I would guess that my MS and several hours toward my PhD do make me a grade school drop out,
I regret to inform you that your "MS and several hours toward your PhD" in [some conspicuously unspecified subject] do not change the fact that on the subject of evolutionary biology, you do indeed have a ridiculous grade-school level of competence.
Did you actually believe that waving around the fact that you have an MS degree in [unknown subject] was going to rescue your numerous elementary screwups concerning biology?
I am sure that your education is superior to mine
On this topic, yes it is.
Evolution - of what?
Of living things.
Species die out as a matter of fact there have been at least three almost total die outs of all species.
Yes, although this poses no problem for evolutionary biology, as you seem to be trying to imply.
I do not believe that humans evolved from apes because apes are still here.
ROFL!!!! Congratulations, that's the *fourth* grade-school level, incredibly simplistic misunderstanding you've made on this topic in your two posts on this thread.
It's as goofy as saying, "I do not believe that dachshunds descended from dogs because dogs are still here".
Clue for the clueless #1: "Apes", like "dogs", is a higher level of classification than "humans" or "dachshunds". Even if evolution required that parent species vanish in order for a new species to arise (and it does NOT, see below), it could still be the case that humans evolved from a *particular* species of ape which is no longer here, while OTHER species of apes continued to exist. You sort of "forgot" about that simple concept, eh?
Clue for the clueless #2: New species do not necessarily totally replace the species from which they evolved. In fact, most of the time they evolve from a SUBPOPULATION of the parent species, producing TWO species, not one -- the original species continues to exist. You sort of "forgot" that obvious scenario too when you made your gradeschool-level "analysis". There's a reason it's called the "tree of life" -- because it BRANCHES, it doesn't just march down one single lineage.
Further there have been several humanoid species, over millions of years time, which did not interbreed but died out.
...which is exactly in accord with the predictions of evolutionary theory. Did you imagine it wasn't?
But then it it impossible to try and educate someone who believes that we and other species have evolved from inferior species.
You mean, it's impossible to try and dissuade someone from believing what overwhelming amounts of evidence along multiple indpendent cross-confirmnig lines indicate, by waving around childish creationist fallacies which have flaws so obvious even a child could recognize them.
You know, most folks would realize that a prerequisite to being able to critique a topic would be to LEARN the most basic things about it first, but apparently that never occurs to you and your fellow anti-evolutionists.
So what is the reason to try.
Well, if you're going to do it as poorly as you do here, with as little knowledge, and via the most elementary of misconceptions, yeah, why bother?
Buy the way I am not a creationist but neither do I believe that the present science of evolution is correct.
Well sure, if your head is full of gross misrepresentations about "the present science of evolution", such as the ones you spew here, it *is* going to look pretty silly and hardly the kind of thing that anyone could believe was correct. But then, that's exactly how the anti-evolution propagandists planned it -- by presenting such a cartoonish misrepresentation of science that anyone swallowing it would think, "man, how can anyone believe something that dumb"? But it's the *misrepresentation" that is dumb, not the actual science.
If so how come the Crock and the Alligator and several other species have not evolved but remain the same as they were during the age of the dinos no matter what piece of land they are on?
They did evolve, actually. Try learning your science from science journals (gasp!) instead of creationist tracts.
These other humanoid species that your mentioned died out there was no assimilation into our species as different species cannot interbreed.
Yes, so? Thanks for agreeing with evolution.
The human species has evolved in their abilities to communicate, write, read, and if one reads the history of the ancients there is not much that we now do that they did not do except for technology. The writings of Pliny (BC) even mention that the earth is round, medical instruments that were used then are almost like the ones used now (they had pain killers in the form of codeine). We have evolved in our ability to utilize knowledge so our lives have become much better in some aspects.
Over a few thousand years, yes. Over vaster periods of time, our bodies and brains evolved drastically.
But I still do not subscribe to the scientists that try and trace human being back to a distressed ape.
That's because you're unaware of the vast evidence which overwhelmingly indicates, beyond any reasonable doubt, the truth of that conclusion, not to mention even vaster mountains of evidence indicating the validity of evolution and common ancestry in general.
Your anti-evolution pamphlets sort of "forgot" to tell you about that, didn't they?