I understand that we are indeed busy evolving, our jawbone changes etc. Where are we then heading to? Are there artists impressions of how we will look in 1,000,000 years from now? - given that Yellow Stone does not rock the boat too much.
Is it possible that those communities that do not “breed" outside their circles, could split away from the classification of homo sapiens, to the extent that eventually are homo sapiens divided into splinter groups. Could this explain why people differ so much, I’m thinking about the American elections now 
? Is the evolution of a species solely based on its chromosome arrangement or could cultural habits that are infused as instinctive changes be seen as a subgroup?
I understand that we are indeed busy evolving, our jawbone changes etc. Where are we then heading to? Are there artists impressions of how we will look in 1,000,000 years from now? - given that Yellow Stone does not rock the boat too much. Is it possible that those communities that do not “breed" outside their circles, could split away from the classification of homo sapiens, to the extent that eventually are homo sapiens divided into splinter groups. Could this explain why people differ so much, I'm thinking about the American elections now :-) ? Is the evolution of a species solely based on its chromosome arrangement or could cultural habits that are infused as instinctive changes be seen as a subgroup?The more individuals there are in a species the more mutation there is, it's basic statistics. And if people with mutations successfully pass them on then our species is undergoing evolution. It's possible to have populations branch off and create new species but that takes a long time and complete separation. Right now there is no group living under those condition and all humans are of the same species.
I understand that we are indeed busy evolving, our jawbone changes etc. Where are we then heading to? Are there artists impressions of how we will look in 1,000,000 years from now? - given that Yellow Stone does not rock the boat too much. Is it possible that those communities that do not “breed" outside their circles, could split away from the classification of homo sapiens, to the extent that eventually are homo sapiens divided into splinter groups. Could this explain why people differ so much, I'm thinking about the American elections now :-) ? Is the evolution of a species solely based on its chromosome arrangement or could cultural habits that are infused as instinctive changes be seen as a subgroup?Please give more data. When you say “communities that do not “breed" outside their circles…." To clarify you are talking the democratic communities, right. The Republicans will breed anywhere, they do not stay in circles and clicks. :-) On the other side of the issue is the human mutation rate. Science does not have a handle on that yet. One of the problems is that the timescale it takes is so long that we have to deal with the wild species. There is the possibility that domesticated species mutate much faster.
How are we evolving?
With great difficulty.
I understand that we are indeed busy evolving, our jawbone changes etc. Where are we then heading to? Are there artists impressions of how we will look in 1,000,000 years from now?Back in the 60s science fiction writers used to make "predictions" like that. They assumed we'd have huge craniums (to hold our much more massive brains) and correspondingly smaller, feebler bodies as we got used to machines doing all our work for us. That's how we got the popular image of the Roswell aliens, by the way. : - ) But I don't think anybody even tries to second guess evolution these days. Nobody knows how future trends will go, or how random mutations will rise to the challenge of adapting us to them. Personally I am increasingly of the opinion that we're going to drive ourselves extinct in the not too distant future.
I understand that we are indeed busy evolving, our jawbone changes etc. Where are we then heading to? Are there artists impressions of how we will look in 1,000,000 years from now?Back in the 60s science fiction writers used to make "predictions" like that. They assumed we'd have huge craniums (to hold our much more massive brains) and correspondingly smaller, feebler bodies as we got used to machines doing all our work for us. That's how we got the popular image of the Roswell aliens, by the way. : - ) But I don't think anybody even tries to second guess evolution these days. Nobody knows how future trends will go, or how random mutations will rise to the challenge of adapting us to them. Personally I am increasingly of the opinion that we're going to drive ourselves extinct in the not too distant future. There seems to be a lot of progress with AI - artificial intelligence. If they can get it to communicate with the brain. Well, I think we will have to rethink evolution.
Peter; Mike has some pretty off the beaten path opinions. Just warning you.
What are getting at? Have you read up on evolution much? Are you familiar with Dawkins concept of “meme”?
A couple basic points to build on; evolution has no direction. It does not know “better” from “worse”. Any species around today could be headed in a direction of self destruction. So, an artist’s rendition of 1M yrs from now is pure speculation.
Did you know there were competing hominids just 50,000 years ago or so? I think that answers your question about splitting off. There is speculation about Conservative brains and Liberal brains too, but no one has been so brave as to call them species just yet.
Peter; Mike has some pretty off the beaten path opinions. Just warning you.Off the beaten path data. http://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1532&context=caps_thes http://dme.engin.umich.edu/artificialintelligence/ http://news.mit.edu/topic/brain-cognitive https://www.lakeforest.edu/live/news/6625-siris-path-to-world-domination-when-our-minds
I wasn’t referring to these particular comments Mike
It does seem as if our technology will play a big part in our evolution going forward… I want to believe that there is a long future for human kind in its current glory. For one I think the typical news’ content and sensation driven motives make for a false sense of what is happening on the planet. I want to believe that technology will serve us in the way we intend - it is thus far doing a tremendous job in giving us life as we know it. True that we have issues such as politics, climate, economy, religion, what to do with social media, etc. but they can be seen as stumbling blocks in our growth into the next phase.
My knowledge of evolution is not great at all… but I know that there are from a philosophical perspective some points I struggle to swallow, one being that rock and water can not only spawn the first life but also sustained that life. The other thing I struggle with is the randomness-concept in the theory - I often wonder about the mastermind behind instinct. Instinct is just such a well thought out method to keep the process going. I mean who suggested the xx xy concept to diversify life? (And make them like one another). Everything I have seen on evolution always skips over those parts too quickly for me.
It does seem as if our technology will play a big part in our evolution going forward... I want to believe that there is a long future for human kind in its current glory. For one I think the typical news' content and sensation driven motives make for a false sense of what is happening on the planet. I want to believe that technology will serve us in the way we intend - it is thus far doing a tremendous job in giving us life as we know it. True that we have issues such as politics, climate, economy, religion, what to do with social media, etc. but they can be seen as stumbling blocks in our growth into the next phase. My knowledge of evolution is not great at all... but I know that there are from a philosophical perspective some points I struggle to swallow, one being that rock and water can not only spawn the first life but also sustained that life. The other thing I struggle with is the randomness-concept in the theory - I often wonder about the mastermind behind instinct. Instinct is just such a well thought out method to keep the process going. I mean who suggested the xx xy concept to diversify life? (And make them like one another). Everything I have seen on evolution always skips over those parts too quickly for me.Conscious preference has no effect on evolution. Technology may have some effect because it changes the environment, which is a determning factor in evolution, but we have no control over how or whether it happens. In any case, it takes millennia to change the course of evolution. There are always other factors involved.
Yeah, this dude tries looking at some potential changes and how they might effect evolution
This one does a nice overview 101
I understand that we are indeed busy evolving, our jawbone changes etc. Where are we then heading to? Are there artists impressions of how we will look in 1,000,000 years from now? - given that Yellow Stone does not rock the boat too much. Is it possible that those communities that do not “breed" outside their circles, could split away from the classification of homo sapiens, to the extent that eventually are homo sapiens divided into splinter groups. Could this explain why people differ so much, I'm thinking about the American elections now :-) ? Is the evolution of a species solely based on its chromosome arrangement or could cultural habits that are infused as instinctive changes be seen as a subgroup?Of course we are evolving but considering how we humans are damaging the things needed for living things to survive do you honestly think humans will even exist in a million years?
I understand that we are indeed busy evolving, our jawbone changes etc. Where are we then heading to? Are there artists impressions of how we will look in 1,000,000 years from now? - given that Yellow Stone does not rock the boat too much. Is it possible that those communities that do not “breed" outside their circles, could split away from the classification of homo sapiens, to the extent that eventually are homo sapiens divided into splinter groups. Could this explain why people differ so much, I'm thinking about the American elections now :-) ? Is the evolution of a species solely based on its chromosome arrangement or could cultural habits that are infused as instinctive changes be seen as a subgroup?Of course we are evolving but considering how we humans are damaging the things needed for living things to survive do you honestly think humans will even exist in a million years?Humans will probably exist in a million years as long as a threat from beyond earth doesn't wipe us out; of course the civilization we enjoy is an entirely different matter.
On the other side of the issue is the human mutation rate.Hmmm, another fascinating subject
DNA mutation clock proves tough to set Geneticists meet to work out why the rate of change in the genome is so hard to pin down. Ewen Callaway | March 10, 2015 http://www.nature.com/news/dna-mutation-clock-proves-tough-to-set-1.17079though I think there's some confusion between "mutation rate" and "rate of biological change" - they are not the same. I mean, it sounds like most scientists try to figure the DNA mutation rate as some random process that tics along at a certain pace. But, evolution is brought about, yes by those mutations, but it's driven by environmental stressors and changes that need to be adapted to. Thus, animals with the best suite of attributes and skills - for that particular time and environment - manage to get more babies grown up to become baby producers. The invisible hand of evolution.