Replies

So, best guess is evidence?

Ultimately, all of science is the "best guess".

Photos of skulls which show structural similarities (along with many dis-similarities), but don't explain how one turned into another is evidence?

The explanation is the theory; descent with modification. The causes for descent with modification have also been well-established.

Again, I'm unable to fathom where the actual evidence exists for the "theory" except to be told that the evidence does exist.

Your inability to "fathom" information does not mean that information does not exist.

No-one has demonstrated the connection from one skull to another other than they are marginally similar.

There is also the layout of remains as seen in the fossil record. There also exists DNA evidence in extant primate species that strongly supports previously established lineages of common descent.

No-one is looking at any other possible reasons for this either because they've become too convinced of their own evidence being all that is necessary.

Please provide an alternative explanation for all relevant observations and explain a means by which this alternate explanation could be tested.

For religious, moral, and scientific reasons I cannot accept that some ape evolved into modern day humans.

How can "moral" reasons show that humans are not descended from non-human primate ancestors? Please be specific.

Especially in the absence of concrete date which shows the evolution from one into the other.

You are incorrect. Data does exist. You may be unaware of the data, or you may disagree with the conclusions drawn, but that does not negate the existence of the data.

If there is truth to this claim, and after the millions of years between then and now, you'd think that someone would identify/find evidence of other fossils closer to either one of the ones currently used to support the claim.

What, exactly, do you believe that the fossil record should yeild?

That fossil evidence doesn't exist. so, conjecture and supposition is used in order to explain what has not been found.

You are mistaken. The "fossil record" does indeed exist, and has been known since the 1800s. Moreover, recent studies in DNA has yeilded even more evidnce establishing greater confidence in common descent.

People cannot use extrapolation and interpolation as "proof" that what they say exists, exists.

As you have already been told, "proof" is not used in any field of scientific study. All scientific claims are supported by data. Note are "proven", all are the most confidently held explanation that fits all available data and is subject to objective testing.

As you have already been told, "proof" is not used in any field of scientific study.

Technically proof is a term that is used for reasoning. But there is some overlap and a colloquial sense of proof arises out of the demand to prove it. That is to say, where is the evidence? --or, to substantiate something a scientific fact. We love educated guesses, but we also know that natural science is nothing without reasoning. Plus, nobody can deny that the scientific method was born in the cradle of Mother Certainty.