It has been shown that the vast majority (and I would say all of them) of fossils pointed to by scientists to be proof, have in fact, been debunked and retracted, and like Piltdown, yet still appear in textbooks and museums without any kinds of retractions and are still passed off as scientific proof.
What is clear is that no major human fossil discovery has ever been free of controversy and scientists who don't agree with the conclusions made by the discoverer. Interpretation and postulation don't seem to bring sicentists to the same conclusion, looking at the same evidence. Rather, it's what they believe about the fossil that shapes their opinion as to what it is and what its significance is. That's not objective science, but subjective interpretation.
Carl Sagan said it best, when adressing an annual American Association for the Advancement of Science conference, when he described how science works: "The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged and the prevailing hypothesis must survive confrontation with observation. Appeals to authority are impermissable, and experiments must be reproducible." Show me how evolution theory fits Carl's views of how science works - his views are the same as the ones I was taught in both high school and college science courses. It's not observable, it's not reproducible. Micro-evolution (variations within a species) is not sufficient to prove one species emerges from another. In the lab, scientists have tried for decades to introduce mutations into species to bring about evolutionary leaps, and in all cases, the mutated offspring are not better off than the previous generation. Mutations do not create new information, they alter existing information - that's why mutation is not able to create new species - it just shuffles what already exists.
The way you childishly name call others who don't hold your world view, or that you perceive to be less intelligent than you, indicates to me you really don't want to educate but rather silence anyone who doesn't think like you do.
Proof? Evidence is all that anyone ever claims with respect to a fossil discovery. You are still completely wrong about this (and I wonder what vast expertise you possess that prompts you to make a claim that all fossils are meaningless). Actually, I am still betting on the fact that your opinions on this subject are gleaned entirely from a small pamphlet published by Duane Gish.
Fossils prove conclusively that life on this planet has changed over time (primates are no exception). This is all that evolution means. If you have another explanation supported by other evidence (genetically similar species for example: Chimp and Human are 98% identical) to explain evolution without invoking variation, isolation, and selection I am sure that the world would love to hear it. But if all you've got to go on is the fact that a Babylonian born Hebrew rewrote a Persian origin myth in 400BC then why bother feigning an interest in science?
"What is clear is that no major human fossil discovery has ever been free of controversy and scientists who don't agree with the conclusions made by the discoverer." -- Secret Agent Man
Relatively little controversy (and those are generally of a trivial nature) surrounds these discoveries where the experts are concerned. On the other hand, practically every fossil is controversial to bozos like Duane Gish and Henry Morrison. What these guys imagine is controversial was largely laid to rest by the real scientific community about 100 years ago. Nothing has changed since except the accumulation of ever more powerful evidence for and proof of the necessity of evolutionary change by means of natural selection.
"Show me how evolution theory fits Carl's views of how science works - his views are the same as the ones I was taught in both high school and college science courses. It's not observable, it's not reproducible." -- Secret Agent Man
Carl said, "...prevailing hypothesis must survive confrontation with observation." Evolution is the single most thoroughly documented fact known to man. Every observation (this includes fossil discoveries) to date has been found to accord perfectly with evolution. There is no doubt at all that species are mutable, and that they suffer extinction. The Auroch is gone but so too are the Neanderthals that hunted them. If evolution were not possible then artificial selection would not have permitted man to direct the evolution of his domestic species merely by selecting which ones were allowed to reproduce.
You might claim that artificial selection is just micro-evolution and that no new species were produced. Try mating a Great Dane with a Pekinese if you doubt that speciation is possible. On the other hand, you could successfully cross a Llama with a Dromedary Camel thus proving that these two species, genetically isolated for 30 million years, can still interbreed. This possibility is predicted by evolution theory because the two species descended from a common ancestor. What is your explanation for these phenomenon?
"Mutations do not create new information, they alter existing information - that's why mutation is not able to create new species - it just shuffles what already exists." -- Secret Agent Man
Which is why the genome is mostly junk. This is a prediction of evolution theory and has been observed and measured most recently during the Human Genome Project. The evolutionary history of the species is written in that junk. You don't even have to sequence the stuff to prove relationships between species. You can just look at the anaphase chromosomes under the microscope to identify structure, number, and chromatin banding patterns. Take a look at the human and chimp chromosomes with a list of all the major chromosomal changes and see what that experience does to your confidence that evolution is not possible. Incidentally, the Chinese performed a Human/Chimp cross during the Cultural Revolution and published the results in a Chinese language journal. International abhorrence ended the experiments (or at least the publications). The offspring apparently did not make it to term because of morphological dissimilarities. With a little manipulation and chromosome matching the experiment would likely be more successful today and they may well be doing it despite the ethical objections from the West.
"The way you childishly name call others who don't hold your world view, or that you perceive to be less intelligent than you, indicates to me you really don't want to educate but rather silence anyone who doesn't think like you do." -- Secret Agent Man
I am not an educator. I work in a factory making auto parts. Things that don't work properly drive me nuts and sometimes the only way to fix something is to bang on it with a hammer. If you don't want to be called a name (liar, for example) then don't tell lies. That should be simple enough. Then again, if you are going to insist on making statements that everyone else knows are false you should at least preface your remarks by saying, "I believe..." or "My guess is that..." or "Duane Gish says..."