There is no doubt that the theory of evolution leads to racism. Though obviously, some who believe in evolution would dispute that - after all, they have presupposed that racism is immoral, they wouldn't have their precious evolution be attributing to racism.
Before I expound on that, I must clarify that a racist person is not necessarily an evolutionist. Therefore, the evolution theory is not the sole cause of racism. But this is not the topic for that subject, only that it must be noted here.
I will ignore historical accounts (famous evolutionary racists) of my claim, since many others have done that already.
These are the charts I found on the web. Some from creationism sites (where the theory that men comes from apes is debunked), and others from various evolution science sites:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans
Evolutionist defenders would say that human races come from the same homo sapiens ancestry. However, they would usually neglect to mention, though they are well aware, that they also believe that some human races (Eurasians) have their homo sapiens ancestry mixed with another species: Denisovans, Neanderthals while other race human races have different ancestry mixture instead. Funny how we often identify offspring of inter-species breeding animals very carefully, but not so when it comes to human beings. The evolutionists call everyone homo sapiens instead of homo sanisovans, or homo sanderthals. Well, I supposed no taxonomist wants to be called a racist. If you have had two different categories for humans, then it is open that one category is more "evolved" than another.
Still, in all adamant pursuit of winning the debate, the evolutionists might argue that even if humans have different humans according to their distinctive mixture of ancestral mixture of distinctive species (denisovans, neanderthals, etc.), there needs not be distinction of evolutionary level. One human race is therefore not more or less evolved than another. But this means that they would have to consider other animal species (Ok, I'll grant that with some exceptions to certain species like amoeba and what not, but it makes no difference because the argument fails either way) in their evolutionary tree as equally evolved with humans. So, it is not surprising why some animal activists exist today in promoting that animals have equal rights as humans. I'm sure they would not object to inter-species marriage. The operating moral principle they are applying here is this: "it is moral as long as nobody gets discriminated". So, you can now see how shallow this moral principle is. They have to make themselves blind to certain distinction because they have confused themselves and thought that having this certain distinction (one is more evolved than the other) denotes discrimination. In the end, they are living in contradiction and since this kind of distinction, which they associate with discrimination and reject, exists, they harbor a kind of discrimination that is scary because they are in denial of it. Their solution to that is a very convenient one for them: They shift their discrimination to those who do not agree with them, often falsely accusing those of discrimination instead (after all, distinction of certain kind implies discrimination, so they falsely presupposed) and call those bigots. Amazingly, by calling others bigot, they yet again deny that they are discriminating anyone.
Therefore, we do not need to even get to distinguish whether or not one human race is more evolved than another because there need no such evolution to begin with. God clearly tells us in Scripture that all humans are from one man (Whom God formed from the dust, not from apes - Genesis 2:7), Adam, and one woman, Eve. Asians, Africans, Whites, Blacks, Browns, whatever, we are of the same family, literally. Let's not confused ourselves with terms like "theory", "scientifically proven", etc., with truth. A scientific theory is simply a hypothesis with many evidences that SEEM (emphasis added) to support it, because many modern scientists today will admit: the only thing I know FOR CERTAIN, is that I don't know anything that's certainly true - only SEEMINGLY true. This relative knowledge claim of truth is a fallacy by itself but it is beyond this topic. So why would we bother with concluding that everyone falls off the edge of the world simply because we can argue so and see no evidence of anyone making returning trips around the globe - wasn't this the problem with the ancients, when they thought they had tons of evidences which seemingly tell them that the world must be square or flat or whatever. This suppression of faith in God has happened in churches then and now as well. They are ultimately the same group the fools in churches and those outside of churches (why should there be any difference simply because they are inside a building or having certain membership on papers?), sinners who make themselves God, misinterpreting evidences God supply according to their own intelligence, without humility and integrity before God when it comes to the pursuit of truth.
So, in conclusion, by denying the need to go to God and his Word (The Bible) in the first place, we cannot even have true humility and integrity to receive the truth. We would only have our own assumptions which we call truths because we granted ourselves humility and integrity to justify our truths. But how can we consider ourselves humble if we refuse to come to our Maker? Is suppressing God's existence or falsely accusing God of any faults an honest and humble way to go about things? Or does falsely accusing men of God of believing in fairy tales like the frog prince give one pride or humility?
What then, do we go with 6000 years of Creation? It all depends on who is saying that now does it?
I don't see 6000 years anywhere in the Bible either, since the Bible never marks 24-hour or 36 hour day all the time.
Oh, so you believe that one day is equal to a thousand days?
Why would I believe what the Bible didn't say.
Then what do you actually believe?
I say we keep seeking the truth diligently without careless conclusion. And we certainly cannot achieve that without humility before God.
So you don't know anything while there are already so much SCIENTIFIC evidences pointing to this direction!
There's a chance some day I will have to tell you "I told you so".
Ah, so there is also a chance I will say to you "I told you so" one day too!
Since I've explained how the above theory has contradicted itself with God's word, I don't see how you will get to say that, unless you falsely accuse me of something before saying that.