From everything I have seen it seems like it takes animals thousands of years to evolve and they do so to be able to survive in their niche of the ecosystem. Since we have surpassed this need, are we still evolving. The average height of humans has increased in the past few centuries. Normally, the female of a species would try and mate with the creature who is best suited to survive. That isn't really true in our case so does that preclude us from evolving anymore? If we are evolving, then what are we evolving into?
2006-11-04 14:06:53 · 16 answers · asked by arbolito 3 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Such a complex concept.
How could you tell? I assume you are considering the theory of evolution and asking if there is evidence of it? The theory surmises that everything was/is evolving into higher/improved/models? From my perspective, there are signs that de-volution is in progress. I base this on the fact that in just the last few generations there has been a huge increase of hereditary and chromosomal illness, diseases and abnormalities. Even with all our knowledge re: nutrition, health care, the benefits of exercise... we are still dying from preventable causes prematurely.
Beside, IF evolution were true... wouldn't we all have awnings (we all squint in the sunlight!) and less body and facial hair (been removing it long enough).
I do have a serious question: if humans are the end product of evolution, why are our off-spring the most helpless of all newborns, and for the longest time?
2006-11-05 02:55:33 · answer #1 · answered by Jeni-wren 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
All organisms living evolve all the time. I think you are confused by think of evolving as directional. The average height of humans has increased in the last few centuries due to nutrition being better.Human mating is assortive, to a degree, as I would like to " assort" to Hallie Berry, but all of life is a trade off. We all evolving; just not "into ".
2006-11-05 00:38:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's difficult to say...I would say it now depends on where you live. Medicine and technology have made evolution obsolete in the west, and even work against it; for example, a basic rule of evolution is "survival of the fittest", but now we aid the most frail and weak of humans to survive and procreate. Please don't misunderstand me- I'm certainly not saying that this is bad or that we should stop, just that it may not be a sound method biologically. Genetic defects are becoming more common, especially where vision is concerned. Those who wear glasses would have never survived a few hundred years ago, but are now as numerous as those who do not.
However, in less technologically advanced cultures, where survival is still dependent on individual skill, genes, and environment, evolution is certainly still happening, though of course it happens far too slowly for anyone to notice.
2006-11-05 01:14:10 · answer #3 · answered by Purplepossum 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I cannot give a complete answer, but some things to consider:
As recently as colonial times, people seem to have had larger jaws than today; not everyone had to have their wisdom teeth pulled!
The appendix may have been in use as recently as 2000 years ago, helping to digest the coarser foods of that time.
Every time an embryo spontaneously aborts, evolution has had a hand. Something was not genetically sound with the embryo.
2006-11-04 22:14:27 · answer #4 · answered by WikiJo 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
We're evolving, but it's a LOT slower and maybe the traits that SHOULD be passed on aren't being passed on. And maybe traits that should have died out are being passed on because of medical advances.
I think that overall, though, I'm pretty confidant that we're evolving for the better. I wish that we were evolving FASTER, and I wish that we would let traits that shouldn't be being passed on die, but that would be "unethical." And we wouldn't make as much money.
2006-11-04 22:13:18 · answer #5 · answered by Debi 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I say we are evolving. The females tend to hover around those best suited to survive, it is true. Look at the entourages of rich rock stars and hedge fund managers - a gaggle of beautiful women. Those beautiful know wealth is the key to survival in the future.
Money changes everything!
2006-11-04 22:17:10 · answer #6 · answered by szydkids 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I believe that more than anything our minds are evolving. Our children are being taught many things that are far beyond what I learned at certain age levels. My son is doing pre-algebra in 4th grade. Scientists are learning what stimulates the brain at early ages much more than ever before.
People are venturing out and learning how to expand their mind to new ideas and concepts. Is it possible to read another persons mind? Will this ever happen? How far can we go? super cool
2006-11-04 22:13:22 · answer #7 · answered by ~brigit~ 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Back towards chimps, only hornier and more tolerant to toxins in the environment. Modern medicine ensures that all but the absolute weakest and most unfit people survive until reproductive age, so random degenerative mutations don't get eliminated as fast as they should.
The only evolutionary contest right now is who can have the most children in their lifetime. Curiously, the age of puberty in both boys and girls has begun falling rapidly in developed nations...
We are also ruining our environment, so we will eventually be forced to evolve resistances to cancer and toxic chemicals.
2006-11-04 22:20:36 · answer #8 · answered by Acraz 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
if we are evolving, and our present ecosystem is altered in such a way that it very closely parallels the environment of primitive apes with its accompanying survival challenges, would we evolve back into being apes again as a course of adaptation? ...just a thought.
2006-11-05 04:05:22 · answer #9 · answered by emmanuel 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
do you see now why "evolution" is actually an oxymoron?
It isn't possible to have evolved - as that would essencially mean that we would have died off a long time ago. How can you possibly have "survival of the fittest" by improvement of things since Science only proves that things DEgenerate.
2006-11-04 22:14:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋