what will happpen to the mankind after a 1000 more years?

Question

it is believed that the modern man evolved from apes.after apes so many evolutions took place.like hominids ,then ramapithecus, then zinga thropus ,then sinanthropus then now to homosapians that is the modern man,can any one imagine the shape of humans after a 1000 years?

Answer 1

I believe that in 1000 years man will be much more slender as we will have conquered obesity. Everyone will be the "beautiful people" because we will control disease and birth defects.

We were meant to multiply throughout the Universe and since we should be in space by then, All of the older generations will probably retire to the moon. Since the gravity is much less, they will not be stoop shouldered and will be able to lift and exercise like they were teenagers again. Also, since people are likely to be born with less gravity, they will be taller rather than shorter. Skin will pale due to lack of natural sunlight and more dome life.

Poverty will be a thing of the past. There will be many people across the world running their own businesses. Factories as we know it will be a thing of the past. Most work will be done mechanically with robots. Our "jobs" will be to use our minds to create new things and to sell merchandise to make money and to research into things that are now only a dream.

Answer 2

First of all, it is NOT believed by biologists that man evolved from apes. Humans and chimpanzees and gorillas, etc. have a common ancestor and apes are more like very distant cousins. They are not ancestors.

Very little evolution can happen in 1000 years to a species like humans who need 20 or so years per generation. But, there is going to be a huge decrease in population when we run out of cheap fossil fuel. Our food supply will decrease dramatically and the work to obtain any food at all will have to be done without high energy using machines so we will have to revert back to scavenging and gathering whatever food we can. Just before this, there will be wars where starving people will be doing whatever they can to take the food-producing territory from people who have it.

Pessimistic? Yes. In less than 200 years, we have used about 1/2 of the available oil reserves. The current demand is right at the point where use of these fossil fuels is increasing faster than new reserves can be found. Alternative energy sources are expensive and nowhere near the capacity needed to continue our current lifestyle.

Answer 3

First of all, 1,000 years isn't enough time for you to see significant evolutionary changes in humans. It might be more interesting to ask what humans will look like in 100,000 or even 1 million years. I'm not sure that even 100,000 years is enough for you to really see big changes in humans.

Also, humans appear to be fairly well-adapted to the current global conditions. Just look at a graph of our population growth over the past several thousand years to convince yourself that we are well-adapted to the world right now. In accordance with the theory of punctuated evolutionary growth, evolution principally occurs in response to a big change in environment. If there is a significant global change, THAT is when humans are likely to change significantly.

By its very nature, this significant global change will be fairly unpredictable, and therefore the nature of our change will also be unpredictable. However, whatever changes do occur, you won't be able to notice them in 1,000 years.

So to directly answer your question: yes, I can imagine what humans will look like in 1,000 years. Humans will look almost exactly how humans look now (except we may be a little less diverse in color due to increased inter-breeding between people of different ethnic backgrounds).

Answer 4

well due to all of the interracial couples, everyones skin color will most likely be the same. probably a lighter to medium tan color. most likely everyone will have dark hair and dark eyes. Probably be of medium build around 5'10ish. Although i doubt the earth will survive that much longer the way were using it. and to the person who posted below me, go read the article again. It doesnt say that Homo erectus fossils dating back to 7 million years ago were found, but rather they were form 1.7 mil to 400,000 years ago. It just says that we descended from our ape like ancestors 7 million years ago. s

Answer 5

due to the things mankind is doing right now to earth (actually, i can see that most of them results to bad effects) though our planet will improve a lot for a continuous upgrading technology, there sre still bad effects for us. example is the global warming which we already start to feel its bad effects now. maybe our skin get darker or redder...or something, anything that could result from temperature and dirty environment..

Answer 6

Perhaps someone could explain the dozen or so homo-erectus fossilized skeletons unearthed and hidden away that carbon date to 7 million years ago? That would predate apes?

Answer 7

--YOU HAVE SOME real hoaxes in your listing here!
--SO HOW can you rely on any description presented by the pseudo-science of evolution? Please note:

*** ce chap. 7 pp. 91-93 “Ape-Men”—What Were They? ***

****The Rise and Fall of “Ape-Men”
--25 Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.”35
--26 What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.”36 Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”37
--27 However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.”38 Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?”39 Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.
--28 Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.
--29 For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors.”40 The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”41 And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.”42
--30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

*** w86 4/1 pp. 18-19 Integrity in Serving the God of Truth ***

Did Ape-Men Exist?
--9 In 130 years of searching for fossils of the missing link between ape and man, evolutionists have come up with a pitifully small array of bones. According to the magazine Science Digest, “all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!” No doubt, that is where such so-called evidence belongs—with the lid of the coffin nailed down tight!
--10 Those magazine pictures of ape-men that are used to bolster the evolution theory are nothing more than figments of the imagination, drawn on the basis of a few small fragments of a skull or a jawbone. For example, on page 1 of The New York Times of August 16, 1985, there appeared an “artist’s reconstruction of Amphipithecus, earliest known higher primate . . . from which humans evolved,” showing its hairy head and hands. From what was this reconstructed? Says the accompanying article: “The rear portion of a lower jaw . . . together with the frontal jaw fragment found half a century before.” But can the complete head, hair and all, really be reconstructed on the basis of two such fragments? The article quoted an anthropologist at Harvard University as calling these fossils a “pool of light in acres of darkness.” But may they really be equated with light?
--11 What some might call another such “pool of light” was the skull of Piltdown man. It held the center of the evolutionary stage for about 40 years but was exposed in 1953 as an assemblage of bone fragments, some animal and some human, fraudulently stuck together as a hoax! In the words of the prophet Isaiah, it can be said of these theoretical ape-men: “Truth proves to be missing.”—Isaiah 59:15.

--SO THEN we are going to look pretty much the same. I like the look of the human family, it follows this truthful statement by the half-brother of Christ:

(James 1:17) 17 Every good gift and every perfect present is from above, for it comes down from the Father of the [celestial] lights, and with him there is not a variation of the turning of the shado. . .

*****Its man's changes that has brought a world of weirdness:
--Atrocities that has been engendered by the sick "survival of the fittest" concept!
-And also things like cross sexual changes that indeed has brought ugliness to the human family, both morally & in looks!

--These indeed will be remedied by the fulfillment of what Christ stated:
"......thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..."
----Paradise conditions on earth for those who appreaciate God's creation is certainly a lot better than what evolution has falsely promised--
--WOULD it not be something if indeed that were true--Something to think about?

Answer 8

*POOF*