Evolution is the Superior Theory to Creationism

"How long has the Human Population been around? and given that amount of time, what new species has evolved from homo sapiens?" New species haven't evolved into new species because there is no environmental need to. Humans have built things to adapt to the environment for us so we don't have to. Instead of developing tough hides and fur to withstand the cold we build houses. That is what sets us apart from animals. In fact, humans have been evolving even faster over the past 10,000 years than ever before, 100 times faster (1). The only thing is that these evolutions aren't in the right direction to produce a new species. A species as defined in biology is a group of organisms with similar traits that can interbreed and produce FERTILE offspring. We haven't evolved enough to meet either criterion, simply because there is no need to. If the world floods everything else will learn to swim while we'll just build houses on stilts. "can you provide definitive proof that shows that a cow has become a dog and the steps between" The reason there is no possible way to satisfy people with this stance that evolution exists is because no matter how many "plot points" (species) I give you to show the change from a cow to a dog all you're going to say is "oh, well there were just a million species living in that area so that's why it looks like they evolved". It's a pretty simple concept; A bunch of small change makes a few big changes. Over time those big changes pile up and you have something different. I think the best example for you is vestigial organs. Vestigial organs are useless organs that were once used by an organism but now are not. They don't hinder the organism's ability to live or reproduce, and so they continue within the gene pool of that species. An example of this would be the tail bone in humans (2). The tail bone (coccyx as I'll refer to it) is extremely similar to that of other species, even those of species that DO have tails. In early embryonic stages humans, rabbits, chickens, and fish all are similar looking. They all have a general hook shape with a very distinct tail (3). Why else would they all look the same unless they all had a common ancestor who's embryos had a hook shape? "just because there is evidence of evolution and that evolution does exist does not disprove the existence of a god or creator." So evolution exists! You just said it! I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong I've never actually read the Bible myself, somewhere it says that God created the Earth in 7 (I think?) days and that's how it is today. Nothing changed. Well, as you say, evolution exists so how could nothing have changed? Suddenly there's an error in the Bible! But this is easy to overlook. So now I see two choices... a) Have faith (belief that is not based in proof [dictionary.com]) that an all-powerful being (God/creator) made the entire universe and everything in it in 7 days and now has decided to let people get to the terrible point where we are today (that's a separate debate) or b) Not believe in a god, look at the evidence, and come to the conclusion that we are here simply by chance (again another debate) and that evolution not only makes sense, but has the evidence to back it up (it's all around us). I apologize for bringing in other subjects outside of evolution but I mention them simply for the sake of context. "Do we have evidence that that finch will be some completely different species because they lived on a different side of the island" They're actually not different species. Their body and beak size varies by island but they are of the same species. Finches can fly. The Galapagos islands aren't terribly far apart. If each finch hadn't adapted to their specific island, then why aren't the Galapagos islands covered with each type of finch? Or better yet, a single type of finch? Because each type of finch in each island is adapted to survive in that environment. "But just because Native Americans adapted to disease does not mean eventually we will cross species and becomes something other than human." Exactly! We may stay humans forever (until we die out). Actually, we probably will stay fairly similar. We'll be able to build structures to protect us and gadgets to do things for us instead of having to change ourselves. Obviously we are still changing as our lifestyle is not exactly "natural" (sitting for long periods of time, drinking milk past 5 years old) but there is no evolutionary need for humans to change drastically enough to create a new species. "As far as adapting to disease, that is what people do, and that is how the immune system works" That's not how the immune system works...I assume you're under the impression that the immune system can adapt quickly to new diseases. Yes, when the exposure to this new disease is low enough, as is the case with vaccines, your immune system can do so. Vaccines introduce an incredibly small amount of a disease to the immune system so it can have "practice" fighting off the disease. It's like putting a drop of water in a bucket. A hundred Europeans coming over and ransacking your village and then raping you is not a drop of water in a bucket. It's a torrential downpour. Those that had random gene mutations to protect against some of these diseases survived, while those who didn't died out. "I'm discounting the existence of one species becoming a completely different species." Again, a bunch of small changes become big changes which becomes a new species. No matter what I say to show how everything came from a common ancestor and no matter how many examples I give your answer will always be "God created it that way. Not evolution" "As evolution is continuous, does that mean the animal that we came from is extinct?" No! Imagine a species is like a pie (this is a metaphor I know that a pie can't become a human). Each slice of the species represents a subspecies. Let's say one of the subspecies becomes isolated, maybe their island breaks away or something. Now they're under different environmental pressures (the oven is hotter now where the slice of pie is), so that slice changes but the rest of the pie stays the same or changes at a constant rate that is DIFFERENT from that of the slice. "Where is the animal that shares 99% of human DNA? Where is the animal that is directly in between Apes and Human?" There are probably humans that share 99% of human DNA with a "standard" human. There's no animal at the 99% mark because if there were it would just evolve into a human, unless there was some benefit to being at 99%, but there apparently is not which is why that 99% spot goes unfilled. "Ameba are asexual and can reproduce without a partner... so those keep reproducing and slowing become (over millions and billions of years) something other than ameba. While this change is occurring, the original ameba is still reproducing meaning the ameba never went away and still exists today.." Ok... "If we derived from an ameba to human there should be a time line from 1% to 100% human and we do not have this. as I stated earlier. What species exists to day that is 99% human?" The timeline starts with sexually producing organisms. Then it goes to mammals. Then to bipedal mammals (sounds familiar). Then us. It's like following a trail of bread crumbs, each bread crumb representing a trait that is present in humans. By the time you get to the end of the trail you have a handful of crumbs and a human. To take it a step further why does the existence of evolution mean that there isn't a master creator in existence? It's not the existence of evolution it's the ideas that go along with it (see above). (1) http://mentalfloss.com... (2) http://www.healthline.com... (3) http://ncse.com...