Where Is Human Evolution Heading?

Reader Comments
Back to article

I believe the answer to "what will human beings become?" was given a long time ago in the phrase "man created in God's image (or do i have that backwards?)"
If evolution does promote survival of the species, and humans seem to be evolving in intelligence...if the "evolution program
were allowed to run for a very long time ("God is timeless, God is infinite") the end product should be something all-knowing (intelligent) and all-powerful (no threats to it's survival).
I suppose evolution theory predicts the existence of God.
(who would have thought?)

Mark Durden of GA 5:53PM August 15, 2008

Dear Olav, thank you, your disdain proves my point that evolution is your god that produced life. After all, as you say, explaining life is relatively simple. What is your formula? Life = earth + water + energy, correct? I haven’t seen that hit the science journals yet. That’s because it’s not science; it’s materialistic philosophy.
Well, at least you are religious too. You just place your faith in random, time-produced evolution (as you have chosen to define it) as the ‘force’ behind life rather than viewing life as the work of an intelligent Creator. And you still would have to explain where the earth, water and energy came from in the first place. We know by the law of entropy (I assume you know about that) that the universe is not eternal, so from whence did it come? Certainly it didn’t arise from nothing…or did it?
I suppose your arrogance isn’t shaken by the fact that you are in a distinct minority, where common sense tells most folks (including many scietists alot smarter than you or I) that complexity doesn’t arise without intentional, purposeful action. For beginners, please explain how evolution overcomes the same law of entropy that proves the universe is not eternal. Maybe USN&WR should have interviewed you. Sounds like you got it figured out. At least USN&WR says that science has not yet ‘pinned down’ how life began.
And a vast fossil record? You may need to read up on punctuated equilibrium, yet another page in the ‘evolving’ myth of evolution, and advanced by no less than Stephen Jay Gould, an icon of evolution, whose own empirical research showed that evolutionary gradualism was nonexistent in the fossil record and that statis dominates the history of most fossil species. I think your tree of life is missing a few branches, which is a nice way of way of saying you’re a few bricks shy of a load.
I hope you find the Truth.

Dan of PA 12:09PM August 05, 2008

"So, in some sense, science has become the proverbial sacred cow. If you dare challenge its assertions, theories, speculations or musings, you are dismissed as a religious zealot. That's the height of arrogance."
Oh the irony. The religious zealot just dismissed all of modern science with an argument from handwaving and then accuses the scientific community of being arrogant. Provide some evidence or consider your religion falsified.
"Unwittingly (or perhaps intentionally), the scientist (and this author is a case in point) inflames the dialogue with such assertions that the chimpanzee is our nearest cousin. Again, that statement is unproved and unprovable."
If you had bothered to educate yourself about this issue at all, you'd realize that this is "proven" as well as anything is "proven" in science. All scientific conclusions are tentative, but common descent is so well documented that saying it isn't real is almost like stating that you expect gravity to reverse tomorrow. It might happen, but only a fool would bet on it. You'd have to ignore the vast hominid fossil record, the genetic evidence of human chromosome #2 being a fusion of two chimp chromosomes, endogenous retroviruses being inherited along the branches of the tree of life in only one direction(Showing that you have to resort to a god that "designed" life using infectious parasites. Of course, the simple explanation is that you are simply wrong.) etc. And of course, genetic algorithms in computer science show that the evolutionary process works every day and can design features that are almost impossible for humans to program by hand.
That you think talking about common descent is "inflamatory" just shows that you are indeed a religious zealot who will ignore evidence staring your in the face to protect your falsified religion from reality.(Not that your religion is even an alternative explanation. "Magicman dunnit" is so removed from how we see reality working that it really is ridiculous. It is also "explaining" the existence of something relatively simple(life) with a hugely complex Mystery(god). In short, it's not an explanation at all.)

Olav Kalgraf 4:53PM August 04, 2008

You create a super kid in a test tube, it will kill us all. Just to prove it can.
Don't be idiots, the mind is the biggest creative evolutionary resistor we have, it can change the genome upon education of the procedure.
The bad traits we have is what effects us to be better... bad is good.
If scientist were good looking then they wouldn't have broken the atom because they would be to busy tied up in bed.
Smarten up.

Nome of AL 10:08PM August 03, 2008

It strikes me that the author has triggered a great deal of heat but very little light by mere mention of human 'evolution'. The problem is that different camps pour different meanings into that word, just as they may pour different meanings into the word species (life forms or 'kinds'). So, yes, evolution in terms of adaptations and variations within a 'species' or 'kind' most folks will acknowledge. On the other hand, any student of evolution would have to confess that the theory has evolved (pun intended) quite a bit to try to account for rise of new life forms. And to do so, the scientist must rest on eons of time, which quickly moves his assertions from the realm of science to pure speculation.
And while technically evolution is to supposed to deal with the rise of life forms, speculations about a ‘common ancestor’ only serve to fuel the debate by inferring, that for all intents and purposes, evolution is the ‘origin’ of life itself since it accounts for all present day life forms. That inference is ratified by those who distain any mention of God. And yet, any attempt to establish the phylogeny of pisces, terrestrials and aves, for example (and that’s just within the animal kingdom) is pure speculation. It is unproved and unprovable. Any hint of certainty is no longer science theory; it’s materialistic philosophy. And, I might add, amoral materialistic philosophy that sees no harm to in tinkering with genetic engineering to suit your fancy.
Unwittingly (or perhaps intentionally), the scientist (and this author is a case in point) inflames the dialogue with such assertions that the chimpanzee is our nearest cousin. Again, that statement is unproved and unprovable. The science of statistical probabilities precludes evolution from explaining the complexities observed at the cellular level, let alone the human brain and the emergence of reason, language and consciousness. Any attempt to bridge that gap is pure speculation, or must be based on credible revelation. Consider distinct, purposeful organs like the eye, ear, wings, the correspondence of male and female sexual parts, etc. Evolution? Please!
Science speculates about a big bang to explain how all that we observe came about from nothing. Others call it creation by an ultra-dimensional, infinite being called God. And He created them, males and female, according to their ‘kinds’…sounds like a (I mean, the) (G)ood book I know.
So, in some sense, science has become the proverbial sacred cow. If you dare challenge its assertions, theories, speculations or musings, you are dismissed as a religious zealot. That's the height of arrogance.

Dan of PA 2:25PM August 01, 2008

It is some useful things in the article though no absolute and very definit in the subject matter in application to a very fascinating subject.
The thing that I want to tell may intrigue and give some imagination to the thoughts in the early childhood to me that is in the back of my mind.
It was related to me that in the old days there were two persons and one of them said to the other where is the Angle Gabriel. The person sit down and draw a few lines and replied, " Angle Gabriel is not in the Heavens or on the Earth, it is eather you or me, as I am not the Angle Gabriel then it will be You."
It just shows to the Imagination or Prediction that how a person could be by the mind or in the ability, just very closer to the God, The Almighty in due respect.
I hope it will give some thoughts to a person and Mankind and make succeed in such a fascinating way in all the manner in Knowledge and Wisdom, by the leave of The Almighty.
Sincerely,
Saeed U. Din
Washington, DC.

Saeed U. Din of DC 2:25PM July 30, 2008

Well to be really honest about the debate between the Darwin exponents and the theological groups.....the theological group believes the statements in the bible which define man as made in the image of god and find it hard to believe that man evolved from the anthropoids....however there is still no history of the millions of years of the history and growth of humanity and lots of speculations about "The Fall of Man" and the various "Wars in Heaven" .....I for one am not sure that we are in fact the children of anthropoids...cordially...Steve..

Steve Roisman of CA 10:59PM July 29, 2008

The evolution intelligent design debate suffers from the logical "fallacy of the excluded middle."
www.starlarvae.org

Heresiarch 2:41PM July 29, 2008

Evolution and survival to mating age (of an individual or species) were closely linked before medical science acquired the ability to extend the life of those with otherwise fatal genetic weaknesses beyond adolescence.
If that's a good thing or a bad thing cannot be conclusively proven (and of course good and bad are subjective) but logically, on objective balance, it's probably the latter rather then the former. As with all artifical tinkering.
How ironic (or perhaps prophetic) if the less "enlightened" cultures of the world some day rose to prominence on the basis of their less-tinkered genetics? Blessed are the meek.

Michael of MD 2:29PM July 29, 2008

The article doesn't address the effect progressive science has on evolution. As medical techniques improve, improved land management increases the amount and quality of food, our society becomes less an less survival of the fittest. Many of the weak who previously would not have survived to puberty are now living to reproduce and pass on their traits.

Fred Hake of TX 2:07PM July 28, 2008