If evolution is true, what will humans evolve into next? How

>>7648481
irresponsible people tend to have more babies, so, thats where we are going

>>7648481
Into Asians.

we're done evolving

File: 4612416-6963610531-latest.jpg (72KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x598px

>>7648484
We need them Genocides!
It's how we evolve.

File: aliens.gif (2MB, 256x175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 256x175px

>>7648484
irresponsible people tend to die just as fast too.

>>7648481
the answer is simple

>>7648501
>irresponsible people tend to die just as fast too.
the important thing is that they spread their genes before dieing

File: 1438435685026.gif (858KB, 240x228px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 240x228px

>>7648504
having to teach the basis of evolution........

Evolutionary forces don't apply to us anymore.
Everyone, even our most incapable, are afforded a life expectancy that meets child bearing age.

>>7648508
>Everyone, even our most incapable, are afforded a life expectancy that meets child bearing age.
but still not everyone breeds, and not everyone has the same amount of children

whatever trait that causes people to have more offspring is selected for

evolution is constant, never stopping

>>7648481
>2011 by Steve Kaplan
That guy shamelessly copied a joke that has been floating around the internet forever.

>>7648508
Wrong. Evolution always takes place. Just the pressures for natural selection have changed.

It's unlikely humans will evolve in any significant way naturally in the near future, it's more likely to be controlled by genetic manipulation

>>7648481
Part of regards people without some degree of body hair as inferior, or as an evolutionary misstep. Something that possesses a clustering of traits only afforded the ability to exist by modern conditions and living in a rigidly engineered and manicured ecology.

I'm not sure where this idea stems from. It's like some mishmash of prejudice and intuition.

File: 4262462446.jpg (231KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1000x664px

In the future, anime will be real

>>7648530

baka desu senpai

> evolution

back to your containment board >>>/pol/

>>7648557
>>>/trash/

File: fedora4.jpg (33KB, 600x309px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x309px

Evolution isn't true you fucking fedora nerd.

Pic related: believes in evolution and not the HOLY BIBLE.

>>7648560
> evolution
> race

back to fucking >>>/pol/

>>7648560
>epic garbage man meme board

are you fucking serious, moot would never approve of this

4chan is doomed

>>7648577
oh, you mean the OP faggot picture of the guy becoming whiter?

File: 3ac7bf44be614fbdb4442406f1a04b48.jpg (66KB, 604x483px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 604x483px

>>7648488
>we're done evolving
>>7648508
>Evolutionary forces don't apply to us anymore.


There's no escaping Darwin.
As long as SOME factor makes some people more likely to reproduce, we're still evolving.

>>7648582
im sure its a neonazi pro-white propaganda

>>7648481

The next stop is/will be related to information processing in our brains, I guess.

We absorb more information in one day than a person from 200 years ago in a month. For that reason I wonder how will be the senility of our generation, and what mental illness may we get after decades of constant Internet usage.

>>7648526
That's dumb because you don't need body hair to survive in the wild. Asians have less body hair because they wore clothes to keep warm in cold regions.

File: wtf.png (254KB, 800x271px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 800x271px

>>7648481

We'll most likely genetically alter ourselves. Sometime within the next two decades. The goal is to enhance our life expectancy. Gene editing for fetuses is going to be a thing by 2020.

>>7648481
>If evolution is true
>If
>Denying empirical evidence and your own human genome to instead believe in a 2000-year-old book written before biology was anything more than witchcraft

>>7648481
I don't know how many times we have to go over this. Evolutionairy science is flawed. Base mutations in DNA do not ADD information to the genetic code, they SUBTRACt it. Therefore if you did mutations over millions of years, you would have to start out with a strand of DNA that would wrap around the earth approximately 6.4 million times in order to have enough genes to mutate down into all the variety we have today. especially since there are some organisms are so different from the others. and that's not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis)

>>7649632
>thinks evolution and biblution are the only two possibilities
You Americans truly are amazing

>>7649632
>there is no room for another paradigm shift in evolutionary theory
Okay.

>>7649710
you have to realize that the facts are the facts. If you look at the data, 100% of species are thought to be descant from a common acnestor. if you look at the dna you'll realize that the genes are all aligned in a certain way. however, you have to realize, DNA is an informational system. slightly more formally, "'DNA'"==[["INFORMATION"]]. however, that information can't "evolve" per say, but it has to come from somewhere, but not by the means of evolution biologically speaking. so if it comes about from some other source, you can speculate all you want, but it takes some empirical research to really demonstrate a CONVINCING origin. and that's just it. it's all in our minds. the idea of information. it doens't "exist" in the natural universe. biologically speaking, evolution can't "evolved," from itself(or from nothing), because it doesn't "exist"! however, as soon as this realization is made it has more reaching implications unto the rest of evolutionairy theory. therefore, if the concept of informational quality in DNA structures is introduced by humans, then so is the "narrative" process of evoltion throughout history. so it doesn't make any sense to talk about one species evolting into another diachronically, it only makes sense to talk about them in the most synchronic sense of the concept. as soon as you abstract away from these things, you realize that the entire dialogue of evolution can be arbitrarialized into a number of facets which aren't necessary for the procedure to take place, if at all, including "single common ancestor" theory.

>>7649710
>not even mentioning the MILLIONS of RNA stored inside each cell which you also have to evoutionairily account for (i.e. abiogenisis)
Oh, good.
For a second there it sounded like you WEREN'T drinking lighter fluid.
Thank God you're shitfaced.

>>7649731
quite the contrary my good lad, what a fine day to be dissertating at such a pleasantry of a question. this discernment is quiet unfortunately inccorrect as ever before has anyone seen, for it is quiet unlikely that such a question be ramificationable in the not-so-distant forthcomings; As you are undoubtedly salient, evolution has never been ascendantly validated, and therefore is not such as would most likely be considered in the upper eschelon of scientific inquirey as "true science." Though it may be the case that in such a day and age such as this, many do accept it as thus; lamentaciously; the various evidentialities of evolutionary "science" (requiring that it be called such is a misnomer; unfortunately) are the result of might we call a CONSPIRATION of the upper classes of under-educated scientists [of the 19th centuries]. Keep in mind that an animal such as an aardvark is said to have existed AFTER the time of an animalistic creature such as a Trilobyte. However, bear in mind the word-initial letters in each case. Aardvark: "A," trilobytte ("T"). If the trilobite existed prior to the aardvark, then why does aardvark begin with a letter prior to the first letter of trilobyte? If evolution were indeed most EFFICEINT, wouldn't the names of animals begin with the first letter of hte alphabet, then working it's way through to the later letters? we do not find this patter exant among those animals who exist supercilliously today.

>>7648481
Those aren't things we can predict. Possibly nothing since we are already well-adapted to our environment.

>>7649632
The Book of Genesis is a lot older than 2000 years, senpai.

>>7649818
>We can´t predict...
GTFO of /sci. You fucking retard monkey.

>>7648481
We don't even know what kind of equilibrium is going to be reached regarding technology, population and planetary resources in the next few centuries. There's too many factors to consider, especially with deliberate genetic manipulation in the mix.