Question for evolutionists.

[poorinspirit]

I have been wondering about this for awhile now. Looking at how the cells and body systems work together, it seems almost perfect. The way the eye operates and how each cell manages to stay alive. The way each body system works flawlessly in the overall system. So this made me wonder, if we really are evolving on a major scale, what could possibly happen next?

So here is my question: what do you think the human race might look like in 100 million years? What "upgrades" could we have?

P.S. For the sake of the discussion, assume that the human race will survive 100 million years.

Just to be clear, I don't believe in evolution, but I would like to answer the theoretical question based on pure fantasy.

Well, from my observation, I believe men would never evolve from this point in development, and indeed, I am hearing alot of evidence that the evolution climb has begun a descent. I'm sure you all heard it too .... when the women complain about the men behaving like neanderthals. That being the case...nuff said.

[~Julia~]

Ok....the Discovery channel had a special on this...ready ? We will all be dead...the sun will explode, followed by metors hitting the planet. Now some animals will survive, spiders..as big as houses ! Fish that fly ( no kidding ) their called " flish" and sharks...they live through everything, however they glow in the dark.

Why was I watching this ? I needed a good laugh!

Humans dont morph ! PERIOD

I was made in His image

Juls

[Rebmilc]

Grace to you,

CW,

Your whole premise would make sense. Except, that we are now killing off the weak at a faster clip than we have ever done in the short 6,000 year history of our Creation.

Peace,

Dave

Well, the original poster stated that we should assume mankind is still around in 100 million years. Even so, I doubt we are killing people off faster than the Holocaust, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.

Well what about Kosovo, Rwanda, the darwinism inspired murder of millions of her own people by russia? etc etc Should I carry on with the sad story. Open your eyes CW.

[ted]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13299.html:

"Intelligent Design" advocate Michael Behe of Lehigh University has a new book out titled The Edge of Evolution. One reviewer notes something interesting: In this book, Behe comes right and admits that common descent is a fact.

Behe writes that both chimp and human DNA manifest similar errors in pseudogenes. He then observes:

"If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now.

It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans."

Reviewing the book in the newsletter of the National Center for Science Education, David E. Levin, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, was perplexed. Behe now admits that the Earth is ancient and accepts descent with modification and even natural selection.

My emphasis. So the big chief honcho of Intelligent Design has seen the light.

I think the ID idea is bound to fall apart anyway. It's a clever little trick to water down what God has given us through Scripture "designed" to make creation soluble for the schools and communities. It cannot stand the test of scrutiny, but then again, it's only a "theory", isn't it?

t.

[Guest EcclesFruitcake]

Question for evolutionists., What is the next step?

So here is my question: what do you think the human race might look like in 100 million years? What "upgrades" could we have?

The questions show a misconception about evolution in that they allude to positive progress in the use of the words 'step' and 'upgrade'. I would suggest words like change or outcome respectively. (and 'there be' instead of 'we have'!!)

That being said the question is impossible to answer with any precision although what I can be sure of is that much would be the same.

A basic process of evolution is unknowingly suppressed by modern humans by our current societal makeup - to wit our environment. For an ability for a species to change first a method of replication is required this we still manage which requires the acceptance of variation (in genes including mutation) also taking place. However the principle of selection is continually impeded and this will halt the evolutionary process until some factors change.

A situation that could force prolonged selection of any particular trait is subject to speculation and hence no accurate answer can be given.

[wvpeach]

God is well able to do anything he wants.

Its true plants , people and animals evolve .

Its apparent a evolving creation was part of God's plan.

Not that man came from a fish or a monkey. God made man .

But no doubt about it our flesh evolves in the purest sense of the word.

But God has it all under control and in the end we will be returned to prefection .

That now that will really be evolving for mankind! .... LOL

[Guest EcclesFruitcake]

The questions show a misconception about evolution in that they allude to positive progress in the use of the words 'step' and 'upgrade'. I would suggest words like change or outcome respectively.

and isn't that the hallamark of the Darwin religion? it's so incredibly plastic, it just molds itself into whatever data comes along? that isn't science, or even a good hypothesis, it's non-falsifiable metaphysics

professing to be wise...they became fools

By the Darwin religion I assume that you mean evolution. The rudiments of the theory of evolution are rigid and simple like much good science. They do not define a path for how a species will change over generations but point out the causes of any adaptation. All I have put forward is that evolution depends at least on replication, variation and selection. This is easily falsifiable and to the contrary there has been many experiments which provide ample evidence.

For an example look up an ongoing 40 year experiment initiated by the late Dmitry Belyaev where the silver fox has been domesticated in around 35 generations. The experiment was not to show what I wish you to accept from it, that selection is indeed necessary for sustained change but that further changes (such as those in dogs) can occur when selecting for only one trait. This was also supported as the foxes now gave birth to both dwaves and giants and produced offspring with droopy ears among other characteristics.

My point stands in that as we master our environments (little natural selection) and do not adhere to eugenics our species is highly unlikely to evolve without new pressures/influences/ethics.

Back to the original question in 100million years I suspect that the traits between races (the characteristics that define them) would be less obvious and maybe even too blurred to distinguish any race but one...all else being equal.

[Brianna Nikki]

That's a very good question. I never thought about it. I wonder what their answer would be. Have you ever been to Answers in Genesis. If not you have to find when they are aroound your area next time. They are a really good organazation. Your "PS Statement" was really funny. Kudos!

~Brianna Nikki

[KeilanS]

That's a very good question. I never thought about it. I wonder what their answer would be. Have you ever been to Answers in Genesis. If not you have to find when they are aroound your area next time. They are a really good organazation. Your "PS Statement" was really funny. Kudos!

~Brianna Nikki

I have heard of Answers in Genesis and been on their website a few times and I agree they are a great organization. And I'm glad you found my PS funny.

P.S. I haven't seen you around! So welcome to worthy if you're new, and if you're not new, sorry I missed you in the past.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I want eye lasers.