I think we will eventually evolve, but as you know, its more often trauma or climatic conditions that causes a sudden shift big enough to effect a whole species so until we start ACTUALLY sinking into the seas I think we will be fine.... thankfully everyone on Norfolk is well equipped with their gills and webbed appendages.

How far back do you need to go to discuss evolution? The big bang was 15 billion years ago and the planet has evolved since then.

After 15 billion years, we’ve now got an Indian in the Amazon jungle using his blowpipe to shoot down monkeys, and we’ve got the commodity trader sitting in front of his computer buying 20 million pounds of copper.

The Indian takes the monkey home for his wife to cook and the banker goes home to a meal his wife has bought from Waitrose. For his entertainment, the Indian smokes dope after his meal, as does the banker.

Who has evolved in a way that is more beneficial to the world? If anyone thought I was going to say the Indian, I’m not, I think it’s a draw.

Ahhh, good old Norfolk. eh?

That's pretty much what I was thinking. Evolution is driven by evolutionary pressure, that pressure is a background effect, and it peaks when a new niche opens. A bit like poking a hole in a dam.

Humans made themselves largely immune from peaks in evolutionary pressure when we achieved enough technology to enable us to live in extreme conditions without having to evolve before we could do that.

Like you, I don't see anything happening that will cause us to evolve anytime soon. More likely what would have to happen would be that we were exterminated and something then moved into our niche.

We actually have an ability that no other animal has, and I think that it is possibly unique to our species, and may be the reason why all other branches of our 'family' have died out.

Animals either invest a lot of time and resources into theri offspring, or damn all. Compare the oyster to the gorilla. In order to achieve such an investment gorillas only breed every 6? years or so.

Humans in contrast can produce children every year, and still manage to invest hugely in each one. This slight change in breeding strategy may well have been what made us what we are.

I don't think you can use evolution to describe an inanimate object. Neither does anything evolve to benefit the world. Evolution is only to do with the survival of the fittest.

The Indian, the monkey and the banker are all equally evolved. They all fit their niche.

I’m not being obtuse, but the Indian, monkey and banker all started off in the cave and before. The three monkeys crawled out of the cave and climbed into the trees. Two of them got fed up up there and climbed down to walk about, the third monkey stayed and is waiting for his turn to join them, if he survives the blowpipes.

By the time Darwin wrote his thesis, the evidence was all around and obvious, we may disagree as to who will survive and the evidence points to the cockroach which is better equipped to deal with natural disasters, or man-made ones.

Shifting the discussion slightly, we’ve now got Dawkins trying to confuse the easily-confused by knocking their long-held beliefs. Science will eventually supply the answers, and it may surprise us all.

The hard of thinking have their belief systems and are sadly unable to grasp the concept of critical reasoning, let alone apply it.

The only people you hear say that we are descended from monkeys are the religious know nothings.

We are descended from a common ancestor. Monkeys are just as evolved as we are. Everything is that is alive today.

Our experts, with brains bigger than countries, have argued over how it all started since it all started. I suspect that the jury will be out for a long time and in the meantime you can pick your beliefs in the safe choice that nobody knows the answers anyway.

So we share our DNA with monkeys, but that’s easily dismissed – we may have the same ancestors but we are different, monkeys can’t work computers, can they? They can’t even read and write.

Could that be reversed over the next 60 million years? When they discover human skeletons in 60 million years time, will there be a gaggle of monkeys laughing at our backwardness? What could they be saying?

‘That’s the funny lot that didn’t believe in aliens and blew themselves up over whether some strange Gods were better than others.’

Pierre Boulle wrote Planet of the Apes. I wonder if it could come true?

If you study monkeys it gets rather interesting. Not only do they have a clear appreciation of 'self' but they are able to lie, to plan deceit and put themselves in the position of another. Chimps can be taught to speak using sign language, and can appreciate and use grammar.

I once saw a gorilla, using gestures and example ask a woman to throw him a sandwich in such a human way it left me breathless.

Some may say that we are devolving, rather than evolving, as now the weak and the stupid not only survive, but thrive and reproduce in ever increasing numbers.

We are only here to reproduce our species. Not my words, but I concur. I take exception to any comments that imply superiority over others, humans or animals.

Maybe this isn’t too relevant, maybe it is, on a minute timescale of evolution. In the fifties and early sixties, if a man buggered another man, he would be sent to prison. Nowadays, the buggerers can get married and adopt children; I’m a Liberal voter but feel a bit uneasy over something like that. I’m sure I’m wrong.

To get back on topic, cross breeding between different species seems to have stopped since the Neanderthals, but Devonians still try and prove us wrong. Maybe they’ll succeed one day. But Dolly Two would look a bit different.

Either we are all equal or not. What people do in the privacy of their own houses between consenting adults, is their business. I've seen horrific parenting in heterosexual families.

Only the Daily Mail would say that in any seriousness.

Not entirely true

We are only here to reproduce out DNA i.e. our genes. Species doesnt come into it. Again, The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins explains that very nicely.

Re, homosexuality, there is lots of that in the animal kingdom, some monkeys use it as a way to say hello

What is truly amazing is that out of the selfish gene comes altruism.

Homosexuality occurs very often in nature, which is why I laugh at people who say it is unnatural.

Yes absolutely

The title to this book is rather unhelpful as it leads lots of people who have never read the book to misinterpret the model that Dawkin's in describing.

Basically, the driver of natural selection is the need for genes/DNA to replicate. Individuals and species are just a consequence (a side-effect if you like) of DNA reproduction.

So, in this way, humans (and all other organisms) are empty vessels that have been selected by their DNA to become "perfect" DNA replication machines for the environment in which they exist.

I find this a beautiful and very liberating concept. And it puts us egotistical humans in their place. Humans are very much like a 2 year old child thinking that they are the centre of the universe, when actually we are probably just a passing phase. What is important, is that DNA keeps replicating, not that humans survive as a species, in the grand scheme of things (and natural/biological laws) this doesnt matter in the slightest.