Humans of the future?

But we are. Metaphorically anyway. We are a bunch of odd things that works pretty well but all have funny construction because of the history of our past evolution. We could work better in almost any place you look.Our eyes, neck, back, knees, feet
throat
all have really dangerous or potentially incapacitating things wrong with the way they work.

The megalodon (your very large!) white shark went extinct only a couple of million years ago (maybe less)

I don't know how many there are but I suspect dead is how he would be. If there are too many then one change of that size might be too much. When one gene at a time is broken other changes can happen with that situation in the "enviroment". Making all those changes at once might be a bad idea.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-23-2004 10:43 AM

And again, you show that you don't know much about evolution.The "forward progression" is a significant misunderstanding. Even the "better fit" is somewhat oversimplified.At all points in time a population consists of individuals that are "fit enough". This is relative to the environment of the time, including all the other members of the same species. Humans aren't going anywhere other than being selected for the current environment. That might mean "better" if you define better in some specific way.If you think smarter is better there is a possibility that, like dogs, as we become more 'domesticted' we may be less smart than "in the wild". But who says smarter is better?What is "better" is whatever works for now.