In evolution Theory we develop and adopt with environment=so we will develop special eye balls to watch TV?
413080
Your understanding of the evolutionary process is flawed. Evolution means "change in hereditary features over time".  We do not develop structures in order to adapt to our environment.  Rather, through subtle or obvious genetic variation in offspring, those offspring who are most successful in the current environment will live to maturity to reproduce and pass on their genes.  For example, if the environment of polar bears becomes warmer, so that areas of the land have soil showing, a baby born with a slightly mottled coat might have better luck at camouflage -- better luck at hunting -- stronger chance of breeding and passing on the mottled coat genes.  Over many, many years, there would be a shift away from genes for all-white coats towards more genes for mottled coats.  So -- since watching TV does not affect survival and production of successful offspring, we would not expect one type of eyeball to be better suited than another.
1042707
"In biology, evolution is the measurable change in the heritable traits (allele frequency) of a population over successive generations. Evolution is ultimately the source of the vast diversity of the biological world. Over time, it may result in the origin of new species (speciation). Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years." translation organisms change over time due to adapting to their environment and selective breeding, though natural selection plays the largest role in evolution, in natural selection the animal that is best fit to live in  and survive in its environment will be able to live on and reproduce. Also known as "survival of the fittest"
640682
Wrong!\n\nSee:\n\nhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1330617.htm\n\neg:\n\n"Now since the dog’s eye is tuned for night, at night with low intensity levels you really don’t need very much in the way of colour. But of course dogs also hunt during the day, so what evolution has done is, you know, everybody gets the feeling that dogs are colour blind and somehow or other they see just in shades of grey. Well that’s not the way the game is set up. Dogs actually do have some colour vision, it’s just they have less colour vision that we do and they see fewer colours and they are probably a lot weaker than ours. So the dog sees the world in shades of blues and greys and oranges and yellows and the darker yellows might sort of fade down to something which we might call a brown, but they don’t see the oranges or the reds, they don’t see the greens and that sort of thing.\n\nIt drives me absolutely crazy. Right now the favourite colour for dog toys is red or that bright safety orange which you see in traffic columns and safety vests and that sort of thing. Well the thing is - to the dog’s eye that red is the same colour as the grass which the toy is supposed to land on, the only difference is that it’ll appear to be a little bit darker so it’ll be a slightly more brownish yellow than the yellow of the grass. So you buy this new toy and you throw it and Lassie goes tooling past it and you say to yourself, My God, my dog’s become an idiot or it’s just being obstreperous. Well no, the colour was there to catch the human eye: it’s absolutely useless with an dog’s eye. You’d be better off with blacks and whites."\n\nMore on the page, about dog senses.
1056346
If we assume evolution as by Darwin is basically right. Animals evolve to best survive in a certain ecological niche. In that respect intelligence was an adaptation to survive and prosper in response to certain environmental factors, and our species was the winner in that race to develop. In the same light why don’t all animals develop flight or gills etc. Other animals haven’t developed the same type of intelligence because they don’t need it. The Lingula sp. (a seashell) has existed in its current shape for well over 500 million years, as compared to our ½ to ¾ million years, it perfectly fills a certain niche and has no need to evolve further.\nHowever your question hits upon a salient point. Where is the actual evidence for this species development? We should have examples of inter-species e.g. super smart bunnies still able to breed with normal bunnies to create cleverer off spring. This missing link worried Darwin for his entire life and eventually caused him to doubt his own theory.
160210
I'm going to quote one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of all times. \n"Nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution"\nErnst Mayr (1904-2005)\n\nAnother great researcher, the ethologist Niko Tinbergen, argued that there were four questions that the ethologist should answer, to include the different kinds of explanations for any behavior:\n1) Function: how does the behaviour impact on the animal’s chances of survival and reproduction? \n2) Causation: what are the stimuli that elicit the response, and how has it been modified by recent learning? \n3) Development: how does the behaviour change with age, and what early experiences are necessary for the behaviour to be shown? \n4) Evolutionary history: how does the behaviour compare with similar behaviour in related species, and how might it have arisen through the process of phylogeny? \n\nSo... see item 4)
228640
Different species,evolve differently and we are a different specie than apes.The apes are evolving too it takes longer than the human eye can see in large animals.Small creatures can be observed under a microscope in there process of evaluation and your own cells as well.You can also observe evolution in your own body when you catch a cold you will never catch the same virus again because you have built up a resistance to it.When you get a sun tan your body is changing to adjust to the increased exposure by changing to a deeper color.I really wish you could expand your mind and try to believe with all the beauty in nature why would god choose to be in the image of man and the evil things we do to everything.  Good Luck!
1090755
That is how the process of evolution designed us.  Simple.
1131123
Not necessarily.  We do all those things because protohumans were exposed to evolutionary and selective pressures that lead to creative humans capable of technological advancement.\n\nIf, and that's a big IF, any of those animals you mentioned which that are rather intelligent get exposed to these same selective pressures over a LONG period of time (it took us 2 million years to figure out fire, so it'll be a while), then sure why not.  But the odds of that happening are very small, but you never know, we'll see in 5 million years what happened...\n\nCheers.
579669
The 'modern' human experiment could be seen as an answer to your question.  We now, for our 'comfort' do things which are certainly to be considered 'adaptive selection of species'.  The way this results in 'natural selection of a population' can be felt and seen and even quantified, if one is sentient and humble enough.  Glad to help!
987170
its called mutation, when a species must adapt in a certain way in order to survive in the new environment, mutations occur and their offspring gets it, and the offspring therefore can adapt to the new environment, in our way, we evolved into humans so we can adapt to our daily lives
269153
There is evidence in that we [humans] continue to evolve and change our environment.  Logic says there can be no growth without change- and no change without new ideas and perspectives.
603237
Its not evolution, that is for sure. The evolutionist idea of natural selection is flawed from the beginning. The idea that we evolved into this superior human who have to deal with feelings of emotion, need large amounts of food and water to survive, require a male and female to reproduce and the list goes on. If natural selection is true then humans would have stopped long before now when we didn't need so much food and water; when we could split ourselves because there was no gender and no one had to think about taking care of a child. A human child is one of the most dependent offspring. Without the care of parents the child would die. This does not seem to fit the the theory of natural selection. Genesis 1:27 explains it good.
711783
Evolution doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no need for it.  Genetic variation and mutation are always going to occur.  However, the 'natural selection' aspect of it may not be applicable.
246000
Because of evolution and adaptation.
1096462
A is incorrect because this statement is usually attributed to Malthus however, Darwin was aware of this and it is one of the driving forces of natural selection-- that there are more organisms (not just humans) that can be supported by available resources.  \n\nB is incorrect because the adaptations that are favorable are not always biased towards being swift and aggressive.  There are passive, defensive adaptations that are effective.  \n\nC is incorrect because evolution is not directional.  There is no such thing as devolution.  A trait that is advantageous under one set of conditions may be a liability under different environmental conditions.  The most successful organisms on this planet are bacteria.  Also, individuals do not evolve.  Populations evolve.\n\nD is correct.  It is even right there in the title of Darwin's book on natural selection.  Look it up and read it.
135816
Why?  Evolution.\n\nWhat purposes do they serve?  (ah, glad you asked...)\n\nThey keep sweat out of our eyes.\nProvide some amount of shade from the sun.\nAre used to communicate emotions through facial expressions.\n\n... and more!\n\nEyebrows!  I love 'em so much, I've got two!
360078
We need teachers, but I'm not too sure about the PhD part.\n\nWe are not evolving fast enough to know what we will turn into. If I had to guess, I would say future humans will be better-looking, and innately immune to today's diseases. But that's about it.