[Dimensio]

Do you know what a "theory" is in the context of science? If so, why are you dishonestly acting as though a "theory" is somehow a weak guess? If not, then why are you lying about reading any of the links?

in conclusion their "evidence" is just plain wrong.

And yet you don't bother to provide any explanation as to why. I suspect that you lied about reading any of the links in the first place. If the evidence provided were really so weak then it shouldn't be hard for you to actually explain problems with it. However, you're a liar and you can't bear to admit that you are mistaken, so you make up a lie about reading the statements, then make up another lie about finding it to be "weak" and run off like a coward.

[whispering out loud]

my explanation is there but maybe you're just too dense to understand it, l e t m e t y p e r e a l s l o w s o m a y b e y o u c a n g r a s p t h i s.

Following growth charts, which were by the way scientifically built, and following a time table for evo, made by your own theory. I have concluded that man hasn't in no form has existed for more than 17000 years, And according to your own "Darwinist theory" it would take much longer for ape to indeed "evolve" into man. As far as animal fossils found that don't exist today, .. reckon all the species that die out in society today, "our endangered species" will be called evolutionary "links" next?