Isn't evolution disproven by the fact that there is no evidence of humans evolving into different species?

Question

If I understand the theory of evolution correctly, the idea is that, if you divide a population of a species and put them in different environments, they will, over millions of years, evolve into different species. This takes a long time, so, in the mean time, you will see certain small differences between the two groups as they start to evolve into different species. Yet, there is no evidence of human beings evolving into different species. There is no evidence of human beings even beginning to start the very initial stages of evolving into different species. Isn't this enough to disprove the theory of evolution?

Answer 1

I understand your question, but your conclusion is wrong.

The term species means a significantally different kind of animal. Like a ape and a human and a dog and a cat.

Evolution is a very slow process, new species don't evolve overnight like pokémon do.

You can see evolution in humans. Racial differences, like height, skincolor or form of the eyes are part of evolution. In sunny places, the skin op people is darker to counter the effects of the sun.

Up in the north (pole) eskimo's have more body fat to cope with the cold. And so forth.. You can see it. These racial differences might eventually (in a million years) create a new species,, but it takes a long time!

Answer 2

Not at all. First off, modern humans- homo sapiens- have only been around for about 200,000 years. That's not a whole lot of time to turn into another species. Yeah, it's possible, but humans are a pretty adaptable species anyway, so it'd take some pretty crazy environmental patterns to really change us in that amount of time.

Also, there is some evidence that humans did start to change into different species. The various races, while the differing traits are pretty shallow, do show modifications to fit their environments. Inuits are stockier and have higher metabolic rates so that they are better able to survive in the cold. Many Africans are carriers for sickle-cell anemia, and being a carrier offers some protection from malaria. And, of course, there are the skin color differences we can all see. These changes are all relatively recent, which is why they're so shallow. Theoretically, though, if humans had stopped moving around (interbreeding cuts down on species separation) and kept to their own little environments, we could've eventually evolved into different species. This would take quite a bit longer than a couple hundred thousand years (again, assuming no huge environmental change). But people move around and sleep with whoever they find wherever they go, so the differences are not going to be anything more serious than they are now, barring major changes in how the world works.

Answer 3

except that that isn't the definition of bias. There are so many millions of species and only 1 knows about any religion. That would certainly be biased too if that were the definition of biased don't you think? You might make a case that since we evolved how can we objectively study evolution. But that's subjectivity, not bias, and it isn't a real problem for evolution. The subjective assumption is actually that humans are special and distinct and somehow exempt from evolution. The objective conclusion is based on the observed fact that chemically we are in every way identical to every other living thing and on a cellular and genetic level we share much in common with many other animals which makes sense if we inherited traits from common ancestors with all of these species. So the objective conclusion is that we have evolved. It may be less desireable to some to believe we were not specially created and that we are descended from "lower animals", but it is the conclusion that the observations support. A bias here would be in preferring one conclusion over another for irrational reasons. Like special creation just sounds better to you so you're going to believe that rather than objectively look at the evidence for common ancestry.

Answer 4

bradwelljackson,

Evolution in itself is a gradual change that occurs to a species to adapt to the conditions of their environment. You can see these changes even in our times if you know what to look for.
Compare what the children were 100 years ago as to what they are now - keeping in mind that stronger attributes will strive while weaker ones will die.

You noticed lets say a 12 year old a 100 years ago was far less developed then they are today. Taller, faster, smarter and physically more developed by todays standard 12 year old.

You may not see much change but if your honest with yourself those small changes are there and after all that is just 100 years ago.

Also consider the mind how much more advances we are today then your common human a 100 years ago. another sign of evolution.

Now don't get me wrong evolution is a different subject than the big bang theory which has not and can not be proved except in theory alone. Some confuse you by blending the two and saying one supports the other but this just isn't true.

Evolution just explains how we as a species can adapt to our environment.

Answer 5

Well, the available evidence says that humans have not been separated for millions of years. There hasn't been enough time for differentiation into many species. Different human populations do have climatic/environmental adaptations, but they are relatively minor compared to what some other species have. There is some evidence that humans underwent a severe population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago, which could explain exactly why we all are so alike.

Answer 6

yes they would over million of years.
If you think the neanderthal man is thought to have become extinct about 24 000 years ago and was definitely established about 130 000 years ago - so there were different human species around, just the other went extinct, we didn't. So what you are asking to happen has already happened...
with todays travel and migration of populations the chances of new human species arising is next to nothing. In addition to different environments you also need reproductive isolation of the groups. In addition we nowadays shape our environment to suit us. If you live all summer in air conditioned spaces you don't need to adapt to heat...
But while we are still all the same species, there are small differences between humans. Before everybody was moving (or moved ) around you often could tell which area a person comes from just by looking at them, even within a country because we all don't look the same.

Answer 7

What has a beginining has an end. Maybe we are the final stage or maybe the new beings are all being captured by the government, or maybe the next stage is a mental one. There are many humans who have extremely high intellects and this enables them to understand and discover new and old insights about life. Evolution is such a long process anyway. We are in the hundreds of thousands of years not enough for a visually significant change. Evolution takes millions of years. Like i said before maybe we are the final stage.
Maybe we need a significant challenge to change.
Our lives are so cushioned here in the west we wont change anytime soon, especially not in the next 50 years.
There are some cases of people who are immune to death by AIDS. Many of us are immune to diseases that were once fatal but have been long dead due to natural selection.
Sickle cell anaemia is a natural selective advantage(albeit a crap one) to sickle cell. Lots of black and asian people are alive today due to this evolutionary change.
Insects and bacteria evolve when flooded with all kinds of antibiotics, in a short space of time some times in 1 or 2 generation skips.
So i think evolution will not bee seen soon among humans but it does exist.

Answer 8

Because there hasn't been sufficient time for homo sapiens to evolve into new species, and aren't you forgetting that anatomically modern humans, or homo sapiens if you will, evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, as we are today? Also, in today's continually globalizing world, people interact more than ever across the globe (i.e. people of different locales intermarry and breed) so the variation that is needed in the gene pool to create new species is slowly being depleted. Also, populations that are separated have to literally be physically separated from other populations for long periods of time to change species. Hope this helps!

Answer 9

we haven't really been around long enough under completely natural conditions for this to happen. with our modern day technology we have pretty much thrown our evolution out the window. you're only half right on your definition of evolution -- evolution is about an organism being RANDOMLY born with a set of traits that make it better at surviving then others. therefore it lives longer to mate more and so they outcompete the others and the others eventually die off. our modern contruction of hospitals don't allow us as a species to do this because they exist for the purpose of saving lives. when it comes to genetic abnormalities they aid an individual in living when evolution says that individual should be dead. so in that case, we are really weakening our species. in addition we have technology so great that we are no longer prone to the harshness of nature. with heated homes, a seemingly endless supply of water pumped straight to our houses and grocery stores full of food...there has been no reason for any of the genetic abnormalities that fuel evolution to make a certain number of us out compete the others for resources. and so you have it -- evolution has yet to be disproven.

Answer 10

How would you keep the separation necessary for humans to evolve into separate species these days? The evidence from the past is highly suggestive of allopatric speciation, so your premise is not only wrong, it should be embarrassing to you. You need to be educated, here, not proposing this type of nonsense.