Man is Evolving into...

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you believe in macroevolution, what do you think man will evolve into next?

Still be humans.

 

[timothyu]

85% of the world are followers and 1% leaders. The rest are a threatened species. Followers don't evolve and leaders don't like change.

 

[Speedwell]

Still be humans.

And still be apes and still be primates and still be mammals and still be vertebrates and still be animals, etc.

 

[Shemjaza]

85% of the world are followers and 1% leaders. The rest are a threatened species. Followers don't evolve and leaders don't like change.

Sounds like you are describing the allele frequency of the species. Those things can change if the situation/environment changes. That's evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Macroevolution would require diversification into a new, separate species. Given the lack of barriers to populations with respect to gene flow, it doesn't seem like that will happen any time soon.

The only way I could see it really happening is if we started colonizing other planets/moons and a population was cut off and allowed to evolve independently.

 

[xianghua]

Sounds like you are describing the allele frequency of the species. Those things can change if the situation/environment changes. That's evolution.

so basically any genetic gene in the population is evolution? the problem with that definition is that almost every creationists will agree with this situation so basically you are saying that about 100% of creationists also believe in evolution.

 

[renniks]

If you believe in macroevolution, what do you think man will evolve into next?

I think man is devolving. We no longer have basic skills, but we are pretty good at having computers do our work for us.

 

[timothyu]

I think man is devolving. We no longer have basic skills, but we are pretty good at having computers do our work for us.

Turn off the electricity for a month and 85% of North America dies. The only thing that has evolved is our dependency on fallible items. That's just stupid and nature deals with stupid by eliminating it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think man is devolving. We no longer have basic skills, but we are pretty good at having computers do our work for us.

That's not devolving. That's called becoming more reliant on technology.

 

[renniks]

That's not devolving. That's called becoming more reliant on technology.

Same thing as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Same thing as far as I'm concerned.

No, it's nothing the same. Devolution would be humans becoming more like basal apes; i.e. our brains and cranial structure becoming smaller, our limbs, hands, feet and fingers becoming more suited for climbing trees than they are now, etc.
That's devolution.

Becoming more reliant on technology is just... laziness.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Becoming more reliant on technology is just... laziness.

Or making use of the tools available to us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Or making use of the tools available to us.

Aye. Still laziness.

 

[timothyu]

Aye. Still laziness.

A stick and stone are readily available without technology. Golf will never die.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A stick and stone are readily available without technology. Golf will never die.

Or baseball. Or cricket.

 

[pitabread]

so basically any genetic gene in the population is evolution? the problem with that definition is that almost every creationists will agree with this situation so basically you are saying that about 100% of creationists also believe in evolution.

Indeed they do.

In fact, young Earth creationists are hyper-evolutionists because they need evolution to create millions of species in only a few thousand years.

 

[xianghua]

In fact, young Earth creationists are hyper-evolutionists because they need evolution to create millions of species in only a few thousand years.

why do you think that we cant get so many species in few thousands years? as i said in the past- we have empirical evidence that speciation may take about less then 100 years:

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching new species evolve in real time

so lets assume a tipical speciation event= 100 years. under that situation we can get millions of species in a very short time.

 

[Speedwell]

why do you think that we cant get so many species in few thousands years? as i said in the past- we have empirical evidence that speciation may take about less then 100 years:

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com

Watching new species evolve in real time

so lets assume a tipical speciation event= 100 years. under that situation we can get millions of species in a very short time.

That wasn't the point. The point was that creationists must believe in speciation because there are more species alive now than the number of "kinds" which would have fit on the Ark, that's all.

 

[xianghua]

That wasn't the point. The point was that creationists must believe in speciation because there are more species alive now than the number of "kinds" which would have fit on the Ark, that's all.

thats not pitabread claim: "they need evolution to create millions of species in only a few thousand years". he clearly talked about the time problem.

 

[Speedwell]

thats not pitabread claim: "they need evolution to create millions of species in only a few thousand years". he clearly talked about the time problem.

Well, it is a problem because there is no evidence that such a thing happened--the physical evidence just isn't there--and even more striking that it could have happened during historical times and nobody noticed or mentioned it. But no; Pitabread's point was that creationists not only have to believe in evolution too (and some do and are quite happy to admit that evolution of the "kinds" happened after The Flood) but that it would have to happen even faster than science supposes.