[tongass kid]

Once again the criteria is not mine and it is not yours, it was Darwin’s, that the evidence is “gradual and transitional”. I suggest you read his book so that you may understand his hypothesis. If you believe that the fossil record explains where the creatures come from, this would be world class breaking news. I really don’t know how you expect answers to questions that you ask when no one has been able to answer them based on the fossil record. Further more , your use of capital letters and insults do not enhance your position. Perhaps you are attempting to be entertained rather than use your brain. I leave you to your flaming capital letters and hope you do not burn yourself

[allmendream]

You must be embarrassed by what you truly believe then. Amusing that you think it doesn't support evolution yet seem to have no earthly idea what idea it does support. I am singularly unimpressed by your evasions and high dudgeon; especially after equating Scientists with used car salesmen.

[allmendream]

And what makes you assume i haven't read Darwin's “book”. He had several and I have read three of his books. I suggest you reread them, maybe you will find out where Darwin thought he would find “proof” in the fossil record rather than evidence.

I do believe the fossil record explains where creatures come from, they come from a common ancestor, as supported by genomic data and the fossils of their immediate antecedents.

I do not expect you to answer questions that nobody has been able to answer. There are many people who work on the subject and none of them seem to throw up their hands and go “ain't no telling’ one way or another”; they all seem to think the evidence points one way or the other.

You seem to claim total agnosticism other than that you simply know on faith and without evidence that Darwin was wrong and that austrolopithocine wasn't bipedal (when it most certainly was).