why we not able to see evolution changes in human now?
830732
There are some terrible answers in here, although they're on the right path at least.  My answer is long, but this first thing I say is why you don't observe changes, and everything after is why what you might think (or be told) you observe is probably wrong.\n\nAnyhow, first issue is you need the proper perspective.  Come back and check on us in 100,000 years and you might see differences.\n\nYou would also need to take into consideration things like increasing hight being related to better nutrition and other factors.\n\nAnother factor to consider is that evolution, or survival of the fittest is the selection of random mutations that increase the fitness of a species in its environment.  Given that we can now change our environment pretty much at will, the selective pressure on humans is not particularly selective any longer.\n\nYou should also consider that as long as people are able to reproduce, they will pass their genetic material on, even if it's less fit or gives them increased chances for diseases.  Things like Alzheimers or Parkinson's disease that affect people later in life won't be selected against because people carrying those genetic factors are able to reproduce before they die from disease.  Short of a eugenics program you won't see "evolution" in that direction.\n\nI also don't buy the wisdom tooth argument at all.  Unless people are dying from having their wisdom teeth come in, which until the advent of good dentistry probably wasn't an issue as teeth were falling out anyhow, leaving room.  In more recent times, if your teeth weren't falling out, then I guess it would be possible that incoming wisdom teeth could lead to your death.  given the time frame for the arrival of wisdom teeth this theoretically could prohibit reproduction, but how many people do you know that died from impacted wisdom teeth?  none.  therefor there isn't any selective pressure on that trait either.\n\na sample size of 4 with 1 not having it  (I dont have them my family does) is worthless.  i have my wisdom teeth, haven't had any teeth pulled, and my mouth is fine.  my parents and brother had to have their wisdom teeth pulled.  does that mean im more evolved?  no, it means my mouth is a little bigger.\n\nand finally, don't fall into the trap of "use and disuse".  The theory that evolution is directed "use and disuse" of a trait or feature has been debunked, but for some reaspon it appeals to people who work diligently to find real world traits that they percieve to fall into this category.  i don't know why peopel cling to that particular theory so much, but I'm guessing it's because it is way more simple to explain and understand than natural selection and survival of the fittest.
106231
Organic evolution is a change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differeing genetically in one or more traits.These changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in the numbers of the species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon.\nThe net result is descent with modification.  Intelligent Design proves nothing because it cannot be proven with experiments which form no educated predictions nor hypotheses. To prove there is a God one would look at E=mcsquared.  We know what c and E are but someone had to make or present the m. \nFossils are sufficient evidence in which some resemble ape like ancestors. Human and Chimp DNA are 99.4% identical in protein-coding segments and 98.4% identity overall. Realize that any human is related to any other human by 99.9%. Therefore in structural genes, we differ by only 0.5% from the chimp. If you want more ask, email me at rossman_2003@yahoo.com
1167417
With all due respect to earlier answers, evolution HAS been observed in animals, plants, and bacteria and viruses.  (See the first reference on misconceptions about evolution, and the second link for some examples.)\n\nEvolution refers not just to the origination of a new species (which has been observed in all the biological kingdoms), but also to changes in the gene pool of an existing species.  This generally means that genetic traits which give an organism a better chance at survival will tend to become more common.  Humans have definitely experienced this type of evolution, although medical interventions and improved technology have decreased the natural pressure on humans to change.
1037519
Good question!\n\nNature has evolved molecules that pigment various parts of organisms.  Plants and flowers are the obvious case in point, but in humans, skin pigments, and those in the iris (giving us blue, green brown etc. eyes) have also evolved.\n\nIt is QUITE POSSIBLE that at some point in the past, alternative pigmentation DID evolve in humans, and the only thing we CAN say with any certainty, is that if it did, if was later eradicated from the gene pool, and does not ersist any longer.\n\nMost notably, the only ANIMALS that have evolved the colours you mention have been birds, where the ability to fly away rather than the need to camoflage and blend in is the preferred means of evading redators.  So bright colours in these cases are NOT dangerous to the organism (bird) displaying them.\n\nIt is true that some other apes (primates) DO display bright colours.  Some have bright red backsides, and in some cases, bright blue pigment is evident on parts of the bodies.\n\nSo as a final thought:  in a world where bright colouring is no longer likely to be life endangering to humans, how long will it be before a random genetic mutation causes pigmentation other than the standard tan and browns that we are used to to evolve?!
1110389
Species do not evolve, individuals show variation and sometimes that variation is pro reproductive, (not necessarily pro long and happy life)  In that case a pool of individuals with that trait grows and reinforces it.  Such variation tends to be absorbed in a large mobile population and cause no long term divergence, so our own mobility and global success works against a new variety of human emerging.  \n\nOne can anticipate however that our science will progress far faster then any normal evolution and in a short time a group of therapies will be available that will offer longer life, greater vitality and sexual enjoyment, improved health in general and whatever appearance is desired.  The trend to these things already exists.  The factor that will isolate this group of advantaged humans may already exist as well, since it is likely that such biological tinkering will be available only to those who can afford it.  We may see the very rich diverging as a virtual new type of human in the next fifty years, followed by the middle class in places like America.  The difference in lifespan between a wealthy nation and a third world one is now twenty five years or more, it may stretch to a century.  A pretty big issue putting wealth and experience against endless numbers...
292556
You probably already know this but populations of humans were never separated well (reproductively or geographic isolation) from one another for significant changes to build up.  That said, I'm sure you know of the sickle cell trait that (to my knowledge) evolved at least twice (Africa and the Indian sub-continent).\n\nOne of the more interesting explaination I've found for skin color changes was described in an excellent article in "Scientific American," October 2002.
5138
Exactly. Humans did not evolve from primates. The theory of evolution is full of holes.
478407
evolution doesnt happen instantaneously\n\nthe appendix is believed to have a function (thousands of years ago) to digest raw meat, however, now that we're civilized, the organ has begun to shrunk\n\nEVENTUALLY the organ will completely disappear, but as of now evolution will still require more generations\n\nah the wonders of science
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
617128
I think the fossil record is the most convincing evidence we have for evolution.  Granted, it does have a few holes, but the holes aren't nearly as large as the holes in the Bible.  \n\nAnd as far as the comment made by Stand goes - evolution is such a slow process.  Just because we don't see evolution occurring, doesn't mean it's not going on behind the scenes.  I have heard some arguments that evolution of humans has stopped because we don't have the environmental pressures we used to - we use technology to ensure that "everyone" survives.  This is somewhat ludicrous, however, because this theory comes from the point of view of a person living in a first world country.  What about the billions living in third world countries?  Do they have the advantages of technology?  Also, what about the other forms of selection, such as sexual selection?  Truth be told, there are approximately 4.2 "important" amino acid mutations per generation, and since the technical definition of evolution is 'the change in the gene pool of a population over time', we are definitely still evolving - just not in visible ways.  Yet.
215174
You can't watch something evolve--evolution takes millions and millions of years.
1092117
this is a nice question\n&we can resolve the ans by the diff of current life & the life before 500 yrs\nthe biological changes wold be\n1 lose of appendix &nicetin membrane\n2 lose of the smallest fingures of legs\n\n\ntecnology will be much more advance\nwe might not go to office &schools
967456
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
248588
In my opinion, your question gives more validity of Darwin's theory of Evolution than Creation. That we are what and who we are, because of years of adaptation in this planet. As our prehistoric ancestors (supposedly apes), dispersed their population throughout the earth surface of Pangaea (known to be just one big geological land mass before it broke up into the continents we now know and live on). Since earth features climatic conditions that varies from different regions, all living beings on it has to adapt to these conditions. Nature provided the biological elements within our body through time in changing each and everyone's varying skin tone, made possible by a biochemical called Melanin. The presumption whether Adam and Eve were white, or if our skin color has any form of bearing towards intelligence is quite superficial, because color is just naturally skin deep. Getting back to whether the first humans were here instantaneous in origin as theology would suggest, it is Evolution that explains changes in: Nature, migration, time, and adaptation, brought about the multitude of human races, plants, and other living and non living oddities here on earth.
364515
If you are going to comment about evolution, at least do yourself the favor of actually learning what it is.\n\nHumans did not evolve from the species of apes and monkeys that you see today.  Instead, all current primates (including humans) evolved from a common ancestor.  That was an "ape" that lived thousands of years ago, but it didn't look like the monkeys and gorillas you see today.\n\nGo to a museum, read a science book, or watch the Discovery channel sometime.  They all show you how humans evolved.\n\nIt doesn't take faith to believe in evolution.  It just takes the ability to open your eyes and look at the evidence.
1138218
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\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. \n! By 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!!!!
378305
i doubt it... the human race will also be evolving, which means that even though there might be a large current race, there will be several mutations from the norm