Just five?
Sorry I couldn't stop at five. Every day we see claims attributed to evolution by scientists, who are clearly just speculating and have no proof to back up their claims whatsoever.
Ichneumon: [Oh really? Cite five examples. If you can't, then you've just exposed yourself as willing to shoot off at the mouth without substantiation.]
DannyTN: Just five?
Five would do.
1. Piltdown man
Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Strike one
2. Haeckels embryos
Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Strike two
3. Archaeoraptor
Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Strike three
4. Brontosaurus
Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Strike four
5. Lucy's flat face and upright posture
What about them? Sure, creationists make various false accusations against the "Lucy" specimens, but that hardly counts as support of "sh!t" in peer-reviewed journals. Strike five
6. Nebraska man
Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Strike six
7. Java Man
The "Java Man" specimens are legimate Homo erectus specimens, false creationist accusations notwithstanding. No "sh!t". Strike seven
8. Orce man
There's a lively debate on whether the small fragment of bone found at Orce is from a human or not. The peer-reviewed journals carry this debate. The most recent papers appear to support the human side of the debate, such as the . You claimed to have examples of "complete sh!t", but this isn't it. It's just an open question. Strike eight
9. European Neanderthal dates
There's no doubt that Protsch was a fraud who just made up dates for specimens instead of properly testing them (and sold for cash a lot of specimens that didn't belong to him, and arranged to have a lot of Nazi historical documents shredded -- he was a real piece of work), but that doesn't make all dating of European Neanderthals "complete sh!t", as you so charmingly put it. Nonetheless, I'll give you this one if you can actually identify an article in a peer-reviewed journal which unwittingly used any date which Protsch screwed up.
10. Horse evolution series
There's nothing wrong with the horse evolution series, creationist lies to the contrary notwithstanding. Strike nine
Wow, nine strikes out of ten (and one ball still up the air until you provide actual citations) -- that batting average *sucks*. Are you sure you know what in the heck you're talking about?
Sorry I couldn't stop at five.
you couldn't even get off the ground. If you were playing baseball, you'd have gotten three "outs" for your team all by yourself and you'd be off the field.
Every day we see claims attributed to evolution by scientists,
Indeed we do, backed up by mountains of evidence and endless experiments.
who are clearly just speculating and have no proof to back up their claims whatsoever.
Sorry, son, but *you're* the one who utterly failed to support your claim when challenged. Scientists can actually support their claims, even though you can't. And your over-the-top lying about them (falsely accusing them of having "no proof to back up their claims 'whatsoever'") really does nothing to help your credibility at all. You really aren't allowed to just make up things and post them -- that's called lying.