Can we evolve anymore?

Maybe... Because we dont have to adapt to the enviroment, it adapts to us in some ways. There ir nothing to escape from that kills "non adapted" humans

>>9104154
I'm guessing that any future form of adaptation will come from selective breeding pressures. Probably (hopefully) to create smarter and smarter generations of humans

>>9104154
im guessing your talking biological evolve in which cause no, evolution happens only to adopt in a environment and humanity doesn't need to evolve anymore however it is now us who has to evolve ourselves.

>>9104154
Humans are evolving. Our teeth have changed since medieval times because we cut our food with forks and knives now

File: 1cf0075020009bb0cb690c6ef28d0e27ba343d10181008ef037b60fd640d0a86.jpg (87KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x300px

kid u dont even know

>>9104154
Evolution isn't always triggered by a survival need. Genetic drift just happens randomly. Why did the Irish get red hair? Shit like that. Changes just happen.

No. Our necks are very vulnerable. Looking down too long causes headaches! We aren't that perfect.

>>9104208
future humans might not have knecks. interesting thought

>>9104154
Of course, you can't stop it mate. There is still selective pressures too, the world isn't purely egalitarian in all things.

>>9104154
Evolution does not have an end goal and does not have a peak. Evolution is not a progression towards some "ideal" state like you seem to think it is.

>>9104154
A change in environmental factors would change what is beneficial according to the selection process.

Selective breeding is already happening to some degree. Intelligence, athleticism, attractiveness, financial achievement, etc.

The problem with these "artificial" selection processes is that we do not know what our future environment will be; we are superstitiously placing wagers on traits that we think will be beneficial in a future we cannot predict.

That fact that it takes over a decade for humans to reproduce means our evolution is very slow.
Bacteria can do it in a few hours.

Mass extinction events are a pretty good catalyst for evolution. Imagine a disease that infects everyone but only 1% of the people have the genes to survive it. The 1% becomes 100% when everybody else dies off.

Another barrier is that some traits might require many different mutations to happen at the same time. Imagine growing a different bone structure (an extra arm for example) but not having the genes for the muscles or nerves to utilize the new structure. It would just be extra dead weight. Partial steps towards some advantageous traits might, by themselves, be detrimental to survival.

The less mutations required to "fall into place" to achieve some trait, the more likely it can be achieved. A continuity of utility along the entire path of mutations seems necessary.

Genetic engineering looks like the only viable method capable of "jumping" some of the discontinuities of utility to get all of the necessary mutations at once.

But even with good genetic engineering, we will still face the problem of superstitious artificial selection mentioned above.

>>9104154
>>9104249

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

real-time mutation

>>9104190
source? this sounds absurd and retarded and I do not believe you.

We will continue evolving with sexual selection.

Eventually we will only have teen mothers

>>9105352
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/how-forks-gave-us-overbites-and-pots-saved-the-toothless/267252/