English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

20 answers

I'm concerned that science has gotten in the way of evolution. Nature has promoted the "survival of the fittest". The strong live and reproduce and the weak don't.

Therefore if some animal's DNA causes them to have weak eyes, or defective heart then that person would not survive or be selected by the opposite sex for reproducing. But with our science and medical knowledge we correct those problems and that person goes on to reproduce offspring and pass those defective genes to the next generation.

It wouldn't be long before they phrase "Your kid looks just like you" will no longer be said. Surgery will have changed your face, hair color, chest size, and any thing else you can imagine.

2006-06-29 02:40:36 · answer #1 · answered by Gregory B 3 · 4 2

Yes. Bipedalism, for example, is not a very effective way to move around. If you haven't noticed, most animals can easily outrun us. Also, we don't have much of a defence against predators.

But bipedalism has other advantages which serve us well, and enable us to thrive despite the disadvantages. Our hands are free to make tools that our larger brains can think up. It is theorized that bipedalism, opposable thumbs, and our large brains all go hand in hand, so to speak.

Evolution doesn't necessarily imply that an evolving species must become more complex. It does predict that simpler animals will proceed complex ones, and the fossil record does indeed prove this to be the case.

But sometimes, certain functions become less complex. Cave animals, for example, often have eyes that don't function at all. Or function much less than that of their outdoor living counterparts. Same thing with the pigmentation of cave dwellers. In zero light, there is no need for camoflage. So the pigmentation disappears. Natural selection may not choose the animals without pigmentation, but it wouldn't kill them off faster either. It could be argued that pigmentation is an added metabolic demand that cave animals don't need, so those without it have a slight edge over those that do.

2006-06-29 04:12:41 · answer #2 · answered by elchistoso69 5 · 0 0

Yes evolution still has not progressed enough, we still have body hair and a tailbone.
We need to get rid of our hair so that we can separate ourselves from the animals further.

Vestigial Organs
Some organisms have structures or organs that seem to serve no useful function. For example, humans have a tailbone at the end of the spine that is of no apparent use. Some snakes have tiny pelvic bones and limb bones, and some cave-dwelling salamanders have eyes even though members of the species are completely blind. Such seemingly functionless parts are called vestigial organs or structures. Vestigial organs are often homologous to organs that are useful in other species. The vestigial tailbone in humans is homologous to the functional tail of other primates. Thus vestigial structures can be viewed as evidence for evolution: organisms having vestigial structures probably share a common ancestry with organisms in with organisms in which the homologous structure is functional

2006-06-29 02:38:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Evolution is on the right track. What with accelerated technology
and science, we will evolve even more.
Most things will be voice activated, obvious changes will be:
1. Shortened arms - no need to type/press/push
2. Bigger mouth - obviously
3. Shortened legs - use of voice activated robot and home office,
no need to travel.
4. No nose - no need to smell. Food come in tablet form and
swallowed with water.
5. Enlarged Eyes - to stare at television and computer monitors and to look for remote controllers when they go missing.
6. Lost of Penise - Sperm will be extracted when men are young so they will have more time for other recreation - mainly computer games/internet chats/yahoo answers...
7. Brain reduction by 50% - because everything will be answered by Yahoo answers.

2006-06-29 15:55:08 · answer #4 · answered by Darth Jhon 3 · 0 0

Yes, The poor Irish Men, I think we have got it worse than Asians when it comes to Penis size. But hey, we can drink anyone under the table and still go 15 rounds with Mike Tyson. And my wife says I am the best she ever had>>> What else is she gonna say, Right?

2006-06-29 02:30:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The supernatural is basically that-previous the nation-states of the organic international and outwith the constraints of technology. that's a non concern. The nub of your argument is that an unproven supernatural phenomenon proves evolution incorrect that's basically finished tripe.

2016-10-31 22:04:31 · answer #6 · answered by harib 4 · 0 0

Absolutely.

Who needs a spleen?

Some people have extra muscles.

There are lots of things "wrong" with everyone's body.

2006-06-29 02:29:43 · answer #7 · answered by jfrabell 2 · 0 0

I have extremely supple wrists somehow.
I can bend them in almost any direction.
But I look at that as a pro, not a thing that is wrong :-)

2006-06-29 02:29:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think we should have been given gills. Then Jay Z could do a song called 'Gills':

I Like Gills Gills Gills Gills, Gills I do adore...

2006-06-29 02:30:28 · answer #9 · answered by Mr Choo 1 · 0 0

I am sure I ordered a six pack and stunning chiseled features.

2006-06-29 04:12:01 · answer #10 · answered by Epidavros 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers