I mean, since we have adpated our environment so much to suit our needs, is there any reason for humans to adapt?

Nature does not need reasons.

Considering many species on this planet have reached states of relative equillibrium for tens of millions of years (sharks, for instance) it is very possible that humans will not significantly evolve further, specifically if enviromental constraints are not a strong enough factor in future generations. However, should humanity ever colonize space, it seems likely that divergent populations will speciate eventually or otherwise show dramatic changes in localized populations, primarily observed as new races and secondarily observed as sub-species.

It is most likely brain size shall continue to increase, though, but not if smart people are not prone to reproduction. Countries with the smartest people on average generally have exist on the lower-end of the reproductive spectrum, leading to the potential that our overall human intelligence will suffer immensely in future centuries.

Humans control their own evolution with their minds, just like all the other animals. Sharks havent evolved further because their consciousness is not expanded enough to the point where it can direct its own evolution. We are not like sharks, we have self awareness, and some of us actually know what DNA is and do control evolution, so at this point our evolution is ours to control or end.

Culture is an aspect of evolution.

Environmental contraints will only increase, due to human activity.

I mean, since we have adpated our environment so much to suit our needs, is there any reason for humans to adapt?

We can only adapt our environment to a point, and who can say what will happen to this planet in the next few thousands or millions of years?

The majority of the effects of deliberate environmental control are unintended and unanticipated. This, then, is rich ground for natural selection to work in. Consequently, human evolution is continuing and will continue.

Spidergoat importantly notes the significance of culture. It is arguable that cultural evolution represents a qualitatively different form of evolution, operating through memes rather than genes, and being distinctly Lamarkian in character.

We take heroic measures and devote massive resources to saving individuals with genes that give them a tremendous survival disadvantage. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Occasionally it yields a Stephen Hawking, who perhaps has advanced science enough to counteract the effect of an "unculled herd," as it were.

I don't think we need the average IQ of the species to continue to rise. There is not enough work of that exalted variety to keep them all busy. Most of the work of the world can be done by average people and a lot of it can be done by below-average people.

I suppose the problem is that they start electing one of their own as President. Having a Rhodes Scholar in office was just too much for them to handle.

One third of all humans are now overweight - fat. We will/must evolve features to cope with this. (I am only posting this to see what comments follow).

The distribution of genes is surely changing, and massively. That means that we are evolving.

The differentation of species is something else entirely. Will we ever turn into something that would not be able to have viable offspring with ourselves? I doubt it. That would take millions of years or very rapid changes in our environment. Even then, we would only be a different species compared to our present selves, we would still be a single species at any point in time (barring settlement on other planets).

See, these are two different things. Evolving doesn't mean that we become something very different from what we already are. It can mean that there are more blue-eyed people on the planet, because we sexually favor that allele. It can be the fact that the reduction of malaria in the Americas, makes the sickling of red blood cells a detriment for black Americans, so it lessens in its expression. The simple fact that long-isolated populations are now interbreeding means that we are evolving, and rapidly by any honest examination.

The major thing that will keep this from leading to a new species is the fact that we can modify our environment to a large degree, rather than having to allow mutation and natural selection to work its slow magic on us.

The distribution of genes is surely changing, and massively. That means that we are evolving.

The differentation of species is something else entirely. Will we ever turn into something that would not be able to have viable offspring with ourselves? I doubt it. That would take millions of years or very rapid changes in our environment. Even then, we would only be a different species compared to our present selves, we would still be a single species at any point in time (barring settlement on other planets).

See, these are two different things. Evolving doesn't mean that we become something very different from what we already are. It can mean that there are more blue-eyed people on the planet, because we sexually favor that allele. It can be the fact that the reduction of malaria in the Americas, makes the sickling of red blood cells a detriment for black Americans, so it lessens in its expression. The simple fact that long-isolated populations are now interbreeding means that we are evolving, and rapidly by any honest examination.

The major thing that will keep this from leading to a new species is the fact that we can modify our environment to a large degree, rather than having to allow mutation and natural selection to work its slow magic on us.

Anybody know if they have some Neanderthal genes? If you do, then start going to some of your local 'club' meetings. Lot's of social activities to look forward too, bolder rolling, cave painting and of course my most favorite, bison hunting.:D

Anybody know if they have some Neanderthal genes? ....

We all do.

In a hundred years maybe everybody will look like each other because the genes will be somewhat evenly ditributed.

...like with Dogs?

Valich, I think you're right, we will have to adapt to the easy availability of calories.

http://www.theusabilitycompany.com/images/newsletter/evolve.gif

...like with Dogs?

Valich, I think you're right, we will have to adapt to the easy availability of calories.

That's probably DEvolution in that case.

I think humans stopped evolving once natural selection stopped killing the weak. We're gonna have to start advocating eugenics soon, for the good of the human race :rolleyes: .

Are we not men?
Seriously, natural selection is only one factor in evolution. Besides, the unfit still die, or reproduce less, it is cumulative. The last 2,000 years have been marked by a rise of civilizations but that is a short time on a geologic scale.

In a hundred years maybe everybody will look like each other because the genes will be somewhat evenly ditributed.

Unlikely, due to random mutation, and other factors.

In a hundred years maybe everybody will look like each other because the genes will be somewhat evenly ditributed.

In 100 years? After 5 more mating cycles? :bugeye:

All different human races will melt into one single human race and our head will become big and elongated again: http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5117/anakud9.jpg

But mostly we will evolve mentally.

Those skulls are formed that way from birth through the use of wooden planks tied to the head. But, I think you are correct in that we will evolve mentally. Perhaps quantuum theory is correct in assuming a relationship between which reality occurs and our perceptions. One scientist that I heard about (I'll try to find better documentation), postulated that the mind actually sends perceptions back in time, so that you perceive it exactly when they occur.

All different human races will melt into one single human race and our head will become big and elongated again:

But mostly we will evolve mentally.

It's already happing:

http://ohregina.com/drugsrbad.jpg

One scientist that I heard about (I'll try to find better documentation), postulated that the mind actually sends perceptions back in time, so that you perceive it exactly when they occur.

Just goes to show that scientists can be dumbasses too!

Don't be so sure of that, it was measured directly by electrodes in the brain. There are also certain quantuum effects where the cause is in the future, and the effect in the past.

Those skulls are formed that way from birth through the use of wooden planks tied to the head.

yeah, i've heard that. but is there any proof of that or is it only a theory?

long ago, there were people who naturally had heads like that. for example, the statues of the daughters of akhenaten are depicted with elongated heads. and that's why they had such high hats in ancient egypt. then it's possible that primitive people wanted to imitate them using some cruel strange method.

my point is that i think we will evolve that kind of head in the future. not sure why i'm so sure about that...

Considering I can't get laid even though I'm desperate I'd say yes they are, woman can see I'm a loser an so keep from mating with me :-P

Considering I can't get laid even though I'm desperate I'd say yes they are, woman can see I'm a loser an so keep from mating with me :-P

http://www.jakesjokes.com/gallery/albums/funnypics_sexy/funny_dating.jpg

I just had to use that pic.

Geographic isolation is one of the traditional mechanisms invoked for triggering the rise of new species; some experts therefore flatly say that human evolution has ended because in the modern world, no one is really isolated from the rest of humanity. And depending on how it might be applied, culture and technology could either isolate some people from others, or it could help to renormalize them to the rest

Humans haven't really changed the rules of natural selection. We might think that because we have culture--and with it all kinds of medical interventions and technologies--that we are immune from natural selection, but nature proceeds as usual. Evolution is defined as a change in gene frequencies over time, which means that over generations, there will be changes in the gene pool, and humans experience those changes as much as any other organism. Some people live and some people die, and some people pass on more genes than others. Therefore, there is a change in the human gene pool over time.
"But we might suggest that with all that cultural and technological intervention that there would be some kind of influence in the composition of the gene pool, and there is. Take smallpox, for an example. Years ago millions of people died from smallpox, and their genes were not passed on because many of them died before reproductive age. The human gene pool was then missing the genes of those people. But now, since smallpox has been wiped off the planet, people who normally died of the disease now live, probably have children, and thus contribute to the human gene pool. In another example, the birth rate always goes down the more developed, and economically affluent, countries become. Today the highest birth rates are in Latin America, Africa and Asia. People in these places are now the major contributors to the human gene pool. In many generations, the human species will be more composed of genes from those groups than from developed countries.

And so culture, development and medicine might change the tenor of the human gene pool, but they do not take away the force of evolution, the force of change. Also, keep in mind that culture may not seem a 'natural' force, but because it is part of our environment, it is just as natural as disease, weather or food resources. We in developed nations may think we are immune from natural selection because we are so surrounded by material goods and high technology, but this immunity is an illusion. Technology protects us from nothing, and medicine surely hasn't cured all the diseases--just ask the people in Nebraska near the Red River what they think!

Countries with the smartest people on average generally have exist on the lower-end of the reproductive spectrum, leading to the potential that our overall human intelligence will suffer immensely in future centuries.

That's such a misguided, bullshit, pseudo-intellectual and common response.

Having smarter offspring requires longer child rearing periods. Imagine trying to put eight kids through college. Difficult, to say the least. It may be more beneficial to have a couple children and put a very high level of energy (ie, money) into them to guarantee their success.

Most animals with big brains are k-selected like this. Elephants, dolphins, apes, all highly intelligent creatures that invest a great deal of energy into a few offspring, rather than have many unintelligent offspring.

One scientist that I heard about (I'll try to find better documentation), postulated that the mind actually sends perceptions back in time, so that you perceive it exactly when they occur.

If it was a biologist I am almost certain that it was a misunderstanding (or at least put into the wrong context). What is true, however is that the brain backdates perceptions. If something hits your shin for example the stimulus (in form of action potentials) has to travel up your spine to your brain which takes roughly half a second (fastest neuron speed was around 100 m/s, if I recall correctly). However when asked when you perceived the stimulus you will recall it as happening about the time you hurt yourself, without the delay. In other words the brain negates the delay caused by the transmission of the stimulus.
It is basically in the wiring. No need for quantum effects at this point. Sorry.

I think humans will continue to evolve. Most likely get bigger penis's because theres way too much sex going around. Also because the food has alot of bad chemicals and toxins that causes bad effects later on, its most likely our bodies will make or midy a organ to be better at cleaning up our bodies and food when we eat. Also our brains will get bigger or at least more powerful later on because of education

I mean, since we have adpated our environment so much to suit our needs, is there any reason for humans to adapt?
You obviously don't know the first thing about bilology, Nikcelodeon. What do you mean by 'adpated'?
Nature does not need reasons.
I agree. However, I would like a much larger bottom.

Adapt to a changing environment. But if the environment doesn't change, would life continue to change?

Who honestly gives a flying fuck?

But, anyway, you said adpated. Not adapted. Adpated.

Are humans still evolving?

yes. But don't worry. We are not unique. All species currently not extinct are still evolving.

Which will render all current species ....extinct eventually?

Which will render all current species ....extinct eventually?

duh...yeah!

I mean, since we have adpated our environment so much to suit our needs, is there any reason for humans to adapt?

Yup we are still into the evolution game...for instance...a small but important detail. The thumbs of the 'computergeneration' are much more evolved than our grandparents thumbs. That is because we use our thumbs much more then 50 years ago...we textmessage on cells, scroll on Ipods, hit keybords...

Yup we are still into the evolution game...for instance...a small but important detail. The thumbs of the 'computergeneration' are much more evolved than our grandparents thumbs. That is because we use our thumbs much more then 50 years ago...we textmessage on cells, scroll on Ipods, hit keybords...

jesus...a bit lamarckian isn't it?