is life still evolving to the extent that todays chimpanzee's could evolve into human form in millions of year
962413
I think they are only a couple of weeks behind some of the people round here
82957
Maybe. It seems that in a universe filled with billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, each with a potential to have a planet with life around it, that at least a few other planets would have to have life. It is not reasonable to suppose this is the only one where this ever happened. \n\nHowever, you asked about "creatures like humans". This is possible, but no where near as likely as there simply being "life" on other planets. The forces of natural selection ("evolution") can develop life in a myriad of possible shapes, and there is no guarantee that human-like lifeforms will evolve anywhere else. By some points of view, it is virtually impossible since a great many events happened over billions of years that resulted in us looking like we do. There might be life out there, and even intelligent life, but it is probably very different from us. \n\nHowever, another way to look at it finds the possibility that there is life like humans out there. Think about this: how many ways are there to get around: swimming, crawling, brachiating (swinging from trees), flying, walking. Maybe there are a few more that we don't see on Earth. Legs are one of the best ways of getting around, so it seems likely that, if there are many different worlds with life, a large proportion of those worlds have creatures with legs. This same logic applies to arms and hands--how many effective ways are there for manipulation of objects? Tentacles, cilia-like graspers, lobster claws, hands, and probably more. Still, something like hands at the end of flexible or jointed extensions like arms is a very good means of allowing a creature to grab things and shape them, so it seems likely that something hand-like will also appear. And then there are the obvious advantages of having the head on top of the body, for standing upright, for having two eyes set horizontally, etc... \n\nWhat I am getting at here is that there might be a million million ways that lifeforms can be shaped, but perhaps there are only a limited number of forms capable of inventing and building cities or ships or plows etc... Since the ability to create these things have such obvious advantages, life might often be "channeled" by the force of natural selection into the forms that allow technology, and therefore a human-like form might be seen more than just here on Earth.
44459
We evolved\nLifeforms, came into existance over a billion years ago, in the form of little more than self replicating molecules, with amino acids and proteins. Eventually by the prosses of natural selection, cells emerged, then multicelled organisms, animals, vertibrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mamals, primates, hominids, and finally, humans began to emerge only a million or so years ago, and civilization less than a mere ten thousand years ago. \nThe complexity of life may lead one to think that randomness could not creat such results. However, with quantum mechanics, one arrives at the conclusion that all possible universes exist, and with the anthropic principle, one sees that only in a rare universe in which evolution has been successfully accomplished can life contemplate these facts.
793751
Feasible (sp?), perhaps. Evolution to adapt to the environment will certainly take place. Obviously no one can say for sure that will happen, especially since we don't know what would genetically change.\n\nBut even so, that'll be a couple thousand years from now. Personally, I'm not concerned.
568942
Based on fossil, genetic, and molecular evidence, we have a long train of ancestors in our history.  Modern humans and other primates, such as monkeys, have a common ancestor that lived about 25 million years ago, and our ancestor would probably *not* be considered a "monkey."  Before that were early mammals, and before that mammal-like reptiles, the sauropsids. Before that were early reptiles, and amphibians.  And yes, before that, about 440 million years ago, one of our ancestors was a fish.  So you are correct.
716973
Evolution is one of those very dangerous subjects in which just knowing the surface of the subject can be misleading.  Humans did not evolve from monkeys.  We evolved from the ancestors of current apes.  Think of it like a fork in the road.  The apes took their path, and we took ours.  And all evidence does point to Darwin's theory of natural selection being correct.\n\nEdit:  To those of you saying that evolution only occurs over thousands of years.......this isn't necessarily true.  Over the last 50 years bacteria have evolved to become antibiotic resistant.  Since bacteria reproduce on a much shorter time period and they don't have the DNA repair mechanisms that eukaryotes have, their DNA mutates much more rapidly than ours.\n\nAlso, monkeys will NOT eventually evolve into humans in 1000 years as one person claimed.  Humans are not the tip of the evolutionary tree as some would like to think; we are just another branch on the evolutionary bush.
77393
You guys are brilliant!!\n\nFirst of all, more than one species can evolve from one- due to enviormental factors.  So no apes do not have to be extinct for us to evolve from similar creatures.\n\nSecond, it is only a matter of oppinion that humans are superior.  If humans are so smart, why do they continue to damage the enviornment and overpopulate the earth?  Isn't that like biting the hand that feeds you?  Where are we going to live when we destroy the earth?\n\nAnimals would be able to thrive without our intervention through natural selection and adaptation.  \n\nEvery other animal has evolved- Even humans evolved in the time since we have started keeping records.  We as a species have gotten taller and less hairy.  Noticably.  You can not convince me that humans didn't evolve.  All evolution is, is change.  Everything in this world changes.
271985
The evolutionary link between apes and humans was thought to have been found in 1994 in Ethiopia. The species was given the name Ardipithecus ramidus. It was dated to 4.4 million years ago. However there were earlier remains found to date back to 5.2 to 5.8 million years ago. However, these findings still recieve a lot of scrutiny in the anthropolgy world today.\n\nAnd anyone who says the Earth is 4000-5000 years old is an idiot and forgets that science is real and the proof is readily available!!!
442866
Some Dude gave a great answer-I would add, just for interest, that the human race has exceedingly little genetic variation compared to other animals.  A recent study showed that an average-sized chimpanzee colony has more genetic variation that the entire human race.  This is presumably because at some point in the recent past (150-200,000 years) our common ancestors existed, and evidently our race must have been very close to going extinct, leaving a very small pool of humans with which to populate the Earth.
1097944
According to current theories of macroevolution, humans did not descend from apes, monkeys, or any other species currently in existence.  A large amount of research (genetic comparisons, fossil record, comparative taxonomy, etc.) suggests that humans and modern apes had ancestors in common.  \n\nOf course, we would probably consider those common ancestors to be more like apes than humans.  (Perhaps apes would consider them to be more like us?)  This is not unexpected.  Different members of a species can and do differentiate along different paths.  Some paths are pretty straight: they don't change much over time.  Some paths wind all over the place.  The paths that survive are those that are best adapted to survive in their particular environment.  Humans are so successful as a species because we've developed the capacity to adapt to almost any environment on Earth.  That's evolution!\n\nIf you want to learn more, check out the link below!
1098346
Truth is, we are still Evolving, but evolution is a slow process barring environmental disasters (think Chernobyl or the meteor impact that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs).\n\nThe last two big DNA changes with humanity occurred 10,000 and 4,000 years ago, if _Science News_ articles are to be believed.  They were mainly dietary, involved changes to the digestive system so that mannose (tree nut sugars), lactose (milk sugars) and other plant and animal simple sugars could be digested by the human digestive system.\n\nAnd this was in the absence of either civilization (which may or may not slow down pro-survival pressures) or pollution (which may speed them up).\n\nBefore that?  You have to look at some of the dietary and bloodstream changes between ancestral Africans (bitter-taster versus non-taster, and the platelet changes responsible for sickle-cell anemia) and others that occurred in part to confer extra resistance to malaria.\n\nNot that any of this matters if you refuse to believe in physical evidence gathered by genetic research or paleontology....if you willfully refuse to heed reason nothing *will* convince you.  Not a flame, a statement of human nature, really, sad as it is.
1004804
The thought is that life (all of it) came from a single organism and over a long time has become what we can see today. An example i can think of that has occurred over a short enough time span that we can use would be Human intelligence, size relative to geography, and skin color relative to geography.  We as humans are smarter today than generations past, for instance modern man 10000 years ago did not have the smarts we have today, do you believe it is due to school or human mental advancement(evolution). There is an extremely noticeable difference between natives of different geographical locations. Darker skin in the hotter regions and lighter skin in the regions with less sun per year. ie Africa and Europe  The theory is very well developed and provable back to a certain point.  And NO ONE said that a GOD didn't strike the first amino acid with the lightening to start the evolution.
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.
774372
Since this is the Science section:  The most widely held *scientific* theory ... accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists ... is that humans evolved from an earlier form of primate, and split from the other primates about 6 million years ago.  \n\nThe defining characteristic that led to the development of humans, and further divergence (separation) from the other primates, is an enormous expansion of the cerebral cortex part of the brain, (which may have been largely accelerated by the development of very articulate vocal cords).
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.
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.
338783
I don't consider technology the new evolution.  I see it more as the only evolution, at least since the beginning of recorded history.  Since the beginning of recorded history has human anatomy adapted to improve quality of life, or increase the rate of survival?  No.  Technology is the only thing that has provided those things.\n\nIn another light, technology may be the only human evolution, but it is also approaching a point where it can realistically be discussed in terms of it having its own evolution.  A point where it is no longer an aid to human functioning but instead begins replacing human functioning.  Just as mammals eventually replaced the dinosaurs, ala The Matrix, Terminator, etc.