Why aren't we still evolving?

Question

If all the creatures around us today including us evolved into what they are today why aren't we all still evolving? Or are we?

And if we came from chimps then why are there still plenty of chimps around?

Answer 1

Good question. According to Darwin, all creatures evolved from something including human benigs. Its a false theory. Human never evolved from any previous form etc. Your question just proved darwanism wrong.

Answer 2

We did not come from chimps. Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor.  Recent DNA research, though, has revealed that rather recently in terms of evolution, our human bloodline mingled a bit with chimpanzees, meaning, we did interbreed for a period.  We continue to evolve.  There is no ending to evolutionary processes.  For example, just 8000 years ago, most Northern European humans were still rather hairy. Evolutionary changes are very, very slow, usually.  What gradual changes do you think might be happening to us right now?

Answer 3

We are still evolving, it's just that evolution is a very slow process. Look at people's eyebrows for example. If you look at old paintings and sculptures and compare the eyebrows of people's nowadays, you can see that there is a tendency of eyebrows getting higher.

Answer 4

we are still evolving the appendix in the human body is shrinking thats evolution also chimps are still around because both chimps and humans are evolved from a common ancestor from way back in the past

Answer 5

Evolution is difficult to see in action because it's such a slow process, so it may appear as if it isn't still happening, but you can find evidence of it when looking in our history.  The problem is, often -- especially in humans -- it's such a gradual process that people may not really recognize the "signs" of how we are changing over time.  There are also people who say that the changes we've undergone in the past few thousand+ years are not really evolution, but "adaptation," or other terms.

There are a few different traits that people talk about when discussing whether we're currently evolving.  Wisdom teeth, our receeding jaws/jawline, the appendix are all physical traits, but a larger area that isn't as easy to "see" is disease resistance.

For example, it's been documented that many people living today have alleles that offer resistance to bubonic plague.  There were people who didn't catch the plague as easily and they and their children were able to live through it.

As to the chimp question, I believe others have covered that part fairly well already.

Answer 6

Who says we aren't still evolving?  We are! :)   Evolving is an ongoing expansion and tailoring of who we are and what adaptations we gain as we advance.

Imagine: what will humans look like, act like, and be able to do 500 years from now, 1,000 from now, 3,000 years from now if we are still here?  It's fascinating, no doubt, but certainly, we will not be the same as we are today.  Notice that even in recent historical eras, evolution is measured and evident. People were of shorter, smaller stature even in the Victorian era (furniture and clothing made during that time is smaller than today's standards).  Hope this helps! :)

Answer 7

Slow process. Now, we have increased in height. People in the times of, let say, Julius Caesar, were shorter. We have increased 5 inches in 2,000 years. By the year 3,000 we'll be 5 inches more. Provided we still in existence if not destroyed in some of our dumb inventions like nuclear weapons.

Answer 8

ask the 5' European giants 300 years ago...

Answer 9

We humans did not "come from chimps" but we share ancestors with 'em.

I'm still evolving. Cannot speak for others.

Answer 10

We're not from chimps - chimps and humans share common ancestry.

We're all evolving, still.

well, most of us, anyway...

Answer 11

We are still evolving. The process is very slow and dependent on the selection pressures. Some changes have happened, but they are not necessarily noticed. The major changes may not be obvious for many generations and given that Homo sapiens have relatively long gaps between generations this would take thousands of years.

As has been noted by others we did not come from chimps. Chimps and the other livings apes share a common ancestor with us so in taxonomy terms we're more like cousins than children. Chimps are still around because they are well suited to their environment. Various adaptations, both physiological and behavioural, that they possess such as relatively high intelligence that allows the use of tools and coordinated team hunting, have allowed chimpanzees to survive in a niche without being out competed for food, shelter or territory.

Answer 12

You know there is something called a 'falsifiable' theory. Except for rather obscure things like viruses and bacteria - all of which seem to me somewhat pointless - the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. In other words - all creatures which have made it here have made it because they are unsuccessful, and if they weren't successful, they wouldn't have made it here. That goes for those with 2 arms, 4 or a hundred, man, giraffe, mosquito - snake, lion or lizard.

The reason why we are not evolving today is because we no longer reproduce according to the success of our species. If anything, we are devolving. We reproduce no matter what. Perhaps there is a bit of evolution here or there, but basically we reproduce based on romance and nothing to do with the success of the species. Suppose someone was mutated to have extra intelligence, if that is even possible.  It is unlikely they would reproduce any more than anyone else, and it is unclear if the extra intelligence would produce an atom bomb and destroy our species or a fusion reactor to save it.

Answer 13

Because evolution is c**p, I've asked myself the same question.

Answer 14

As I believe we are not evolving due to no change in our enviorment.  When the ice age hit it caused us to adapt and evolve so we could live.  Or as we started to stand up straight so we could have an advantage in survival as our race expanded giving us a chance to somehow see or even escape from dangers that were a new

Answer 15

Evolution takes thousands of years. We could be evolving right now, but it is such a slow process we won't be able to actually notice it till much later.

Answer 16

So why did you stop evolving? Getting out of the rat race eh?

Answer 17

We are still evolving.  In another 100,000 years the parts of our bodies which no longer have a useful function will evolve away.  We won't have toes.  Or probably hair, either.

Answer 18

we are evolving, its just that the human population is so great that it will take a long time, any significant change in one individual would be like loosing a drop of food dye into a swimming pool, once wont make a big difference, but after many many drops they add up eventually

sorry if this is confusing, just my little way of explaining the slow process of it

Answer 19

Because we DIDN'T 'evolve' from from one species! Just because we share SIMILAR gene structure does not mean we are the same.

If we evolved . . . Then where is the proof? Why does anthroplogy and paleontology show such large gaps between species and no 'inbetween' stages? What happened to them? They didn't exist. MACRO evolution.

Answer 20

we didn't come from chimps; chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, which is now extinct.  humans, and every other species, could certainly and probably are evolving, it just takes time.

Answer 21

I like this question because I've been thinking the same thing. I think it's because We continue to reproduce and survive there's no peradators or diseases that have wiped us out and plus our environment is the same.

Answer 22

Evolution is driven by the environment. Without environmental pressures, there is little to drive the natural selection mechanism. Humans, however, have greater control over their environment that any other creatures, use our brains and technology to overcome our natural weaknesses and our envirnoments.

Consider this, normally. bad eyesight would be selected against, but because we can produce glasses, contacts and Lasik, humans with bad eyes can reproduce, leading to more and more people with bad eyes, thus our technology is evolving humans with more defective genes.

We will not see significant changes in humans until there are significant changes in our environment, or we find some bizarre competitor for our biological niche.

Answer 23

Darwin's theory was just a theory. According to the ancient Vedas we the soul evolve not the body. Animals eat sleep mate and defend as do humans.  Our souls evolve from one species to another, when we get to the human form of life then we have the intelligence to question our existence and relationship to God. Monkey will always be monkeys and apes apes. and humans humans. Scientists have already proven evolution wrong.  For information read Forbidden archeology and The Hidden History of the Human Race. By Michael A. Cremo. They have heaps of evidence proving humans where way more intelligent even millions of years ago in every way and they didn't look like apes or cavemen. Science is keeping this evidence hidden because it proves so many other of their theories wrong as well.

Answer 24

We ARE evolving: into very weak creatures that would not make it without our intellect.

We didn't exactly come FROM chimps.  They are our closest relatives, biologically speaking.  Chimps and humans both come from a common ancestor, which I can't think of right now but I think it's Proconsul.

The part about our evolving is my opinion, not fact.  I think that if we carry on the way we're doing, the future is not looking well for us.

Answer 25

As pointed out by others, we did not evolve from chimpanzees, but from a common ancestor where both of our species now represent 6-7 million years of disparate evolutionary paths to fill completely different niche.

To answer your question we must first address what evolution is.  Evolution is conditional on variability within a population, and how this variation is selected for within the environment via reproductive success. Fortunately for humans we are the most generalized mammal on the planet and as of such have found a nearly universal sucess throughout most of the environments that we encounter. That said it is difficult to imagine a figurative future environment that would be different enough to allow natural selection to act upon the effected population for long enough to create any kind of significant morphological change in our species.  This is why we "appear to not be evolving", but this is far from the truth.  We as a species are truly defeating the few acts of natural selection that are acting upon us with advances in medicine. With this in mind the changes that might occur could be much like your thanksgiving Turkey, a creature who has been put under so much unnatural selection that it no longer is capable of mating due to humans artificially breeding them for nothing else but size. If humans were no longer present to do this service for Turkeys, they would go extinct. Through "unnatural selection" humans are doing very similiar things to themselves. Undoubtedly a woman who goes in for infertility medicines has a greater chance of having children who will require the same treatments to reproduce.  Children that have severe enough allergies/asthma that may have killed them in the past will now grow to a reproductive age with the assistance of asthma/allergy medicines will produce offspring who have higher occurances of asthma/allergies. This is a bit of a concern, seeing as at the same time we are making ourselves more susceptible to asthma and allergies we are also taking actions that are converting the environment that we will have to adapt to, to contain more contaminants. If it gets serious enough those who are persevering with the assistance of medicine may be the first to become too sick to be reproductively successful such that the power of natural selection might overbear unnatural medical selection once again in this area? Some areas where medicine is making slow progress, like cancer and Aids, there will be a continued true evolutionary process. Already there have been a few case studies that have discussed a truckstop in Africa where the prostitutes, despite an alarming exposure rate, are not catching or dying from Aids suggesting that natural selection has already discovered a variant within one ethnic group that appears to have selected for white blood cells which are not as susceptible to the AIDS virus, much like sickle cell trait does the same red blood cells resistance for Malaria. As this gene now becomes more prominent due to the pressure of AIDS we may also see the advance of a new genetic disorder if a person is born with two recessives, much like two recessive copies of sickle cell results in anemia instead of trait. If people do begin to die from a worse environment that causes increases in Asthma/Cancer/AIDS, undoubtedly natural selection will find many variants within our population, which now far exceeds 6 billion people, and will come up with the needed solutions to combat these problems so that enough people make it to a reproductive age. If there is also enough disruption in the sociopolitical structure such that medicine is no longer readilly available, at least to the poor, then natural selection will also reclaim the realm of fertility and those who can't reproduce naturally, won't. So depending on what our actual environment and our sociopolitical and medical environment has in store for us, our aesthetic changes will be minimal, although there will be significant microbiological changes, seeing as that seems to be the only realm of our existance where Darwin's natural selection still has a footing (antibiotic resistant bacteria, AIDS, possibly cancer if the uv becomes harsh enough that it begins to affect our reproductive success on a larger scale?)  So as you can see from my analysis, we are evolving and we will continue to evolve, just more on a micro scale rather then a macro scale.

To address some of the previous points.  Becoming taller is since medeival times is not evolution.  It is a tribute to having more sustanance available throughout our lifespan in modern times.  Well having more nutrition should allow us, if we chose to, to have more children in our lifespan, those countries which enjoy good nutrition have also reduced their reproductivity through the use of contraceptives.  If you fed medeival Europeans well throughout their lives then they would have been much taller and would have been able to have birthed more children.  As medieval Europeans were managing to birth many children anyways, however, poor diet did not seem to be selecting against them that heavily.  Interestingly their was a mini ice age that started in 1250, and it was during this time coupled with the introduction of the bubonic plague and cholera where a reduction in European population was evident.  In fact at times like this small bodies that require less daily calories would have been the most successful in evolutionary terms, yet once our nutritional inputs were returned to our species a growth spurt occured.  Some of this growth could be attributed to sexual selection and this would be evolutionary, but it is my belief that malnutrition was exhibiting itself in the population and this was resulting in the reduced stature (genes for height were present) and once the nutritional inputs were returned to the population the genes that bring height now had the materials to express themselves again.  I'll call this "gene hibernation" because the conditions neccessary for these genes to express themselves became temporarily withdrawn.  That is not to say, however, that an increased stature has not been selected for over a longer period, but I don't believe it has over the last 750 years.  Their are however gene traits that can be seen in our DNA as a response to the Bubonic plague and also for Cholera which was prevalent during these times.  Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder when two recessive alleles are aquired and was aquired in our genetics as a response to Cholera.  The single allele of this diseases is genetically non-detrimental to the body while at the same time giving significant protection from cholera.  So again, this period of history shows significant micro adaptation but nominal macro adaptation.

Answer 26

First, we only share a common ancestor with chimps.  We did not evolve from them.

Second, we are not evolving because we would rather adapt than evolve. According to Darwin, the strong survive and thrive while the weak die off.  Such is not the case with humans.  The reasons? Humans, being the smart creatures that they are, have created glasses to help them see, prosthetics to help them walk, nets to help them fish, etc and so forth. We have put a damper on our evolution due to all the tools we have created for ourselves.   Therefore, we may be evolving, but it is at a much slower rate than the creatures around us.