My my, you really ARE extremely ignorant about evolution, aren't you?Evolutionists have never stated that humans evolved from monkeys, apes, chimpanzees, or any other kind of modern primate.What they assert is that based on the evidence available, humans and other primates share a common ancestor, neither monkey, nor human, nor chimpanzee, but similar them, if somewhat simpler than them.And if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around.
Wrong, my young whipper snapper(really young if you haven't seen that bullshit, as I'm one myself), that is exactly what they taught in school. They even had a nice chart exemplifying it, with monkeys and shit turning into australopithecus and whatnot, eventually becoming us. They aren't still teaching that shit in college thankfully, but what they are teaching isn't much better. They use the same stuff the people in here are using as evidence of current evolution.
"Missing Links" are, in fact, part and parcel of the theory of evolutions more recent iterations. While the slow "perfecting" of forms takes long thousands of years, when environmental change / stressor occurs, evolution occurs on a much more rapid scale measured in years rather than generations. Observers noted that certain birds on isolated Pacific Islands (Galapagos, I believe) exhibited easily measure, rapid shift in beak size depending on the weather cycle. (I don't remember the names, but its El Nino and another phase, one has lots of water the other doesn't) When the dry cycle occurred, the birds average beak size shifted, drastically, towards the larger beaks that could handle the larger seeds, when the wet season occurred, they evolved towards smaller beaks that could get around the abundance of vegetation, and deal with the smaller seeds that were then more prolific.(And, yes, I've oversimplified the details of the observation here, I'm going on years old memory and the important details are there: evolution was observed in a relatively small time frame, with large macro effects)
No, it was assumed to be observed. And don't pull that asinine definition of evolution. It's an ass covering attempt to avoid how big an ass genetics have made the evolutionary biologists look. The theory of evolution is MACRO-evolution, not a temporary shift in phenotypes caused by near extinction of a dominant trait. The "proof" is equally useful in disproving the theory, a versatile species with a wide range of genetic traits doesn't evolve new ones, but loses some of them.
When a species loses 90% of it's population before breeding age, it's going to vary in make-up when the circumstances change, regardless of whether evolution exists in any form at all. If a moth population is only 10% black moths and 90% white moths, but 99% of the wrong color moth population gets eaten and only 90% of the right color moths do, the trees being coated in black soot just changed the black moths from 1% of the population to more than half in one generation. Evolution is still getting laughed at by so many people because evolutionists are just as narrow-minded as the idiots that think the earth is six thousand years old are.
The fossil record is the best evidence of evolution that I've seen, and the entire combined fossil collection of the entire world is as much a history of life on earth as my ass crack is of the US. It's a negligible portion even of the fossils that likely exist, and fossilization is a ridiculously rare circumstance. Short of turning one species into another, we're fucked.
