Are we still in the process of Evolution?
482705
i don't think the evolution process ever stops... after all, change is said to be the only constant thing in the world...
967372
for me the answer is simple. I don't believe that we 've evolved. I believe that we were created.  and evolution is not a fact.. as its name states its only a "theory" which has both evidences for and against it whereas "gravity" is a law which means its proved.
1014083
My God, I'm finally beginning to see the truth.  You have convinced me, despite all of the scientific evidence available and common sense, that evolutionists do indeed have it all wrong.\n\nWe have NOT evolved from apes.\n\nIn fact, based on the number of people who profess to believing in the exact wording the Bible gives for Creation, I now know without a shadow of a doubt that ......\n\n\n WE ARE STILL APES!\n\nI accept the invitation.  What can I bring?  I know of a great place to get apples.
1091627
yes!\nWe share 95% of our DNA with monkeys. We have watched the evolution of animals as they have become more adapted to their changing environments. Humans have been able to teach monkeys to communicate too. It seems obvious to me that god created a universe that is ever changing and growing, not stagnant. Why is it so hard to believe that god may have started evolution? Maybe Adam and Eve were the first man and woman but not created from the dust of the earth? Just a thought
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.
1172039
We are constantly evolving. If you look at statistics over the last hundred years, people are getting taller. (Go into an old, old home - the stairs will be smaller - people were smaller.)\n\nEvery time that DNA replicates, there is a possibility for an error. These can be positive or negative, but it the error is transmitted to the next generation, it will make changes in person. These changes are EVOLUTION. \n\nUnfortunately, the survival of the fittest isn't accurate anymore, as people with defects are now living long enough to reproduce and making faulty copies of their DNA. \n\nWe will continue to change, slowly, but evolution is happening all around us, and in us, everyday.
170837
No, but I think modern monkeys and I had a common ancestor a very, very long time ago.  When a family diverges, they start getting different pretty quickly, depending on who they marry.  If one of my more recent ancestors went to China while my branch went to America, we'd look rather different now, wouldn't we? Why is it so hard to believe a more ancient equivalent, except because you are trying to take literally something which was written when scientific knowledge was extremely primative?\n\nScience and religion have two different goals, two different world views, and two vastly different vocabularies.  Religion is writing about things so beyond human experience that our words just do not fit, and we have to resort to symbols.  When you look at ancient manuscripts and ponder the symbols, you get a lot more than you get from words which have been sorted through any number of translations and interpretations since they were written.  Not a single word of the modern Bible (and remember, you go into a Bible Bookstore, you will find a great many modern versions, not just one) was originally written in English.  The writers had probably never even heard about that far-off island, and English as we know it had not been born.\n\nPlease, don't ridicule those of us who accept the theory of evolution as the most reasonable one.  We have let you continue to label it "theory" once most the rest of us have accepted it as fact.  Don't ask for more!
134758
Oh no, not this question again. Why doesn't anybody use the Search button?\nLet me address two separate issues (the first part is modified from another answer):\n1) The pattern of evolutionary processes that can be seen (in the fossil record and living species)can be of two types: \nIn _anagenetic_ (meaning "that generate upward movement") events, an entire population evolves in one direction and becomes so different that at some point the people who study it give it a different name. This is encountered in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \n_Cladogenetic_ (meaning "that generates branches") events entail a population that splits into different sub-groups; each of these then evolves independently from the others. We share A COMMON ANCESTOR with living apes, but we have not evolved from them directly. \nOur direct ancestors are fossil hominid species. \nAll the species that are living today have their separate evolution and history; also they all (including humans) share common ancestors from which they (we) have inherited our common traits. And apes have their own ancestors that are closer to them than to Homo sapiens; the fact that apes are our closest living relatives does not exclude the existence of more related _extinct_ relatives.\n\n2) What you're stating is one of the arguments that many creationist use, namely, that change within a species (adaptation, i.e. microevolution) is possible (they are astute in not denying this, because the proofs are overwhelming!), but a species cannot transform into another (macroevolution). \nThis is based on a mistaken concept of "species". Most people think in terms of the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. That is, individuals of each species cannot hybridize succesfully with individuals of other species. However, there is not a single path for the rise of the mechanisms for recognition or isolation that we perceive as the "real boundaries" of a species (see second link for an interesting discussion here at Y!Answers). What the taxonomist calls a species may respond to different species concepts (such as morphological, evolutionary, biological (isolation), paleontological, recognition, etc,), and there are many examples of populations in which speciation (total isolation) is on the way, and there's a thin line between "subspecies" or "geographical races" and valid species (just ask an expert in systematics, which I am not). \nEvolutionary processes are long-term phenomena, and it may seem that there are "evolutionary leaps" from one species to the other. But although there are particular cases of "instantaneous speciation", most of the "leaps" are due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. So many populations become extinct or become something else and their former existence is not recorded anywhere! But although the record is fragmentary, life is continuous.\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, I hope you find it useful.
1116448
Of course humans are still evolving - how else would you explain Britney Spears?\n\nShe is what most people are trying to evolve FROM.
226
Evolution is ever-present as always. You could argue it's rate is a function of environment change. So to answer what's driving human evolution you need to look at the human environment as part of the equation. Extreme evolution happens when an organism's environment changes and it cannot escape it. As a previous post mentioned, humans now have the ability to easily move around the world and escape a 'bad' environment. So evolution may indeed have slowed, but it is not dead. Some cataclysmic change affecting the whole planet, if it doesn't kill the species completely, will certainly speed up the evolutionary process when you compare the human race a few generations either side of said event.\n\nGiven that evolution is the result of genetic mutation/favoritism during sexual reproduction are we seeing those more desirable for sex setting the evolutionary path while environment change is minimized by our ability to control it or escape it?\n\nIs average height an example of this? It would certainly seem that humans are growing taller on average, and what western (cultural bias) woman does not want a tall mate for example. It should be noted however that who we think is desirable for sex is very culturally dependent and may not lead to the best long-term (breeding) prospects for an individual conceived to those parents.
614376
look at the monkeys man if we all evolvoled from them then why are there still monkeys, were they to stupid to evolve with us or what? nope i say we are as we always were if not why havent we evolved farther?
1099264
you seem to be so smug in your belief of evolution.  there is no proof whatsoever of it happening.  adaptation is different.  bacteria becoming immune to antibodies is adaptation.  humans do this all the time.  the bacteria aren't changing into anything different, they are still bacteria.  \nthere is no evidence in the fossil record either to support your idea.  in fact, all evidence in the fossils says otherwise.  there is no common ancestor of humans and primates.  nowhere.  lucy was an oversized chimp.  neanderthal man is equivalent to modern man in brain capacity, body structure, and everything else, what's the difference?  you can't use the tooth of a pig to create an entire skeleton of a human, that is called fraud (piltdown man).\n\ntry these FACTS: dr. frederick hoyle did a study on the probablility of a single-celled lifeform through means of random process from the beginning of time.  the likelihood of this happening is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.  (anything over 1 in 1050 is considered scientifically impossible).  hoyle stated, "evolution is nonsense in the highest degree"\nthe co-discoverer of DNA, francis crick; did a similar study on the chance of one single strand of DNA happening by random chance, but the results came that the chance is so small that it is nonexistant (so close to zero it's actually there)\n\nthe alternative? intelligent design.  all evidence points to a young earth.  if the earth is millions of years old: why hasn't it stopped spinning yet?  it slows down every year?  why hasn't the sahara desert taken over the plant yet?  it's growing by the day?  why have we never seen a single star form?  why hasn't the moon left us yet?  it gets farther and farther away every year?  \n\nother science would ask: why do some heavenly bodies rotate counter-clockwise if they all resulted from the big bang?  (according to the LAW of angular conservation, they should all be spinning the same way)  why isn't there a huge vacuum (present after any explosion); but the universe is instead expanding?  (refer to newton's LAWs of relativity)  why would the population curve put the start of humanity at about 4500 years ago, if we've been around for millions?  why is the oldest tree (also the oldest living organism) only 4500 years old?  \n\nuse evolution to explain morality, emotions, intelligence, abstract thought, love, etc.  you can't.  the only plausible answer is intelligent design.  \n\nanthony flue, once the greatest known and most highly revered atheist; writing over 30 books on the subject is an oxford double-doctorate with numerous other degrees and awards.  now a theist.  the clincher?  intelligent design.  unless you think that you're smarter than this guy (and it doesn't look like it from your grammar, spelling, and theology)  study a bit more before you go bashing theists.  \n\n"when science finally comes to the top of this mountain of truth, it will see that religion has been there all along."
911759
Evolution is opportunity driven. We have evolved to be adaptable to almost any situation so can exploit almost any opportunity so we are unlikely to evolve physically. I believe that we only use a small part of our brains so we may evolve to be able to use more of our potential brain power. However I think our evolution will be in the field of technology and that with our potential brain capacity we will develop more and more technical skills. Actually this is the only thing that makes me wonder if there is actually a supreme intelligence that has set us on this path in order to achieve some purpose that we have not yet found
206888
But the most obvious answer to your question is that we obviously do evolve... we'd all be dead if we didn't\n\nsurvival of the fittest
683429
Yep. I totally agree that it is due to a misunderstanding of evolution.\n\nI once was told, as an example of why evolution was faulty, that "you cannot put a typewriter into a closet and open up the door a few days later and expect it to be a computer". I remember explaining the relationship between the computer and typewriter and that the ideas, concepts, etc that the technology did evolve, but that certain elements of the typewriter were carried over to the computer (like the keyboard and how it is styled). Then the person said the statement you mentioned "yes, but we couldn't have evolved from apes because apes are still around" to which I remember replying "so are typewriters and word processors. I still own atleast one besides my computer."
257820
Evolution is almost a proven fact.  In fact it's one of the basic concept of biological science. In fact humans have been tinkering with evolution for thousands of years.  Why do you think we have so many breeds of dogs? If you take selective breeding far enough you could "create" a totally new species. Germs and viruses are constantly evolving. Do you think the AIDS virus was spontaneously created by God?? It evolved from closely related chimpanzee virus that we can no longer be infected with. But the AIDS virus evolved from this virus that we can no longer be infected with. \n\nEvolution is obvious when you look at rapidly reproducing living things such as germs and viruses.  It is not as obvious for a longer living things as process is so slow that it takes millions of years. But fossil evidence is overwhelming that evolution is how we came to be human beings. \n\nWe did not evolve from apes!  Apes are our distant cousins that branched off millions of years ago. We are related to chimps and gorillas, but think of it as very very distant cousins. I don't know the exact percentage, but humans and chimps share over 99% of the genes. It's that one percent that makes us human.  \n\nI don't belive in god, but existance in a supernatural beings does not mean evolution is wrong. I don't think belief in god and evolution has to be mutually exclusive. If god created life, then he/she/it also must have created evolution to go with it.
346312
Before answering the question definitively, I think it may important to be aware of a few important details.  When we speak of "evolution" we are generally referring to the notion of species evolving by means of natural selection.  Many evolutionary biologists argue over the details, but all agree that natural selection is part of the evolutionary mechanism.  And so, there are actualy more than one "theory of evolution" when it comes to the details.  \n\nLet's assume for arguments sake that your question therefore could be slightly rephrased into: is evolution by means of natural selection truly happening?  The answer, I think, is a clear yes.  You may have heard some say that evolution is a controversial theory among scientists.  That is actually not the case.  what is controversially discussed are, as I pointed out above, the details of the evolutionary mechanisms.\n\nNow, assuming that evolution by natural selection is real, and therefore, that not only we as human beings evolved, and that we furthermore are still evolving, does that mean that therefore religious believes are impossible?  Again, I think the answer is clear.  And this time it is no.  science and religion are absolutely reconcilable.  But as always the devil is in the details...  When some scientists say that science is the only way to the truth and therefore evolution has done away with God, the problem is that they are making a metaphysical, that is anon-scientific, philosophical statement: The statement cannot be tested by a scientific experiment.  Consequently, if the statement were true, it would prove itself false, since it is not scientific.  It is, what we call in philosophy, the liar's paradox (If I told you I am a San Franciscan, and all San franciscans are liars, am I telling the truth?).  On the other hand, when a biblical literalist tells you that the Bible has told us how the world was created in six 24 hour days (and one Sunday of rest...), the problem lies in reading the biblical text literally.  The Bible is full of what in theology we call obscure text passages...  There are contradictions, there repetitions, etc.  For example, if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, how come he dies at the end of the fifth book and writes about it?  I could list more examples, but I think you get the point.\n\nSo, we can conclude that indeed a materialistic interpretation of the world (i.e., science is the only way to the truth) and a biblical literalism (i.e., the biblical text is to be read literal by the mere literal meaning of its words) would present two irreconcilable positions.  But as we have seen, both positions are problematic.\n\nIf we allow for science and religion to communicate with one another, they can actually inform each other and in there dialogue provide one interpretation of the human experience of reality.  Accordingly, religion would thus attempt to interpret the world in light of Scripture, but also its tradition.  Science on the other hand tries to attempt the same using its own very particular methodologies.  The concepts from both disciplines are then brought to a dialogue with one another, and from that dialogue one new understanding can emerge.  And with this new understanding we engage yet once again in a new cycle of interpretation.  As such, even religion science, and definitely our overall understanding of our human experience of reality grows continuously, or if you like, evolves.\n\nI hope that helps.