Maybe already asked.--Are humans the last of our evolutionary chain?
967456
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
390845
Evolution isn't something that happens instantly, it is a slow process that takes a long time. Humans actually have only been around for a few thousand years and "civilized" humans have only been around for 10,000 years. In fact, hominids (upright walking apes that are all extinct except for humans) have only been around for less than 2 million years. We are evolving slowly but by the time we radically change, we will not notice because the change would have been very very slow.
656137
We have common ancestory.  We didn't come from them(that would be akin to saying that someone came from their brother or sister) related-Yes, decended from-No.\n\nThis question seems to be a curious religious "fish hook". In mentioning "came from" in the question it seems to indicate there is a certain level of acceptance that there is such a thing as decendancy, lineage etc(and that it is possible that it could happen between species).  The theory of evolution is nothing more than lineage over the loooong term.  Find some pictures of your ancestors, think about how many generations seperate you.  Set aside for a moment any preconcieved notions you may have, take a good look into the intelligent eyes of a chimpanzee.  Maybe we aren't that different after all.    \n\nDo you look like a monkey?  Yea, and I smell like one too.  ;)
194712
I think we stand on the cusp of understanding a great deal more about the human body thanks to the recent break throughs in technics and technology supporting Genetics research. Where that future takes us or it will come is hard to say. Even harder to predict is the sociological impacts these develops could bring about. Whatever happens I am sure medicine will take a giant step forward and lots of the ailments that plague us now will be resolved. The result is people will live longer  and live better.
190230
Humans did not evolve from apes nor the other way around.  However humans and apes do share a common ancestor.  This ancestor was not human or ape but it was the foundation from which they both evolved on two separate and distinct paths (evolutionary tracts). In fact most people have heard the apes are the closest species related to humans, but the truth is, Chimpanzees are the closet to us, genetically, physically and in mental capabilities. Apes and Humans diverged on separate evolutionary tracks about 8 million years ago while Humans and Chimps only diverged at about 5 million yrs ago.\nThere is a 4% genetic-sequence difference between chimps and Humans, which means that our DNA is 96% identical. But we did not evolve from one another, we just shared a distant, now extinct relative.  Hope this clears things up.
377776
No. If we came from monkeys, there would be no more monkeys. There would just be us!!  lol
428487
We are "Homo Sapiens Sapiens"... note that there are 2 Sapiens there, it is not a misprint.\n\nOther species of 'Primates' are not classified as 'Human' because they do not match the structure and development of what we now know as human.\n\nRealise that genetics are not the sole reason for choosing what is human (a banana ia actually 50% same as human in genetics). What defines a human is also the capability for commuicating with other humans, determining right from wrong, and operating in a way that other humans operate.\n\nContrary to popular belief, We are in no way descended from Neanderthals, they are a seperate branch of the evolutionary ladder. We are also not descended from monkeys, they are also a seperate branch. As such our ability to breed with such creatures is impossible... it is like mating a dog and a dolphin (which are very close on the evolutionary ladder).\n\nWe are descended from a now extinct group.\n\nThe question you should be asking is how far back do we go before we are no longer called human?
1028483
Life is about evolution to higher forms.  Humans destroyed the Neanderthals and we will be eliminated by the robots, after they become smarter than us.
540323
Demographers have come up with estimates ranging between 69 billion and 110 billion humans. This gives us a spread of 41 billion, a pretty formidable margin of error. \n\nA complication, among scientists at least, is that we do not know precisely when our primate ancestors became human. Many researchers have arbitrarily settled on one million years ago, even though our own subset of the genus Homo, H. sapiens sapiens, did not emerge until around 40,000 years ago.\n\nIf the paleolithic crowd (1 million years to 25,000 years ago) strikes you as too crude for admission to the communion of saints, subtract 36 billion or so from the figures above.
27810
Of course not, LOL.  One of the things that sets Homo sapiens apart from any other species is their ability to kill members of the same species even when their immediate survival is not threatened.  Thus are ability to forecast the future (and by extension percieve threats from 'enemies') is was makes up the bulk of our intelligence. Why would we give up such a distinction? ;)
1149838
Well since it is strongly argued among anthropologists that homo sapiens is not a direct descendant of neandertals but instead we are both ancestors of some lineage involving homo erectus.\n\nI guess that would be like taking a chimpanzee for a wife.  But then there are recent arguments that there was a lot in interbreeding between the two species and that the inferior neandertals genetics gave in to ours and they became extinct.\n\nMaybe it would be more like taking something that is maybe partway between a chimp and us.  Even though chimps are our closest living relatives, genetically speaking, they are certainly more different from us than neandertals were.\n\nTo answer your question, no! No, I wouldn't.
13453
Are you asking if human beings are called homo sapiens? If so, YES!!
621532
Be sure to check a few sources on this one, as you're starting with some misinformation, and getting some misinformation in response.  (Including ... don't take my word for anything either ... really, look it up, get a lot of reputable sources, and then the picture will become clearer).\n\nFirst, get away from the image that man evolved from what we now call "apes", like modern chimps.   We share a common ancestor, that looked very little like a modern chimp and very little like a modern or even early human.  This ancestor is not what we would now call an "ape."\n\nSecond, there is not a straight line of development from this pre-hominid ancestor to modern humans.  Branches happened many times, many of these branches died out (became extinct).  One of these extinct branches is the neanderthals.\n\n[Along these lines, a rule of thumb: Whenever you see a site or a book with that classic picture of a chimp on the left, with three or for increasingly erect figures marching proudly off to the right, with "Modern Man" marching proudly in front ... run like heck.  This is the *worst* picture you can imagine as it reinforces this wrong idea of man as a linear progression.]\n\nThird, Homo sapiens sapiens is a *subspecies* of Homo sapiens.  The only other subspecies was Homo sapiens idaltu, another now extinct branch.  So it is not quite correct to say that H. sapiens 'evolved into' H. sapiens sapiens.\n\nSummary: Evolution is not a line from one species 'evolving into' another.  Evolution is a tree ... with many branches, many of them (in fact most of them) dying out.\n\nI hope that helps.  Good luck.
588479
Yes.  The Human Race. They can be found all over the world.\n\nThe concept of Race, as dividing humans into separate components, almost different species, came about just before and during the Victorian age, as a reason for subjecting 'natives' to European rule.\n\nWe now know, that Genetically, we are probably one of the least genetically diverse creatures on the earth. Either 10,000 years ago (provided you are not a creationist) we humans were reduced to 1,000 individuals in total.. Either that or 100,000 years ago, we were reduced to 100 individuals.  If a creationist, it is even worse, in as we would have started with 2 individuals, 6000 years ago.\n\nIn any case, there is less genetic difference between the entire human 'race' than there is between two dogs born of the same litter from the same dog and bitch.  There is more genetic diversity within one troop of chimpanzee than there is within the entire human population.\n\nThe entire concept of race, is completely and utterly wrong, unless you look at us as a whole.  The only separate races, have died out long ago.  The Neanderthals were one.  Peking man was another.  Their genetic legacy doesn't seem to exist in modern man.\n\nSo look around, and remember, the man or woman next to you, is closer to you, than any other creature on the earth.
378305
i doubt it... the human race will also be evolving, which means that even though there might be a large current race, there will be several mutations from the norm
980858
Interesting questions. Since technology seems to be evolving alongside of us, I tend to suspect out bodies will adapt to deal with this. As most technology appears to be making our lives easier, or lasier (which will be more critical as I explain my theory), there is no doubt in my mind we will loose alot of our mobility. Since there is a large push towards working at home and automating everything, I think it is potentially possible we may loose the function of our legs and arms and the moving parts of out bodies. Having said that, it will be interesting to see how we will feed ourselves and reproduce. I suspect the theory discussed in the story, "The Time Machine", is not to far from the truth. It could be possible that we evolve into two different types of humans, similar to termites. We will have the workers; those that will grow our food and carry out the pysical tasks, The general populous which will be home bound and in control of mental actvities. Whether this happens in the next 1000 years seems unlikely since evolution takes much longer than this. But in reflection, considering the environmental change the globe is going through, other changes in the human form will need to be taken into consideration. Could it be possible that humanity will not evolve in the next 1000 years, but simply die out and a new species takes its place? This seems more likely since it has happened to many species throughtout the earths history.
151379
Is this what cloning basically is? Asexual reproduction? And are we headed toward making a "perfect" species?  \n*** does this mean humans will become extinct in the not too distant future?