Do u think that evolution...?

Question

will ever reunite again??

Answer 1

If you are asking whether or not different species that at one time were not differentiated as such will someday evolve in such a way that they will once again be able to mingle and produce viable offspring, I'd have to say probably not.

I mean, it's possible in a statistical sense, but it's so unlikely it might as well be impossible. There are examples of covergent evolution, where two different organisms adapt in very similar ways from different ancestor populations, but that's not the same thing.

Answer 2

If you mean reignite for men or animals the answer is the same.  It happens over long periods.  Over short periods you might see a change in frequency of some characteristics but not enough to see the final direction.  It is happening all the time, just over a time frame that is not normally viewable in a person's life.

Answer 3

If you are asking if evolution will act upon our earth's species again, well then you are assuming that it stopped, in fact, it hasn't and continues to work on the genetics of every species on the planet generation to generation.  So, "will it ever reunite again??"... It does every time another baby is conceived.  That is why every one of the more complex multi-cell life forms is unique, we humans are all a new combination of genes that was never made that way before we came into existence and will never be made again.  If that newly conceived baby finds success as it ages and reproduces more then the average then it will pass on half of its genes into each of it's offspring.  If that baby that was conceived had a faulty gene sequence and miscarriages then it will not pass on any of its genes.  Every conception is a "reuniting" of the evolutionary process!  Reproductive fitness, natural selection, survival of the fittest, call it what you want, but it is a mechanism in constant application and when all life on the planet is taken into consideration it "reunites" trillions upon trillions of times every second as our planet is rife with microbial life which multiplies and evolves at an impressive rate.  

If by evolution "reuniting" you are referring to speciation, well this is still occurring constantly as well.  Again more apparent in microbial life (antibiotic resistant bacteria is becoming increasingly common), but even birds and insects are well documented to becoming "reproductively" isolated from their founding species and experiencing evolutionary change towards their new distinct environment such that this new group no longer, at the very least, sees itself as being reproductively compatible with it's founding species and visa versa.  For instance, there are ring species in birds (1 species of two visually distinct birds which reproduce in some areas but not in others where they are seen as 2 species because they don't reproduce), which are in the process of speciation where physical differences prevent reproduction with one another in some areas.  Of course Darwin's observations of so many finch species which radiated to fill so many unique niche over a very short period of time also comes to mind, but such processes of speciation is much more common and accelerated in confined and competitive niche environments where some groups can quickly adapt and consequently experience speciation within those individuals which exploit that niche.  Such an environment was probably responsible for our drastic speciation into the first hominid species, and I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the "mixed" hypothesis of evolution as contemporary anthropologists subscribe to.  If it was then one of our closest relatives, the Chimpanzee, should also be experiencing such a pressure to adapt bipedalism because some troops of chimpanzee live in this same environment and should be being submitted to this same pressure and experiencing similar adaptations if this environment truly was the cause.  Instead it is observed that Bonobos, who live in a swampy arboreal environment, show much more incidence of bipedalism.  These two species (bonobos and chimpanzees) who are equally as close to our common ancestor from 6-7 mya continued to evolve and experienced their speciation 2-2.5 mya due to the changing course of a river which isolated their common ancestor into two groups.  The simple difference between one living in an arboreal/swampy vs. arboreal/savanna environments has now resulted in them being quite different, not only in their morphological expression but also in their cultural adaptations to these environments.  Due to gene flow between our human populations it is extremely unlikely that we will experience speciation because of reproductive barriers between separate human populations, but that is also not to say that we are not continuing to evolve as a population as a whole.  In discussing this it is interesting to look at the spread and frequencies of genes in our modern human populations.  Most commonly this is seen in the studies of mtDNA and YDNA haplogroups, but there are also genes, like MCPH1 and ASPM which were discovered by Michael Lahn at the University of Chicago and have shown a significant level of positive selection for some reason or another and have spread throughout most of the Globe at different levels which also show how natural selection can dissipate beneficial genes throughout much of our human population in a relatively short period of time in evolutionary terms.  Anyways, enough such changes and we might become a "new" species without even realizing it simply because we could pick up enough changes over the next 100,000 years that we could no longer be reproductively compatible with our current species, but this would only be known if a pocket of today’s humans were held static over this same period.  Since we are evolving collectively at this point such distinct speciation from a founding population would no longer be possible since isolation is not occurring within our species.  Since most changes are quite small we could become quite unique, as a species from where we are today, and not really understand how this would play out in terms of reproductive compatibility.  Take for instance our closest relatives again, the chimpanzee and the bonobo.  They appear to be relatively similar after their 2-2.5 my of separate evolution and one might even assume that they might be reproductively compatible.  Unlike their distinction with humans they do have the same number of chromosomes, a similar morphology, similar lifecycles.  In the wild it is unlikely that the two would even integrate due to their cultures being so distinctly different now, so this reproductive isolation would continue between these groups even if the river that splits them were to dry up... but the question still begs itself, are these two species reproductively compatible?  I think that their classification of species is the correct one and that their genetic separation is far enough apart that they would no longer be able to reproduce offspring with one another, but after 100,000 years humans could evolve enough to have a similar split between who we are now and who we are then and beg the same question, just as this question has been asked concerning the out of Africa vs. the multiregional interbreeding hypothesis in the spread of Homo sapiens, which represented a 250,000 year separation between the common ancestor of Homo Neanderthal and Homo sapiens sapiens to when they started co-habituating with one another some 80,000 years ago in the middle east, this is much less then the 2 million years of separation between Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and the genealogical evidence is more supportive of the total replacement theory, although Michael Lahn likes to propose that his 37,000 ya gene could have come from Neanderthal interbreeding, although that is complete conjecture and is only supported by the convenience of co-habitation in this point of time between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal in Europe where this genes origin is said to have occurred.  In fact the MCPH1 gene has actually no factual tie to the Neanderthal species.  This gene could just have easily have evolved within the Homo sapiens species independently and then spread from its original appearance in European Homo sapiens.  On top of this, despite his specification of being introduced 37,000 ya, his greater body of work actually provides a range for it's introduction, I think it was 12,000 - 60,000 ya and 37,000 provided itself as a convenient middle point in this range where co-habitation conveniently coincided.  Anyways, I have rambled on about this for quite long enough and I hope that you have enjoyed this discussion on the continual process of evolution.

Answer 4

I think that the Universe expanding is God exhaling and when he inhales, what I think you are saying will happen...does this make sense?