News20 mins ago
Do you think humans will evolve further in the future?
Supposedly humans have evolved over millions of years to what we are now. However due to further conditions on earth do you think it is likely that humans will need to evolve more features for future survival. I see that a study has shown billions of people are at risk of water pollution so perhaps humans will need to have some sort of filter in our systems for drinking water in the future. Or I heard once that food will become scarce so perhaps we will have to absorb the sun for energy rather than eat. Am I way off here?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Evolution of the human race has already happened before our eyes. Just go back a couple of hundred years and people were on average about 1' shorter as going through doors of an old property will show.
Therefore projecting into the future will see humans grow to 10' high and more. Eventually we will be as big as dinosaurs, likewise our animals. Then we have turned full circle and soon after life on earth will be destroyed.
Therefore projecting into the future will see humans grow to 10' high and more. Eventually we will be as big as dinosaurs, likewise our animals. Then we have turned full circle and soon after life on earth will be destroyed.
Some time ago (5-7 million years, though expert opinion is divided), we (humans) shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
So, it seems likely to me, that in another 5-10 million years (if mankind has not destroyed itself for religious purposes) that there will be 2 (possibly more) separate species (unable to mate and produce viable offspring) of our descendants, as (or perhaps more) intelligent than ourselves.
I wonder if they'll believe in the same (or any) god(s).
So, it seems likely to me, that in another 5-10 million years (if mankind has not destroyed itself for religious purposes) that there will be 2 (possibly more) separate species (unable to mate and produce viable offspring) of our descendants, as (or perhaps more) intelligent than ourselves.
I wonder if they'll believe in the same (or any) god(s).
Modeller - yes there are millions of people going around who would not otherwise be around.
But there are billions of people on the planet.
as a percentage the number of people saved by medecine is sadly small.
There are a 4 million deaths a year from flu
3 million a year from AIDS
Dysentry and Diarrhoea kill over 2 million
a million deaths a year from malaria
etc. etc.
A very small percentage of our species have access to that sort of medecine.
Ignoring that point there is the continual game of evolutionary cat and mouse all lifeforms play with viruses. We evolve defenses against them and they counter and this has been going on for hundreds of millions of years at a cellular level.
One more example - people tend to think of evolutionary adaptations that are visible but many - probably most are biological. In the west we have maintained the lactase enzime that allows us to digest milk long into adulthood. In the East many people lose this enzyme after childhood. it doesn't take much of an advantage for evolution to get a toehold.
But there are billions of people on the planet.
as a percentage the number of people saved by medecine is sadly small.
There are a 4 million deaths a year from flu
3 million a year from AIDS
Dysentry and Diarrhoea kill over 2 million
a million deaths a year from malaria
etc. etc.
A very small percentage of our species have access to that sort of medecine.
Ignoring that point there is the continual game of evolutionary cat and mouse all lifeforms play with viruses. We evolve defenses against them and they counter and this has been going on for hundreds of millions of years at a cellular level.
One more example - people tend to think of evolutionary adaptations that are visible but many - probably most are biological. In the west we have maintained the lactase enzime that allows us to digest milk long into adulthood. In the East many people lose this enzyme after childhood. it doesn't take much of an advantage for evolution to get a toehold.
Modeller: "just because we are able to detect and treat a diseases doesn't mean we have evolved."
No, and I didn't mean to imply that would be evolution. My point was that if a genetic disadvantage were countered by medicine - taking on board Jake's entirely correct point about it being only the lucky few who have access to such medicines - it wouldn't matter if that were passed on.
"I used the term ; may go backwards, and according to the Lancet we are losing much of our natural resistance to certain diseases. Now this may be because of the over use of antibiotics but the net result we have gone backwards."
What tends to happen is the diseases evolve resistance to a particular antibiotic; it's them that evolve, not us. We're effectively staying the same.
"Whatever the reasons if our bodies are no longer able to cope with our environment , I would say that is an indication of going backwards."
Well, this may just be semantics but (assuming the claims are correct) to me that suggests we're no longer adapted to our environment. That's not going backwards, that's just not going 'forwards' quickly enough in responses to changes in the environment. That doesn't mean it's not potentially problematic or that we don't need to address these issues, of course.
The fact of the matter is that from the moment we first fashioned a tool from a stick or a rock, our ancesters began using technology to outstrip natural evolution.
No, and I didn't mean to imply that would be evolution. My point was that if a genetic disadvantage were countered by medicine - taking on board Jake's entirely correct point about it being only the lucky few who have access to such medicines - it wouldn't matter if that were passed on.
"I used the term ; may go backwards, and according to the Lancet we are losing much of our natural resistance to certain diseases. Now this may be because of the over use of antibiotics but the net result we have gone backwards."
What tends to happen is the diseases evolve resistance to a particular antibiotic; it's them that evolve, not us. We're effectively staying the same.
"Whatever the reasons if our bodies are no longer able to cope with our environment , I would say that is an indication of going backwards."
Well, this may just be semantics but (assuming the claims are correct) to me that suggests we're no longer adapted to our environment. That's not going backwards, that's just not going 'forwards' quickly enough in responses to changes in the environment. That doesn't mean it's not potentially problematic or that we don't need to address these issues, of course.
The fact of the matter is that from the moment we first fashioned a tool from a stick or a rock, our ancesters began using technology to outstrip natural evolution.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
ChatterBank48 mins ago
ChatterBank56 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.