How long before the next set of humans evolve from (anything)?

[fiat_money]

Humans are done evolving for the most part. Immune systems and the likes are still evolving, but in regards to significant physical features it seems to be done as there is nothing else for us to really overcome on this planet at the moment - we are the dominant species.

No, humans are constantly evolving.

Recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years, a mere 2.5% of the time since they speciated.

We haven't been around long enough to conclude that we've stopped evolving.

How else would we evolve physically at this present moment with no predators or harsh geography to overcome?

Changing environment/habits, selective breeding, natural genetic variation.

You know, the usual ways in which biological evolution occurs.

We spend very little time adapting to those things due to houses, cars and the like. We're not changing much physically.

Houses and cars are examples of the changing environment.

You saying we're going to adapt to the controlled environments of those things? What possible changes could be evoked?

Modern houses better protect humans from the climate, and cars reduce the amount of foot travel for humans.

A likely environmental example is modern obesity.

Another example--that's likely to be a product of selective breeding--is how humans have been getting taller.

Height isn't very significant

Subjective.

It isn't subjective if I can provide adequate objective evidence.

If men were to grow sufficiently larger overnight not a lot would change in regards to the way we live. Clothes would have to be bigger, houses reconstructed, diets would probably need modification and so on. Nothing too significant in regards to how we live though.

In comparison, something significant such as the development of a new lobe in the brain, wings, gills, or walking up right would completely change the way an organism lives and develops. Size was considered beneficial in earlier economies where labour jobs were abundant. With the advent of technologies that do the labour for us however, size and associated strength and power are no longer issues as methods and tools have evolved to make work easy even for small sized humans. The impact of increased size is small.

This shit isn't magic yo; that kind of change doesn't happen in complex organisms over such a short period of time.

Even in cases of speciation; the newer species typically only varies slightly from the "parent" species. Take the blackcap I mentioned earlier for example: The newer species had only slightly rounder wings and longer beaks; small changes basically.

Evolution is the mainly a summation of many small changes rather than one big change. If changes are summed over time, the shorter amount of time you looked at, the smaller the sum of the changes will be.

Over the past 300 years human height has increased after remaining rather stagnant. Countries once known for their short people became countries known for tall people. The contributing factors are likely nutrition and selective breeding.

A noticeable difference in height over a relatively short time is a significant change for a species.

I know that such a development takes a long ass time to occur, i was just using that example to display how small an impact height has on how humans live overall. The way humans live impacts height far more than the opposite.

That just means that you're evaluating the significance of biological evolution by its impact on the species's life. While I evaluate the significance of biological evolution by the developed genotypical/phenotypical differences and the amount of time it takes them to occur in.

You're making it appear subjective still. Developed traits that only affect superficial aspects of life can't truly be deemed significant can they? Or are we deeming any sort of evolutionary development as significant? Do you consider the only insignificant ones to be the ones that are yet to become reality?

Insignificant ones would be biological changes that fall within normal genetic variation; such as two brown-eyed parents having a child with blue eyes. Significant ones would be changes that affect a population of a species over a relatively short time.

I make it sound subjective because it is.

Some people think humans need to evolve to be more compassionate, I think they need to evolve to be more intelligent and less emotional.

The very act of assigning significance to something is a subjective process.

 

[Bodhi]

why so salty towards the idea of a common Creator?

why so salty towards the idea of something like a quantum vaccum creating our current system as opposed to a spirit-person

 

[waterproof]

POPPA WU "WU REVOLUTION"

At one time it was told to me

That man came from monkeys, ha ha ha

That we was swinging from trees

I hardly can believe that unless

I'm dumb deaf and blind

Agree 100%

 

[whar]

The very question of the first man shows a flawed understanding of evolution. Individuals do not evolve rather populations do. So the question is how did the first people arise? But this is addressed directly in my previous post. Species are a continuum. There is never a time that a parent gives birth to something other than the same species. However variation occurs from generation to generation with changes accumulating over time. It would reach the point that a biologist would say 'This is a new species compared to what was here 200,000 years ago.' But you would never have a moment where you could draw a bright line between 2 generations and state generation A belongs to species 1 and their offspring, generation B, belongs to species 2.

*EDIT* There does exist bright lines in some cases such as in plants when they double their chromosomes. In this case parent belongs to species 1 while offspring belongs to species 2. However in animals this is not the case.

touching a bit on your previous post - even in theory, in order for this to be true, yall must concede that the species at the extreme starting point of the spectrum must've NOT been a walking, talking, thinking human. but then graddddually, over millions of years, the species became 'humanized', a walking, talking, and thinking being. :/

If the being at the extreme beginning is to be considered 'human' then umm....evolution in terms of what then? because the transitional evidence of - 'from animal to walking, talking, thinking being' - jus doesn't exist other than in drawings lol.

Well in my example the being at the start of the spectrum would be H. erectus. That is a transitional form from prior hominds and modern humans. However pinpointing the exact moment went H. erectus switched to H. sapiens is impossible.

 

[whar]

"Despite their obvious differences, humans and chimpanzees share 98 percent of their DNA; a difference of only 2 percent accounts for the distinction between the two species (the difference between humans and gorillas is 3 percent).

The so called 98% similarity is the result of slanted and biased research. scientists that came up with this high percentage in similarity did so by SELECTIVELY USING HUMAN AND CHIMP DNA SEQUENCE FRAGMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY HIGHLY SIMILAR, but NOT the sections that don't line up. Anzai, T. et al. 2003. Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (13): 7708-13. The complete genomic sequence for both human and chimp are currently unavailable due to DNA sequencing technology limitations. In the ones we do have, a more thorough, solid analysis need to be done.

Yall evolites can quote the inaccurate research of biased scientific studies and man-made fairy tales of natural selection all you want, but what you can't do is show the math used to arrive to these conclusions. just huge leaps of faith mixed with a dash of wishful thinking on some, "night's like this iii wiish' Eddie Cane ish.

The paper you cite only examines a single region. Compared to the total genome it represents .5%. The paper centers on insertions and deletion which generally occur in junk portions of the DNA. Comparing these the paper shows 86.7% difference with the majority of these occur due to a large insert the split the MRCA and MRCB genes in humans. (In chimps they just have a single MRC gene). The 98% number comes from comparing genes to genes in humans and chimps. The 86.7% is a nucleotide to nucleotide comparison.

In short both numbers are valid for what they measure. Both confirm the chimp is remarkably similar to us