Is Evolution Over? | Earth Science 

Here's a thought. Who milked the first cow? And what the _hell_ were they thinking?

1:42 'Or a stick insect that can disguise itself as a Stig.'

Hah, I heard "insect that can disguise himself as a Stig" :D

When he said, "Some say," I thought for sure he was going to continue with something that ended with, "All we know for sure is, they call him The Stig."

Whaat the hell, vsauce did an episode on it, can't believe I've missed a vsauce video, thank you!

Humans are still evolving, we've just changed the game a bit. More than likely we will eventually begin manipulating our own evolution by altering genes directly but that is probably a ways off yet though certainly foreseeable. There are people around the world with mutation so incredible that if we put them all together we would essentially have a "super-human" with hyper dense bones and muscles, resilience to even the most devastating diseases, ability to see farther into each end of the light spectrum, and many others. All kinds of things that natural evolution has already introduced into our genome. All that is needed is to find out which genes are responsible in these individuals/families and see if they can be made compatible with others. I know how all this might sound but science fiction was so last decade, the more we learn about the universe we live in the more the word "impossible" is becoming irrelevant.

I feel vaguely offended by the premise that my parents have done the deed. My father was a sperm donor, so he and my mother never did... that bit.

Your lactose comment is incorrect on a global scale. 95 percent of European people can digest lactose but somewhere down to 10 percent of African populations can and about 35 percent of Asians are lactose tolerant.

Asking a question is not ignorance, quite often it leads to learning. Criticizing stupid questions creates ignorance because it leads to the fear of asking.

This is something i've been pondering about for a while but never really got into the details. Because of the way a cat lands, we understand that a cat could die from a fall of the 2nd story of a building however survive 3rd as they have enough time to prepare them selves for landing, by this time the cat is traveling at terminal velocity; does this mean if you drop a cat from the each of the earth atmosphere, it would survive? then again, what is the highest a cat could be... and still survive?

Although your conclusions are correct, your explanation is wrong. Or rather, it neglects an important field of science: Epigenetics. You, like many people, over value the role of random mutation. I could go on and on about the differences, but suffice to say that your body is capable of adapting to environmental conditions at a genetic level in real time. This is the only process of evolutionary science that has been directly proven by direct observation. In one example, scientists studied the different kinds of Finches of the Galapagos islands and found that the differences between the different "species" were not genetic at all, but rather they were Epigenetic. No mutation played a role in the changes. This idea is nothing new though. Back in the time of Darwin a competing theory had it that the Giraffe has a long neck simply because it stretched it out. Now, don't get me wrong, mutation does play a role. At the point that humans broke away from apes a mutation developed in the jaw muscles significantly weakening while preventing the skull plates from fusing. All humans have this broken gene. However, when comparing all the differences that developed later between humans and apes the vast majority are epigenetic. Not only does this work on a long term scale, but it works in a single generation with a link between nature and nurture being explained. Many terminal cancers once thought to be the result of random mutation can be explained as an adverse epigenetic change which can be corrected via drugs that alter the methyl markers. The mind has also been found to have a role in how these changes form, showing a possible explanation for how individual belief in getting better can correct cancers that are the result of such changes. Even more interesting is the role this process has in an Atavism and so-called "Junk DNA". Unused genetic traits don't simple "evolve away", they remain encoded - moved aside. The epigenome retains all of this information and can draw on it when circumstances require it. People may think of an Atavism as little more than an "evolutionary throwback", but if a trait helps the species survive it is moving forward. The anthropological record fully supports this interpretation. Evolutionary scientists who use the mutation approach will tell us that it is the result of many tiny changes over a long period of time, but the Anthropological record shows that a given species will go mostly unchanged for sometimes hundreds of thousands of years and then in the span of a relatively shorter period of time coinciding with a dramatic environmental change the biology will change just as dramatically. This very observation is used by anti-evolution theorists to support their argument, which wouldn't be possible if scientists would be quicker to embrace new knowledge instead of holding onto outdated models. This altogether is why humans continue to adapt to a changing set of conditions. Sickle cell anemia is an adaptation to avoid malaria, but comes with it's own problem. I myself never had an Appendix to begin with which is a great adaptation to the American diet which can lead to it being damaged, but as a consequence I don't have it as a safe house for beneficial bacteria and cannot as easily digest nuts and grains. I still have the genes for an Appendix, but those genes are turned off. I am "evolved" in the sense that I am adapted to a circumstance in the environment. My point is that you cannot fully understand evolutionary science or accurately explain it without including all of the relevant science. I wish people like you would make use of new knowledge.

No better way to explain things than a british gentelman

Content Warning: This video makes you think of your parents having sex.

Wow. Just found this channel.Great knowledge packed in a small and easily understood form! Thanks for this and for the always so witty humor of James May

i just find the fact that animals CAN evolve is fascinating

"assuming we can find a willing partner" >implying

Would we overpopulate out into space?

Why do Humans think about things and do not just follow instincts?

That's an example of an environmental pressure. What happens is that gradually those within the populations that developed a random mutation which counters this environmental pressure are able to out compete those that do not (in terms of survival and reproduction). There are neutral random mutations all the time, sometimes by accident these turn out to be beneficial for survival. This is also why most species that have ever lived go extinct, they weren't lucky enough to have the right genes.

Over a long period of time yes, but the heat is not the main problem. The real situation is that the rise in temperature would cause large amounts of ice to melt, and the ocean levels to rise significantly and therefore rise above land close to sea level. We would adapt to the heat rather than evolve, just as you adapt to the heat if you go and live in a warmer country.

I agree with Sir David Attenborough that human evolution has effectively stopped. I would go even further by saying that I believe we are working to reverse it. Not only are less intelligent people more likely to reproduce, many otherwise intelligent people actively seeking out less intelligent mates because a hopeful failure is more interesting than a boring success.

we are still evolving, the proof: im more intelligent than anyone i ever interacted with there, i proved it :D

Heres a question, Why did you leave Top Gear?

Hi Tom check out our Sci Guide on this! - 'Science behind falling in Love - Sci Guide (Ep 7) - Head Squeeze'

Well the only interesting thing I have to add is... My daughter is half black and half white and is one of the a smartest children in her grade. She is a tag student and has always been really advanced. Most of the children she is in school with are white or not mixed race. She was the only tag student in her grade for the last two years. Now there are other tag students in her grade. Also she was the only 4th grader in the Geo bee (like a spelling bee but with Geography.) I have to say I am a proud mama. She is also very beautiful and one of my best friends. She is fun, funny and a good kid most of the time! I would and will protect her with my life!!!😉

The definition for evolution James described at the beginning is correct and testable we call it "Natural Selection" where variations occur within a species to ensure it's survival in a dynamic environment, but correctly called micro-evolution. As soon as James said "repeat this process tens of thousands of times, and you end up with a giraffe" he moved from observable testable science to philosophy, as the video implies that an ancestral herbivore could change into something that it initially was not, this is called macro-evolution which has never been observed and should not be called any kind of science or taught as a science.

I love the part with the primitive dude with a rock axe and the old-days smart gentleman. XDDD when the other throws the hammer... LOL!

I dont know what molecules are made of, but the thing that molocules are made of are made out of vibrations or "strings" search "String theory" in google or youtube for more info

We're not evolving, we're adjusting

What are the most extreme conditions that humans can survive including, heat, weather, sunlight and atmosphere?

The x-factor remark at the end, almost wet myself :D Great stuff!

Thank you for making that very important point : )

I JUST REALIZED THIS GUY IS JAMES MAY FROM TOPGEAR. AFTER LIKE 4 MONTHS OF WATCHING THIS AND 2 YEARS OF TOPGEAR. FML

I agree with you. Saying it this way is misleading at best. Even if he would be talking about white British adults, the number would be 95.3% according to "Prevalence of lactase deficiency in British adults". Talking about "us" as in "the world population" it seems to be even farther off. Wikipedia says about 25% of humans are lactose-tolerant.

We're certainly taller than we were. Looking at old houses (1700s), the doorways were tiny.

"Can we talk about evolution and creation?" - "Yes, we can!" - Proceeds to talk about evolution. I guess that goes back to "...but if it's too difficult, I'll ignore it."

the first things that can pass as a language has noted to have most probably being a language of gesture.

Tell me have you read the Bible and other manuscripts and believed it or have you been told what to believe in without free will.

I'd question the idea that the lack of wisdom teeth on a part of the population means any kind of "evolution progress" or something of the sort. Given the environment on which most humans currently live, the presence or lack of wisdom teeth doesn't give you any advantage or disadvantage on either survival or replication of the individual (or the gene that produces this phenotype). Wisdom teeth don't affect your probabilities of reaching sexual maturity, and doesn't make you more suitable for reproduction to the opposite sex. To anyone interested on this subject, I strongly suggest reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, probably the best book ever written on the subject (even better than "On the origin of the species" by Darwin).

Well in fact to spark some types of genetic mutation occur more often with a smaller genetic pool, the fact there is a bigger genetic pool proves that those small but important genetic mutations must have happened thousands of times before, and the fact that they have lived on to create a large genetic pool translate its value, in practicality it is always better to have the largest genetic pool you can get. One another note the primitive man vs the current man analogy is completely wrong. Mankind's evolution in knowledge of the world has been incrementally passed on for the last 10k years but as in the case of genetic mutations the roots have been layed even though sometimes the roots feel more important than the leaves you wouldn't have neither without each other, as been depicted here human evolution will be forever going even if it could prove to be as in the giraffes case an evolutionary dead end as the giraffes keep getting their necks longer and actually starting to suffer in the long term the ill effects of gravity in their health and prosperity.

Hey James, In the London postcodes, why is there not a NE postcode?

Will Richard Hammond Ever become taller? question for James XD

What exactly is the airspeed velocity of an unladen sparrow?

Question - Are colors the same for everyone? For example is my blue the same as your blue? Is it possible to even know this?

we might have more intellectual capacity than our ancestors... but are we using it properly in a world with each time more technological toys which interphere with our creativity, knowledge and even social life? people who knew better wouldn't kill each other on wars all over the world, as in many other examples...

But do wisdom teeth and lactose intolerance prevent you from reproducing?

Captain Slow on RU-vid! That's awesome!

The evolution of theories! e.g. the idea that some people think gravity is an attractive force, and some people believe that it may actually be due to the bending of space itself!

if we're all getting fatter and exercising less, which is apparently unhealthy, why are we on average living longer ?

James May! here is a question for you! if we make robots like in the movie the terminator. does the robts (after) the ta´ke over earth consider that the onley thing we humans onley was existing to make THEM. so they could be the next greater masters of tellus earth? im from sweden and i know my english is a bit bad when i type. sorry for that.

What is coulour bliendness and how did we manage to study it?

It makes more sense to me to say light is made of nothing.

to set up my question - you know that a hyena is really a felidae, not a canidae. . . it has co-evolved to be doglike. "Although phylogenetically close to felines and viverrids, hyenas are behaviourally and morphologically similar to canines in several aspects. . ." (Wikipedia) So, what i want to know is: is there any other mammal that has co-evolved which most of us consider to be from a family which it is not of? (kinda convoluted, but i can't quite figure out how to ask this, argh! :} This happens a lot among plant species and insects, but does it happen often in mammals? Different animals fill similar niches in similar ways, but is it co-evolving? (The co-evolved hyenas are very important to the African plains eco-system as are wolves in N. America and Europe for the reason.) for instance, is there a bear (not pandas) that has co-evolved which is really not an ursidae? Is the sloth bear really a bear? There must be other examples and i'd like to know - please? :}

I have a question. How come pets we breed vulnerable to natural environment.

Of course we are still evolving. Selective pressure has been taken off of us and we are loosing previously required traits. Look at all the people with glasses or contacts.

Here's an interesting fact: scientists have found that if you have a population of animals (i.e. Mice), even a very small evolutionary pressure (like killing the smallest 1% of mice every few months) would very quickly lead to elephant sized mice within half a century or so. It's the same effect that gave us Great Danes and chihuahuas. Evolution works even with the tiniest details.

The giraffe anology was created Jean Baptiste de Lamarck as a fundation of his evolutionary theory, not darwin.

We're probably still evolving, but in different ways. An example would be that lots of people have TOO much to eat now. If this continues, the body might store less fat because it has less need of it. Just an idea.

Shadows are made out of the Vashta Nerada. Lol. No they are actually 'made out of' air, or whatever fluid is filling the area. Light is made out of for the most part photons. So you could also consider a shadow is made out of a 'region void of light-emitting protons'.

Why do we like music? Babies dance in the womb and we all enjoy some type of music. Animals also respond to music. Why??

@ James May: Why do we have seven days a week? Most cultures, alien to each other, have 7 days a week and sometimes represent similar "deities". Why?

James, here is a question. Why are people always in war with each other. There is always non stop a conflict / war happening somewhere on earth.

hmmmm. DNA is specified complex. Nature destroys specified complexity over time it does not build it. Therefore life was created. Very basic.

Could we genetically engineer a werewolf or any other mythical creature like the chimera??

Are wormholes possible, and will we ever be able to create our own?

is there an evolutionary benefit to the symptomatic shame and involuntary forced isolation of depression

Here's a question. How close is science fiction to science fact. Like is any of the stuff in stargate or battlestar galactica even remotely possible.

Is having a baby at young age better than having one when older?

oops, this is from June, 2013. i guess they're (the t-shirts) all gone . . . phooey, as they say sophisticatedly.

Are there rainbows inside a bubble? If you look from the outside skin of a bubble you can see rainbows or refractions of lights but What can be seen on the inside?

Question: Since the Earth is spinning about its axis and, at the same time, hurtling around the sun, how do we stay in place on its surface?

Check out the study on lizards that were brought to an isolated island. Over 2 decades, a very short time, they have many changes. A NEW food source, combined with others, doesn't seem to change much in an animal. (Like humans.) Very little. But when the NEW food source becomes their main diet, or only diet. It seems evolution is put into high gear. Part 1: Diet (Just referring to diet. There are many mechanisms of evolution. This may be the most influential. And the most CONCERNING when it comes to GMO's..... *We should shut them down, at the very least demand labels, until the results are conclusive.*) My idea: (I wish I was a biologist to prove it. :-) (I'm sure someone is working on it. I can't be the only one that has thought about it. This will change the view of evolution. No longer can the naysayers say it is purely "chance/accident" but it really is based on information. No longer will it be as stupid of an idea as they think.) (For those that are biologists. This could be easily tested with cloning of simple organisms with using as little DNA as possible. {Just the shell of it's existence.} Then test their evolutionary changes, over time, with those that have the full code. If the results are conclusive. Then we know what we are dealing with. The results could work 2 different ways. The old history code may slow down or even speed up the process. Maybe more mutations would occur in the clone since it doesn't have the history . Where the noncloned may have more adaptive successful changes to it's overall environment. We won't know until we test it. But I think it could be easily done using this technique. But I'm no biologist. Now to the ideas.) Rather than thinking Evolution is always random and always a new change. There could already be traits developed and waiting within our DNA. Imagine if we literally have a database of history . It's just a matter of turning some traits off and turning other traits on depending on the stress . (Maybe not all animals, in every new environment, has recent code[history] readily available to distinguish new products of diet. Where another animals' evolutionary machine/mechanism does recognize the product and the process is sped up considerably. It knows exactly what to do to accomodate the new main diet.) Maybe the saying, "We are what we eat!" Is more true than we ever imagined! (Let me explain further so you can understand my theory.) Consider this. They say 98.5% of our DNA is considered junk. That may be the MOST important in terms of successful Evolution. (It may just be that 1.5% is all it takes to define us as a human.{The shell of our existence.} The rest may be adaptive history of every mechanism of Evolution. Diet/Coloration/etc...) We share about 50% of our DNA with a banana. Does this make us more a Banana than human? (Of course not. But what it does imply cannot be overlooked. This may be the answer......) Maybe ALL this means is that a banana was our main diet for a very long time. Ancient apelike ancestor. (Remember much of a banana's DNA will also be shared in other food sources that we ate. Even banana's have common ancestors. This may be why Banana's and Bread are such a great thing to eat when our stomachs are upset. Our bodies are refined machines to cope with them since it was a grand diet for us for such a long period of time.) Imagine if our bodies, some organs, are actually capable of absorbing DNA and deciphering it. It actually becomes like a part of us while our bodies cope and adapt to it. (Either it's the first time it's been introduced to it. Or it may even recognize it and distinguish from an earlier version and it uses those techniques to determine what changes would be best to accomodate the new food.) Then all of this information is being sent to our reproductive organs. (Constantly. Always changing. Which is why we do see such a grand variety in species even from common parents [Non wild animals- Humans, cats, dogs, etc.]. Remember this is just one aspect [Food/Diet]. Much more to come.) The Naysayer: Carmine (The person that is against evolution brings up a good point. "No Elements evolve greater mass over time, they only decay.") Well maybe this is true in everything nonliving, BUT LIFE is the exception!!! Life may actually be absorbing, learning from, and deciphering this new information. No longer is their decay but a constant stream of new information, variation, adaptation, and growth. Maybe there is an instrument/organ that can actually DETERMINE the very structure of the DNA we absorb. It makes sense. Humans eat everything now. We can eat everything under the sun from any place in the world.(Unless poisonous of course. But you know what I mean.) Evolution is at a crawl with us in terms of diet. It's very confused in terms of diet. (Probably why so many suffer with stomach problems, IBS, acid reflux, etc...) Now, don't think I think this is the ONLY form of which evolution is a process. It is just ONE of many, powerful mechanisms. (Diet could possibly be the number one defining evolutionary factor for the majority of creatures. All other mechanisms differing variably as life evolved from their common ancestor. Depending on what they needed to survive.) Part 2: (Coloration of seeing animals.) Our brains may be deciphering our surroundings too ever since the beginning of the "Eye". Without us even knowing about it. It's just a process of evolution that developed and those that have carried this new capability would have had a greater chance of survival over MANY others. The majority of animals may have this going on within themselves. After a few generations the effects start to show. (Like the mice that eventually changed color to it's surroundings.) (Chameleons have taken it a step further and evolved to change color almost immediately. Probably their greatest evolutionary achievement after speciation from their common ancestor.) One may say.... OK that makes sense. But why Zebra coloring? Very simple to answer this actually. Even if we look back to fish. Many fish have coloration to confuse predators. Where most predators have coloration to avoid being detected. (Diet may even be a factor here.) No one says evolution is perfect. There is still a level of trial and error. But there may be less trial and error than we ever imagined. *jwoya:* "There are definitely more forms of evolution known today than just Darwinian competition; take for instance symbiogenesis, or receiving DNA from a virus that gets in the sperm/egg cells, or atavisms that have always been in the species' DNA but have remained switched off but get switched on by mutation (teeth in chicken, for instance). As for creatures inheriting DNA from their food, your idea sounds a little like the endogenous retroviruses that infect sperm and egg. I am not a biologist, but I don't see why it would not be at least possible. As for evolution being random: it is really not. For instance, a land animal doesn't suddenly sprout flippers by a lucky mistake. When a branch of a species encounters a new environment, the equilibrium between members of that line is lost, and they begin a rapid process of evolution due to heated competition, where every little advantage or disadvantage counts. What is random is the directions of long-term gradual genetic drift, and many of the environmental changes that produce high-speed evolution ("punctuated equilibria"), but the way the creatures adapt to their new environment is not. For instance if humans started living in water, without the advantage of technology, we would see the webbing between our fingers and toes grow to make flippers, and we would see our ability to hold our breath improve, and our muscle groups would change. This is almost common sense, and it is far from random. I guess I should have said there are alternative forms of evolution besides simplistic mutation; there is still Darwinian competition going on in these cases though." - jwoya *Mrmdrscream:* Maybe not entirely inheriting DNA through their food. But more or less a history of common bio markers and maybe even some history of what mutations/adaptations worked best with those bio markers. Something for the species to fall back on. So a species that has spent more time moving environments and evolving would have a greater ability of changing under ANY circumstances. Where as a species that spent pretty much it's whole life in one environment. (Or even like humans that have regulated their environments, houses, caves, mastery of fire, etc...) They would have a more difficult time in different environments (If they were forced back into the wild). But if they obviously came back to a familiar, or very familiar environment/diet source. They could adapt very quickly and successfully to some degree. (Like those lizards did.) Now also consider the possibility that one of the main things that separates us (Fish, Amphibian, etc...) is the USE of this information. (The storage, processing, and application may have evolved in our biological computers.) So maybe Scientists have done this on simple organisms and the results were inconclusive to other organisms like fish, amphibian, reptile, mammals, etc.... (Maybe even further down the line like primates, etc. To forget that this process could also evolve would be denying the evolutionary process altogether.) Also, if this is history. It could be used to suppress change, in some organisms, as much as it is designed to help progress change. Example: (One Biological Computer may see many bio markers for Banana/vegetation. Even if our diet becomes meat for an extended amount of time. It tells us to not do much about it yet until it reaches some critical point(stress). And then evolution kicks into high gear or maybe not. It gradually changes away from that food source knowing/hoping to return to it. It could be just as suppressive as it is progressive (balance) and different between different types of organisms. Pretty fascinating!!) This may even be the importance of "Stress". When our biological computer recognizes we are under stress for an extended period of time. It may determine, from recent bio markers/environmental changes, what is the cause, what is important, and what information does it have to tackle the problem. Our senses may also be giving more information to the biological computer than we ever knew possible. (Like I mentioned with coloration.) It must be very confused in terms of humans. Where our stress comes from emotional/psychological more than anything else. (We may be physically tired. But we use tools to do everything. Our senses may not be telling the computer that we need much change in this regard. We just need a new tool or way to figure it out... more analytical brain growth!) Best way to do these studies is without humans. (There are just too many variables that are being suppressed in humans because of our analytical/social advances.) I also wanted to point out to the illiterate of Science. (I made a mistake when I said "Theory". I mean my "Idea". Don't mistake my "Theory" with a scientifically accepted "Theory", like Gravity.) *I fixed this.* *I'm not against the idea of GMO's. I'm against it without the proper research.* *If something get's taken from say a fish that we eat maybe 15 times a year. (Like Salmon.) A bio marker may exist that helps something in Corn (For example.)* *Corn is something that is extremely extensive in our diet. A rare bio marker that we rarely came across will become 75-90% of our diet. That's huge. And not knowing exactly how this affects us. It's not worth doing until it's been well tested and how it could affect all biological systems.* *This, in my mind, is LOGICAL Conservatism.* *Let the Scientists understand Evolution better before making such leaps of faith.* *Not to be rude. But the people defending them are mostly conservatives that love the idea of Intelligent Design. But don't even believe in Evolution. That's beyond scary! Playing GOD is OK? That's just hypocrisy in it's finest. I don't even know where to begin with that. Don't FUCKING BLAME SCIENCE If something goes wrong!* *Science TESTS!* *They may be relatively safe. But let's be sure!* *LOGICAL CONSERVATISM!*

How long can someone breathe for underwater?

Evolution is never complete, neither is the weather, or plate tectonics or any other natural process.

So if we make more surgeries, Maybe later we can be born with tails, wings, horns and more like these?

hmm i got a question for you James . Why does Jeremy thinks he can fix everything whit a hammer????

About the wisdom teeth: It’s not that people are being born without them (well technically they are but you know what I mean.) The basics are that people no longer hold their bodily or tongue posture correctly anymore which is actually vital for proper facial development. If you don’t breath through the nose, the jaw and face become elongated instead of wide, hence a lot of overcrowding, as the adequate room for teeth simply hasn’t been developed, because the forces which develop it, from the cheeks, tongue lips whilst resting and swallowing, weren’t present. This means that the jaw is too small, and therefore there simply isn’t space for the wisdom teeth to erupt. It’s not that they’ve been deleted from our genetic code or anything like that. Also diet effects this, as we used to have a very hard, low calorie diet and now it’s a very soft, calorie dense diet. Our jaws/face aren’t doing nearly as much work as they used to. Look at a skull from 12,000 plus years ago. They all have perfect teeth, and perfect cheekbones which project forward. Instead of shallow like most people of today. That’s because it was before farming was utilised and we still had our facial/bodily functions operating correctly and at full capacity. It’s the same as how people’s bones are no longer bowed from muscle stress like is common to see from ancient bones. We’re simply not doing the same work we were, which we’re supposed to do to grow properly, and therefore we are not growing properly.

James where did you order your "woman in a box"? I googled the website and it appears it doesn't exist anymore. Did you ship her by boat or air? Which is cheaper? For air is it cheaper to order by freight rather than an economy class ticket? Do you pay by the Kg.? Also were you satisfied with the product when it arrived? Were there any guarantees if you were not happy with the quality of your "woman"? Could you send her back? Also did the company offer different types of woman and were they house broken? I've heard horror stories of women taking everything from a man. Do they offer any insurance for this outcome?

Can I get one of the shirts?? :-D.. I do have a question tho; great civilizations have an inevitable end, for instance it happened to the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayas, all of them which were wiped out by other better and more powerful civilization so would you agree that we are, as a civilization, at the peak of our existence? If so, who or what would it be the next new and more powerful civilization?? 0_o

James, I'm trying to work out if you are evolving backwards towards the follicular sheen and paunch of the silverback gorilla, or forwards by developing your own follicular phase and impregnating yourself... Please enlighten us.

It's amazing how humans have spent hundreds of thousands of years trying to survive, learning how to hunt, trap or gather. But now that we have supermarkets and homes, we've pretty much forgotten it all. Why didn't the survival skills of the last 500,000 years get passed down through evolution?

Love your program and he way you explain things! Ehm, aren't we all BORN without wisdom teeth? Mine did not show up until I was 16. .. (Just kidding, could not help myself). :)

It probably developed first in nomads. Rather than herd animals and keep them until you kill them if you can milk them you can convert scrub vegetation into food and on into healthy children and more soldiers to increase your tribe's territory still further. Being able to digest milk means you need to herd fewer animals to make a living, or more usefully you can feed more people from the same number of animals. Those genes will spread with your tribe.

If Americans descended from people in Europe why are there still people in Europe? If my ancestors used to be farmers why are there still farmers? Does those questions answer your question? Just because a population has broken off and done something else it doesn't follow that the original population has to give up and just die. It will only die off if it cannot continue to keep pace with any changes in its environment.

You really can't see how not having wisdom teeth could be an advantage? If you don't need them you can do something else with the tissue, grow a little bigger perhaps. Not having them also means you don't have to cut them or risk them not coming through and ballsing up your whole mouth. As for milk how can being able to eat cheese not help your survival chances in a society that feeds on the stuff?

Because intelligence is not a necessity for survival. The only reason humans evolved such a massive intelligence in the first place was to improve our chances of survival with lack of any other means. We aren't especially fast or strong but we were intelligent so, taking the path of less resistance, we started getting smarter to cope with a world where pretty much everything can kill us. Other animals didn't need to because they had other means of survival independent of intelligence.

Evolution is never complete. Even if your body isn't changing on the macroscopic level, the cells themselves will figure ways to maximize efficiency in a world where the environment is increasingly dynamic. Also, evolution isn't restricted to biology. The current challenge is how efficiently we are maintaining our collective well-being on this planet, and our ability to survive in years to come.

what is the purpose of a strand of nucleic acid encased within a protein coat (i.e. virus)? what is the purpose of a replicator? what is the purpose of an aggregate of eukaryotic cells selected for traits that have led to the generation of a bipedal ape with an inflated frontal lobe? i fear asking about a 'greater' purpose can get you nowhere, perhaps into the lads of wishful thinking and counter-scientific ideas. it helps to think of yourself as an agent that gets to assign your own purpose.

aging is a complex phenomenon that is often attributed to the shortening of telomeres, or the capping ends of your chromosomes, after many cellular divisions - these eventually lead to the failure of adequate genetic expression, and thus tissues experience loss of function. more yet: an organelle that populates your cells (called the mitochondrion) leaks reactive oxidative molecules that damage intracellular structures and eventually leads to the deterioration of all cells in your body.

young earth creationists and proponents of intelligent design propose that species did not speciate from a population of an ancient common ancestor, but were rather spontaneously created in their current form, and deny that evolution has since taken place. i assume you believe in a kind of deistic creation, in which a higher being set the universe in motion and did not interfere with it later. i would like to remind you that is a very counter-scientific belief not based on evidence. good day!

Evolution will never be complete because we live in an ever changing and chaotic universe ! ,therefore we constantly need to adapt . The longer we are around as a species the more genetic material there is to choose from. This makes us more likely to survive any changes. As a species we need as many different ethnicities , religions sizes ,shapes and abilities all mixed together to ensure our survival ....!

Metabolising lactose is hardly evolution mr May. The information for the enzyme is already in our genes, only the regulation is altered. It's not a newly earned trait. Question: If giraffes were to be kept in captivity or placed in an environment without predators and ample food availability...would we see a higher variety in neck length i.e. a reduction of the length?

now here is my question, which will earn me that tshirt. is there a dark place in known universe. like place that there wouldn't be enough light in order to see close objects. not talking about black holes. just simple open space. Thanks. Waiting for answer and my tshirt :)

Apparently, Tibetans have evolved further, to cope with high altitudes, as scientists discovered. Find more information here: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/101001_altitude

Surely, by definition, evolution can never be complete, in the same sense that perfection can never be fully achieved

When I look at the back of my hand I notice that my little finger is significantly 'littler' than my other fingers. I would have guessed that evolution would have favoured stronger fingers in my tree dwelling ancestors. Do you have any ideas why a smaller weaker finger would develop on each hand?

How is sound recorded? Whereas pictures and film is recorded by the use of light(which is elecromagnetic waves), sound is recorded from compressed and decompressed waves of air(or occasionaly water and other materials) which, as we know, is matter. How can we record that?

Our example is like that of a spider ..he weaves his web and makes it effective ....BUT ....Also very vulnerable ...The state of our technology is exactly like his web ...one day it will break ..and we will all fall from it into the abyss of a world where we will find it hard to survive..

I know survival isn't causing humans to change anymore, but could something else drive evolution in us? If we're only limited by a willingness to select a partner, couldn't we be more attracted to a certain group of people.

I get what he's saying about wisdom teeth and milk but he's implying people without the gene for wisdom teeth are making a larger contribution to the gene pool than possible. likewise, people who could digest the lactose in cow's milk would have had to DOMINATE reproduction to propagate the change to 99% of humanity. In fact, the only way to get to 99% is if cow's milk was either 100% digestible or 100% lethal to all people to keep lactose intolerant people from reproducing. IJS