Ever consider the reason humans havent evolved is because we have taken natural selection away. We doctor the sick. Kids born with deformities and abnormalities that would perish young at one point are now nurtured and grow to reproduce. It is no longer survival of the fittest so we havent needed to evolve. Instead we evolve technology. Maybe we will evolve technology to the point where it surpasses us. Then kills us. Then they will in the distant future forget their origins and come up with stories to satisfy their curiosity and we will be their long dead god.

Maybe thats what happened to us. Maybe god is dead.

Seriously? Me saying "someone" or "random dude" is blatant hyperbole, care to ACTUALLY respond now, instead of cherry picking random things out of my argument and avoiding any real substance? The fact is what that person said means literally nothing. If Richard Dawkins himself went on TV tomorrow and starting going on and on about how evolution is bullshit it would mean literally nothing towards the case of Evolution. The person you cited stated his opinion on what the eye "seemed" or "appeared" to be, no fact at all was stated in what he said. Saying that something seems or appears like something else doesn't point out a flaw in anything, now if he had observable proof of what he said that would be groundbreaking. But he doesn't, does he?

Just did, here's what I think about it:

The alien theory is very interesting, but not much factual evidence is supported for it. Instead people piece together things like Egyptians figures and attribute them to aliens when the fact is, we've been creating mythological creatures since the dawn of the imagination. Take movies and scyfy books for example. If you know more about the theory, I'd love to hear more. I'm not very knowledgeable on it tbh.


You guys are drastically overestimating evolution, it took billions of years of microevolutionary genetic changes to get us where we are today. To expect any macroevolutionary changes in just the hundreds of years we've been homo-Sapiens is 100% assinine. It took billions of years for Austrolopithicus to evolve into Arlopithicus, then it took the lengthy amount of time to get us to the homo-sapiens taxonomy. Microevolution is even faster than macroevolution (Things like getting taller as a species, or getting faster) and that is happening all around us. Go google some statistics people, microevolution is evident all around us. Any real macroevolutionary change has yet to surface, but the fact that Wolves evolved into common dogs is a blatant example of macroevolutionary changes to the point that two separate species were created. Hell, a tadpole grows legs and arms for gods sakes. For you guys to state that we would have observed something so far is like saying "My 2 month old baby hasn't grown to a functional human in 8 months, why can't he drive a car yet?"

We don't walk, machines transport us where we need to go.

We don't need to hunt, we've supermarkets to go to get our food.

We don't need to create fire to keep warm, we've got homes with heating.

Man will never evolve because we've become far to lazy and have no need to evolve.

@Crysis ok cool i respect your opinion, i think It's just all a massive puzzle an if people wanna know the truth they gotta dig deep an connect the dots.

This is an interesting premise, but not very factual.

Evolution will NEVER stop, just because our evolutionary selection is being halted by our technological and societal advancements doesn't mean that there aren't other facets in which natural selection will improve us, and those societal/technological advancements could even give way to different/new natural selection proverbial "doors to open". Everything is "evolving". Every single time a new thing is born there could be ways in the future that natural selection makes it easier. But we are halting the progression of already enhanced genetic things by the aforementioned shortcuts in our lives, I believe, though.

@Crysis and about that Finch argument,

the research group was led by Peter and Rosemary Grant who studied the finches and The Grants hypothesized that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch may come in only about 200 years but in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population so Peter Grant and a graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen what they called “a reversal in the direction of selection.” Grant wrote in 1991 that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes n the researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding went on it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years. so Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They're still finches, n the fact that they are interbreeding puts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species and they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

I'll let Crysis lead the charge here. I don't really have time to write huge posts right now. Row you need to stop getting information from Ken Ham or whoever it is your following. You're far off.

Sorry if what i know is perplexing to you. ill make this thread die and stfu

How anyone can believe in a creator in light of the mass of evidence to the contrary it pretty perplexing I will admit. What's hilarious to me is you say that evolution cannot explain the eye (which it can) but let's pretend it can't.... Is that all you really have? You pick that out of evolution. Have you ever read religious scriptures there is SOOOOOO much wrong, it's become a comedy. Talking of comedy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

I agree and disagree with you here. I mean, yes we could be only slowing down our evolutionary state. Though i honestly do not believe that we will evolve naturally further than we are now as we've become far to 'lazy/comfortable' with the way that life is for us now. Only way this Could happen is with some sort of disaster that would force us too.

As for technology advancements, i'd say that we may evolve in the future that way. With either chips implanted into our brains, enable some sort of telepathic abilities, though they'll be more on the side of mobile phones rather than naturally having the ability to do this.