Viewing Thread:
"Have we really stopped evolving?"

Have we really stopped evolving?
I mean it took apes millions of year to transform into humans but why was that. Was it because some apes got really smart and decided 'Hmm today I'm going to walk like this' Which then started a whole chain of apes walking like that and because they were not supposed to walk upright it very slowly over the years began to reshape their bones and then they'd put their genes of reshaped bones and other new habits into baby monkeys which then followed on very slowly creating smarter and smarter apes.

Then they finally somehow cracked it and turned into humans after millions of years. Now my point is, today some people in society are gradually getting lazier and lazier or just becoming worse parents that they teach their children to act differently like to not care about where you go in life and talk in a different way like townie talk. And then that baby learns swear words off their mum and thinks thats right. So then they teach that to their children creating lots and lots of townie talking children.

But suppose its not just talking like a townie its something like walking a new way and then they all teach that to thousands of people because its so darn popular that it reshapes our bones and after thousands of years we have people walking around bent really far forwards or something.

I know these are just examples but we wont just stay like we are now for the next million years (if the Earth is still around that long).

Do you' think we'll ever evolve again?

> However, I don't believe in evolution. If it were true, should it not
> have eliminated ginger people form the gene pool by now?
>
> :D

Not likely, ginger girls are the best (or at least the ones with the lovely, yummy, ravishing, flame-red, straight haired maidens of love....)
*Starts drooling relentlessly*

We haven't stopped evolving. But it will become slower as we no longer need to adapt to our environment - we can control it (ie central heating :D). We will probably lose the things we don't need, like hair and the appendix, although it will take millions of years.

Unlikely we'll end up as short hairless people, as evolution is to do with natural selection rather than adapting to our environment or lifestyle. We won't become a race of short people, unless short people for some reason start multiplying more.

However, I don't believe in evolution. If it were true, should it not have eliminated ginger people form the gene pool by now?

:D

Look people all the evidence that I need to prove evolution is to watch the advert of the cereal you know.. is it cornflakes.. That advert is a real eye opener.

I'm quite blatently an evolutional throwback to an earlier form of humanity then, what with me being hairy and stubby fingered.

Little Hobbo wrote:
> I'm sure we've argued this before but as you've just stated yourself,
> evolution is an assumption. A theory, hypothesis, guess.

When it comes down to it so are most religions ! Everything starts as a theory but takes time.

I think that it's more of a case that evolution has finished, and that untapped potential already exists- we just need to find how we access it. Whilst it's going into X Files territory, there are far too many claims of psychic ability for them all to be false, same goes for other bizarre unexplained abilities. Even intuition my be a some kind of latent psychic ability.

Also, for what its worth, if this is the case then I think that the proof won't lie in the west, but in Asia.

~~Belldandy~~

Mr Ripper wrote:
> Short, bald, balloon-headed people, with long fingers and skinny
> waists.

---

I call them Nintys.

Little Hobbo wrote:
> Mr Kipper wrote:

Rofl ;)

>
> I'm sure ......... and work to do.

Hear hear - well said Hobbo !

Actually, in my experience, the arguments against evolution is simply the lack of evidence to support it. The exact same can be said of creationism.

Until one side or the other has conclusive proof, they are both little more than theories, and I believe that both are adequately taught in school, albeit one shrouded in religious text.

Mr Kipper wrote:
> and
> strictly answer the question in hand using the assumption that
> evolution is the mechanism of creation.

I'm sure we've argued this before but as you've just stated yourself, evolution is an assumption. A theory, hypothesis, guess. I have thoroughly researched this area and have discovered that the evidence aginst evolution is far, far greater than that which supports it. I am not going to write a huge long post stating mediocre examples of facts that can fit in any way they please, or hazy assumptions, since I have a life to continue with and work to do.