I was wondering if Homo sapiens could ever stop evolving at all (both physically and culturally). I mean look how far we've come:
Homo afranseis--->Homo habiliis (I think that was "Lucy" IIRC)-->Homo erectus-->Neanderthals-->Hello, Homo sapiens. We've come a long way from stone tools in the developed world (knives, forks, etc), and of course-we've got clothing. Our skulls have had changed dramatically over those years as well.
But...can we ever stop evolving physically and culturally? I can't imagine how mama nature could ever find another reason for us to improve, as we have all this technology around us.
And...is evolution just a theory and/or hypotheses?

__________________
"Stars in your multitudes! Scarce to be counted...keeping watch in the night..."

"You hold your course and your aim, and each in your season, returns and returns and is always the same."

--Stars, Les Miserables

Yes it's a theory, but nothing is "just" a theory. For something to be considered a theory, it has to have repeatedly and successfully stood up to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

Are the arrows are meant to imply that Homo sapiens descended from Neaderthal?

Wikipedia: Homo neaderthalensis:

I would put them on a parallel branch -- cousins, not parents -- descending from a common ancestor.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

No, I just put them there ops: . No, I think Neanderthals was a branch off, just like wikipedia had said. Thanks for the little link (URL that is).

__________________
"Stars in your multitudes! Scarce to be counted...keeping watch in the night..."

"You hold your course and your aim, and each in your season, returns and returns and is always the same."

--Stars, Les Miserables

With modern technology I don't see any reason why we should be as big as we are. 1/3 or 1/4 the size with sufficient strenght to bear the skull and contents would be a huge benefit. We would consume far less food, our vehicles could be smaller and our dwellings could be much more efficient and cost effective to build. We could also loose some of those features of ours that evolution didn't do such a great job of like teeth - what a pain they are! We should have teeth like sharks that rip raw flesh and can grow a new set when the old ones become loose or damaged.

Ultimately this will enable us all to evolve into lawyers but unfortunately we will spend so much time countersuiting that when the little green men come to take over the planet we will be so busy arguing with eachother that no one will notice. We are truely a doomed race.

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

People still engage in an incredible amount of self-destructive behavior. Seems to me as if there's lots of room for improvement there.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

As it stands, there is tangible evidence humans continue to be taller and taller.

Yep... AFAIK that's not evolution though, just better nutrition.

LOL!! =D>

Then again, perhaps those LGM will be surprised when they're attacked by catfish (bottom-feeders) with shark's teeth!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

In my opinion, all the technology we have and the advances in medical science to date will mean that evolution will now affect the human race adversly as natural selection has all but been eliminated in the case of humanity. Junk DNA that would caused harmful mutations is now not being selected out and is proliferating.......

For example I myself am quite badly short sighted.....

Therefore, given your condition and your view of the adverse effect of technology and medical science, I trust you have never contributed nor plan to contribute to the gene pool.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Lucy was A. afarensis, not H. habilis.

edit: correct Lucy to be an Australopithecine

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

I suppose if technology was advanced enough that we could live forever, that would stop evolution.

I plan too. I don't care about "contaminating" the gene pool...

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

I have quite good vision. Maybe I'll contribute a few times, and set humankind on their way to super vision!

__________________
Moraliser Overtax Porn

I'm content on being a non-reproducing recipient? Just for fun, no other reason. :wink:

I won't object to trying. It's succeeding that's the difficult part...! :wink:

I don't think we will stop to evolve, but I know we evolve slowly. So it takes many years before we change.

__________________
Do not think all you see is "real".

I saw recently (on TV) that "Lucy" has been demoted to being, in reality. a member of the chimapanzee family, and the researchers that originally pushed her as being an ancestor of man had backtracked and re-evaluated their theories about her. Does anybody have any more info along those lines?

tbm

I don't think humanity has stopped evolving, but rather the genetic evolution has slowed down considerably. I think the ideas left behind by invidual people have had a far greater effect for a long time, than contributions to the gene pool.

Could being aware of ourselve contribute to this..

I chose not to have children, because I don't want dysfunction to continue.

Just wondering.. 8-[

Well, it is likely that by the end of the century, humanity will be tinkering with our own DNA. I predict the next couple of centuries will see the fastest period of human evolution to date, due to our own selection.

"Gee, what happens if we cross these two genes? Ah, we get much stronger. Good, good. But now oxygen is pois{THUD}"

__________________
Home of the Illumi-Llama:
The Illuminati-R-Us Forums

And what on Earth would account for evolution slowing?

Evolution is very slow but the mechanisms for genetic changes are relatively constant over time. When populations become isolated, when there are significant selection pressures such as a global catastrophe, (since humans populate all continents), then new species can emerge.

Our gene pool was reduced to a few thousand members about 70,000 years ago but no truly new race or species evolved. It left us with less genetic diversity. Chimpanzees have much greater genetic diversity than humans. We have room for expanding our genetic diversity without significantly changing our human characteristics.

Bottom line, evolutionary changes march continually on. Other factors determine when we will see a considerably different species evolve.

As to the increasing size, there is more evidence that is the result of nutrition than genes but there is some genetic basis for taller and shorter body types. Zulus vs Pygmys tribes' size would be genetic diversity but increased size of Americans from the 1700s to the 1900s would be more from nutritional effects.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Punctuated Equilibrium theory (I have no idea if it's still valid) states that evolution goes through stages of acceleration... So I guess it's possible that we're in a stage of slowness relative to the stages of speed...

The Red Queen theory (named for the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland) says that a creature needs to continue to evolve constantly in order to simply maintain it's position in the food chain, the way that Alice had to keep running as fast as she possibly could in order to remain in the same place.

That doesn't really explain creatures who have evolved very little for long periods of time, like sharks, but as long as a single one with a mutation who does exactly as well as each other shark in it's generation will not encourage evolution, I guess there's no reason for them to change.

__________________
Begone, braggage!
My bible!

With better medical technology and welfare states, the quality of your genes have a less significant effect on whether you survive to pass on your genes. Only extremely harmful mutations are weeded out. Humanity has built everything it's accomplished on the ideas and knowledge of the previous generation. I'm claiming that the contribution an invidual makes to the growing database of ideas has a greater effect on the development of mankind, than the genetic material passed on through children. A large part of this is passing on your ideas to your children through their ubringing. How much has our gene pool evolved in the last few thousand years? How much has our society evolved in that same time?

I tend to disagree. It seems logical that certain genes still result in people being more likely to reproduce, and over millenia, they should still become more common. They might not be the same genes that would have been favored before civilization, but it's still evolution.

__________________
Anyone who believes in the warning of the bible (prophecies concerning the end time which is now) shall be benefited from my invention. Because they won't be stupid enough to pass this! -Alex Chiu

I don't see any reason to believe we have stopped evolving. Sharks have existed for 350 million years--we have a lot of time to evolve. As BestSkeptical said, we are one of the most "un-diverse" species on the planet. What Dread says above I think will be true; if people come to choose the "perfect" genes for the "perfect" offspring we will manipulate the gene pool. Those, who for moral reasons oppose that, will weaken their gene pool. Selection will still exist. I can't see us forestalling that from happening. But, I think environmental factors will affect us mostly and sooner--nutrition, medical technology, chemicals and toxins in our food, drugs...we already see that when we compare people in First and Third World nations.

I don't think you can put a value on our evolution as far as it being positive or negative--we either go extinct or change and survive. The technology we have to fool around with genes may become necessary for survival (and I'm not talking eugenics of yore). Aside from moral reasons, is there not a reason we shouldn't build a better mousetrap if we are capable of doing so? We're talking years and years from now and we don't know what could happen--a huge chunk of the population could be wiped out for all we know, requiring a better stronger, more efficient version of who we are now. It seems "tinkering with our DNA" is inevitable.

I'm not saying that genetic evolution no longer happens or has an effect, but rather it seems insignificant compared to the evolution of ideas. Society and technology is changing too fast for regular evolution to have a significant effect any more. What one generation considers as the characteristics of a good mate, will probably change in a few generations. What we consider beautiful might be considered plain in a hundred years. If the characteristics people look for in mates change with a rapidly developing society, how will any particular genes be favored?

To clarify, I think we change as a species mostly depending on the ideas passed on than the genes passed on.

My typo. Lucy was Australopithecus afarensis, not Homo.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

surviving is not enough for evolution. as has been referenced, passing on the genes is what counts.

my best friend has reached the painful decision (for her, anyway) to avoid having children so as to avoid passing on her mental illnesses. if all mentally ill people decided this . . . well, we'd get a definitive answer to the "nature vs. nurture" question on the subject, at least.

I think the mistake people make is assuming that all evolution is what a human would emotionally consider "beneficial." there are some really gross survival strategies on Earth, after all, and if you were to choose, you'd never consider most of them. besides, we as a species have unprecedented control over our environment, so there are certain "negative" traits that will get passed on anyway because we can correct for them. certainly that's the only reason I've survived this long. if I had to catch my own food, I'd be dead of starvation by now. as would Stephen Hawking, come to that.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"