Sure I do. For the most part these disciplines do not pretend to have the entire history of the world under their belts. For an evolutionist it matters little where a fossil is found. It must be interpreted in such a manner as to support the notion that life has steadily progressed over billions of years from the most primitive to the more advanced forms.
The other disciplines you mention all have their place and their limits, and each has contributed to general knowledge about the world.
You keep bringing up bones, fossils, and every kind of scientific discipline except direct observation and documentation showing any ambiguity over whether a biological entity should be classified as ape or human. For some reason the ambiguities only come about when bones and fossils are considered. Or do we need to make up "punctuated equilibrium" (another unobserved, undocumented process) to explain a lack of evidence?
You can call evolutionism whatever you wish, but it should be kept from usrping the name "science" for itself as it has done for over a century. It's time is up. A good many folks are figuring that out.
You have just rejected your standing answer to my post 120 in total, not that your answer made any sense anyway or answered any point but one. So you're going to deal with how the fossils now indisputably make the same tree of life outlined by molecular data, right?
For the most part these disciplines do not pretend to have the entire history of the world under their belts.
Then again, I guess not. We have fossil dating methods from geology and nuclear chemistry. Thus, we can know that the fossil series occurred in the order presented. You are denying geological evidence even as you claim to accept it. This would be a singularly dishonest performance were it not a Fester Chugabrew specialty. Please inform us what parts of geology you do accept and perhaps I can show you how these are used correctly in dating fossils.
For an evolutionist it matters little where a fossil is found.
A strange statement. Well not in this context. Another falsehood. At any rate, it matters where fossils are found and such is always meticulously recorded. We expect the distribution of fossils to make sense according to a species's ability to propagate itself and this tends to happen. Where it doesn't, that is noted as an issue.
It must be interpreted in such a manner as to support the notion that life has steadily progressed over billions of years from the most primitive to the more advanced forms.
You know Piltdown Man was a forgery, right? How did some people know to suspect it almost immediately, before a single forensic clue to its falsity had been noted? You DO know that creationists have adopted it as a model since, they didn't catch it, right? They, like you, don't accept any fossil evidence for evolution.
Some people knew very early that something was wrong with Piltdown. It was in the wrong place.
Getting tired of your little wave-aways as I do all the work here. Give me a better answer to post 120 now. Deal with the points. Try to be honest, if you have it in you anywhere.
Simple, bland restatement. Do you have any tricks except coming back again dumb as a stump?
Again, it is evolution and nothing else that actively predicts the fossil forms will show more relationship to each other than the diverged present forms. Darwin drew a tree of branching evolution in the first edition of Origin, 1859. Give the man credit for a successful prediction here instead of pretending it's a problem.