing something that's not oxygen or betting gils). Man is a species, not separate from nature.

 

[Asita]

Brown eyes being the dominant gene doesn't mean that it is more likely for the next generation of a blue-brown pairing to have the outcome of being brown, it just means that at the moment more people have brown eyes. If blue eyes continued to be prioritised sexually over thousands of years it may become the dominate gene itself.

I think you're misunderstanding a little something about genetics. A dominant trait is not something that's simply more prevalent. It's a trait that is expressed if you have it. Period, end statement. A given gene isn't dominant because it's common, it's common because it's dominant.

 

[Randomosity]

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.

 

[BK-110]

Wait till 2012.

The studies say the world will change, not that it will end :/. For all we know we could evolve.

I guess by "studies" you mean "a lot of weird people making up equally weird theories with no basis"... Nothing will happen 2012. Besides, we evolve right now. We ALWAYS evolve. It is a gradual process that continues as long as a species exists.