If scientist believe that humans evolved from other organisms why dont they evolve from other organisms today?
355402
evolution is a slow moving process. too slow to observe within a lifespan or possibly even a few generations. it could take tens or hundreds of thousands of years for it to happen.
17522
I would have to disagree with David to some extent. To evolve into a different species we would have changed enough so that different subpopulations of humans could no longer interbreed. Humans display a range of social and technological aptitudes and capacities throughout earth, the majority of which haven't even heard a dialtone let alone participated in any form of advanced travel or communications processes. However, none of these people are incabable of doing so if provided with the appropriate education needed. This suggest that there hasn't been any change in our molecular (genetic) makeup that provides us with these advanced technologies -- which is where the changes are needed to happen for biological evolution to occur. Even if you wanted to argue that social evolution has distinguished industrialized man from our primitive brethern enough to warrant a new species distinction, I would argue that we still haven't met one of the key requirements for doing so, there are no subgroups of humans on earth that are incapable of interbreeding with one another. Until that happens, no we haven't evolved from Homo sapiens sapiens to Homo sapiens futura. \n\nHowever, we will evolve into someting different! This is a certainty -- as long as our species doesn't become extint before that can happen! But don't expect that Homo sapiens will evolve into just one different species. Depending on what our environment(s) dictates, humans could evolve into numerous other species. Through the process of evolution, it is inevitable, but at the same time it is not predictable.
183805
Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theoty of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n• Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n• "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm
63723
unfortunatly there is none for the emergance of species that can be observed. natural selection can be observed and has been but there is no conclusive evidence that evolution took place.
1099264
you seem to be so smug in your belief of evolution.  there is no proof whatsoever of it happening.  adaptation is different.  bacteria becoming immune to antibodies is adaptation.  humans do this all the time.  the bacteria aren't changing into anything different, they are still bacteria.  \nthere is no evidence in the fossil record either to support your idea.  in fact, all evidence in the fossils says otherwise.  there is no common ancestor of humans and primates.  nowhere.  lucy was an oversized chimp.  neanderthal man is equivalent to modern man in brain capacity, body structure, and everything else, what's the difference?  you can't use the tooth of a pig to create an entire skeleton of a human, that is called fraud (piltdown man).\n\ntry these FACTS: dr. frederick hoyle did a study on the probablility of a single-celled lifeform through means of random process from the beginning of time.  the likelihood of this happening is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.  (anything over 1 in 1050 is considered scientifically impossible).  hoyle stated, "evolution is nonsense in the highest degree"\nthe co-discoverer of DNA, francis crick; did a similar study on the chance of one single strand of DNA happening by random chance, but the results came that the chance is so small that it is nonexistant (so close to zero it's actually there)\n\nthe alternative? intelligent design.  all evidence points to a young earth.  if the earth is millions of years old: why hasn't it stopped spinning yet?  it slows down every year?  why hasn't the sahara desert taken over the plant yet?  it's growing by the day?  why have we never seen a single star form?  why hasn't the moon left us yet?  it gets farther and farther away every year?  \n\nother science would ask: why do some heavenly bodies rotate counter-clockwise if they all resulted from the big bang?  (according to the LAW of angular conservation, they should all be spinning the same way)  why isn't there a huge vacuum (present after any explosion); but the universe is instead expanding?  (refer to newton's LAWs of relativity)  why would the population curve put the start of humanity at about 4500 years ago, if we've been around for millions?  why is the oldest tree (also the oldest living organism) only 4500 years old?  \n\nuse evolution to explain morality, emotions, intelligence, abstract thought, love, etc.  you can't.  the only plausible answer is intelligent design.  \n\nanthony flue, once the greatest known and most highly revered atheist; writing over 30 books on the subject is an oxford double-doctorate with numerous other degrees and awards.  now a theist.  the clincher?  intelligent design.  unless you think that you're smarter than this guy (and it doesn't look like it from your grammar, spelling, and theology)  study a bit more before you go bashing theists.  \n\n"when science finally comes to the top of this mountain of truth, it will see that religion has been there all along."
1174856
Gala, you are spouting the common creationist misconception that humans evolved from apes. This is not true at all. Rather, humans share a common ancestor with apes. Also, there have been findings of humans much older than 6000 years old.
203026
The more I learn about evolution, the more it doesn't make sense. I am a very new Christian. If you told me a year ago that creation makes more sense than evolution, I would tell you that you were crazy. No transition fossils for any animals "evolving" into another animal have ever been found. I don't deny there is a lot of changes occurring in living things over the generations–it's called variation (also called micro-evolution). For example, there are chihuahuas and there are St. Bernards.  They all have a common ancestor–-and surprise–-it's a dog.  This is what Darwin observed.  The idea of survival of the fittest does not come to a logical conclusion when the animal turns into a different animal.  \n\nThe span of time since the earth “began” keeps getting longer and longer by evolutionists' measure.  Fifty years ago, it was in the millions of years.  Now it's billions.  This keeps growing to make it fit evolution.  Since no living person has ever seen evolution take place, and evolution has never left a record to prove it exists, it needs to have happened so SLOWLY that many generations of people (since recorded history began thousands of years ago) have never witnessed it.  The more evolutionists learn, the more they have to change their estimates... because evolution is not possible with their older estimates.  \n\nThe same amount of faith is needed to believe in evolution as creation.  However, evolutionist have an advantage because it is REQUIRED to be taught in school.  The alternative theory is not even allowed to be mentioned in school.  Schools are even getting in trouble these days by pointing out that evolution is a theory and not fact.  People call evolution science, but science needs to be able to be observed and/or replicated.  Evolution can do neither of these things.  What other scientific experiment do you know that has no proof, no conclusive evidence, so many missing pieces, consistently proving itself wrong, but instead of ruling that it must be false, they change the input to make it work. If scientist did this with any other experiment, they would be laughed out of their jobs. There have been many evolution hoaxes created throughout the years so that there could be some “proof” of evolution.  Some of these were found out to be hoaxes decades ago, but are still found in science textbooks today.\n\nYes, creation has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in the Bible.  But evolution also has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in a textbook. Your choice (that is what free will is about), but I would just recommend that everyone FULLY examines both sides before concluding one is right.
939189
humans followed a different evolutionary path from monkeys and apes. We didn't evolve from monkeys - monkeys, apes and humans evolved from the same ape like animal. We have since taken different paths, and both co-exist
506051
I don't belive in evolution. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys today?
935289
I think a lot of these questions come from people just vacuously repeating what they read on anti-science websites. This is an argument that is many decades old and based on a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. They seem to believe that every member of one species gradually changes until they are so different that they become a new species and the parent species is entirely converted en masse. They don’t understand that modification with descent involves multiple branching – it’s not a tree it’s a bush. They also think that evolution proceeds merely by mutation and is a purely random process, and so, incapable of forming complex biological systems. In short, they completely misunderstand evolution and are not interested in educating themselves. They may still disagree with evolution if they ever bothered to understand it properly but they have no wish to pursue it and argue from a position of ignorance. \n\nI would also guess that most of these people believe humans are better than all other organisms – the crown jewel of creation – the ultimate species – this is the height of arrogance.
1181995
Humans and monkeys evolved from the same common ancestor.\nNow humans and monkeys are seperate species. \nComparisons between chimp and human DNA show the two species share 95 per cent of their genetic material.\nMonkeys aren't going to change into humans - this has nothing to do with Darwin's theory on human origins.
363668
We didn't come from apes. Apes and humans have a common simian ancestor, but the species evolved separately.
671450
Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past! \nBy the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
346820
No. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp:/
161432
The problem isn't evolution. The problem is the 'science' they use to 'prove' it.\n\nFirst, they started with an unsupported assumption (that the earth is millions / billions) of years old, then they used circular reasoning between varying fields of science to support that precept as fact, then they assumed without any evidence (in fact, in the face of their own evidence to the contrary) that one species can evolve into another.  Fact:  DNA strands of different lengths or different RNA locations cannot combine.  That means in order to produce say, a human, from say, gorillas, a male and a female gorilla would have to have identically mutated genes at exactly the same time at exactly the same place, find each other and successfully mate.  The probability of that happening one time (ape to man) exceeds the most liberal mathematical calculations of probability.  To happen thousands or hundreds of thousands of times to evolve from a single cell organism to any mammal way exceeds ANY mathematical concept of possibility.  What science has done is said "This is what we are going to prove, don't confuse us with the facts."
517863
This is one of the most common misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution.  The theory of human evolution does not claim that humans came from apes.  Instead, it says that many millions of years ago, there was a species that was neither a human nor an ape.  This species split into at least two groups.  Over millions of years, one of those groups gradually changed to become what we now know as apes, and one of them gradually changed to become what we now know as humans. \n\nWhether you choose to believe the theory of evolution or some other explanation for how humans came to be is an entirely different matter.  That's something you have to decide for yourself--a bunch of strangers on the Internet can't tell you that.
523971
Firstly, monkeys haven't evolved into humans.  Modern humans evolved through various ape-like ancestors over many millions of years, with homo sapiens appearing around 20-30,000 years ago.\n\nThe way I understand it, for something to evolve, there has to be an available evolutionary niche to fill.  Humans (and their early ancestors like homo ergaster or homo erectus) have filled theirs.  Even if they hadn't, any other ape would probably have evolved into something that was quite different from homo sapiens.\n\nChimpanzees (the closest living relatives to homo sapiens, us) have evolved to fill their niche.  There is nowhere else for them to evolve to (although they are advancing, see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_chimps.html for info), no available evolutionary niche that needs them.  \n\nOf course chimps, gorillas etc have evolved over millions of years and are different from their ancestors who lived at that time.  They are constantly evolving and in many millions more years will probably be quite different from what they are now.\n\nP.S. Monkeys are different from apes!  They are often smaller and most of them have a prehensile tail, whereas apes do not (and there are differences again between Old and New World Monkeys).  Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate for some more info.