I don't understand why humans are not
- Thread starter R1D2
- Start date
Many more species become extinct than adapting to the environment. So, simply based on that, there's a greater risk of getting extinct than adapting.
Also, the changes we develop due to who we culturally find attractive are more significant than mutations, so the changes that has come because of mutations are probably "swamped" by the attraction factor. It wouldn't surprise me if our looks have changed slightly in the general population if we look at people in the thirties and people today, perhaps that is the science of tomorrow though.
We are mutating. Mutations are subtle and barely noticeable. But the thing is we have advanced so far in our "intelligence" that we don't really need to adapt to our environment, because we change our environment to suit us instead. But fear not, we are some what coming full circle, we have reached a level of intelligence among our species that a few monumentally smart people have made it easier for the general population to remain stupid. If stupid keeps breeding and the intelligent ones continue to have trouble dating we will be back to living in caves in relatively no time.
then Seagysy, we will have more cave paintings.
Our acquisition of pets is pretty recent in terms of evolutionary time spans, so the feline fellow (T. gondii) of the first link below hasn't become a fully native component of humans yet. One study a few years ago claimed that the swine tape worm actually originated from humans themselves first, who in turn got it from lions (or our distant scavenging ancestors did).
Women Infected With Common Parasite Have Increased Risk of Attempting Suicide, Study Finds
April 30th, 2012: Darwinian selection continues to influence human evolution
Farming to blame for our shrinking size and brains
romnickhudges
Registered Senior Member
The reality is advancement in technology do evolves but human do not grow in terms of important issues in life. Although, I am very positive that one thing people will learn their lesson. As we know what is happening right now is a result of people's way of handling things out. All in all, I think there should be a better approach wherein focusing on people's health and some conditions that till not cannot be treated.
Darwin didn't actually say we were mutating. All he did was to account for the origins of species that arrived on the Galapagos after they were created by volcanoes that rose from the sea floor. It was geologically recent, within the timeframe of, say an Ardipithecus, so all of those "mutations" happened right there. But why/how? And the rest is his theory of evolution.
Species can stabilize once they achieve evolutionary success. For the same reason you don't see rapid changes in humans that might be seen in fruit flies, all sorts of creatures are able to hang on. Cyanobacteria may have the same essential form they had billions of years ago. Some of the earliest of jawless fish are believed to still exist. Fossilized bugs, trapped in amber resemble bugs seen today.
Darwin never predicted any trends in change or stability. He merely explained how and why mutations will succeed at some point in time, and thus give rise to speciation.
The evolution of human intelligence adds a layer of complexity to the normal progress of natural selection. As long as humans can out-maneuver the kinds pressures that forced changes in our ancestral lines, we will tend to alter the odds of evolving into some future human, sub-human, or super-human species. Even the differences in traits we see by flying great distances, then stepping out into a terminal full of mostly brown or mostly blue eyes, for example, are subject to change, as people move around more and blend together. Something as simple as a long sleeved shirt can change the odds of all fair-skinned people becoming "extinct" in the tropics. But warnings against skin cancer - or just common sense - are all part of the bigger picture, something quite different than what Darwin was addressing.
Species can stabilize once they achieve evolutionary success. For the same reason you don't see rapid changes in humans that might be seen in fruit flies, all sorts of creatures are able to hang on. Cyanobacteria may have the same essential form they had billions of years ago. Some of the earliest of jawless fish are believed to still exist. Fossilized bugs, trapped in amber resemble bugs seen today.
Darwin never predicted any trends in change or stability. He merely explained how and why mutations will succeed at some point in time, and thus give rise to speciation.
The evolution of human intelligence adds a layer of complexity to the normal progress of natural selection. As long as humans can out-maneuver the kinds pressures that forced changes in our ancestral lines, we will tend to alter the odds of evolving into some future human, sub-human, or super-human species. Even the differences in traits we see by flying great distances, then stepping out into a terminal full of mostly brown or mostly blue eyes, for example, are subject to change, as people move around more and blend together. Something as simple as a long sleeved shirt can change the odds of all fair-skinned people becoming "extinct" in the tropics. But warnings against skin cancer - or just common sense - are all part of the bigger picture, something quite different than what Darwin was addressing.