| "Macroevolution" in modern biological theory is microevolution acting across geological timescales. "Geological timesscales" is far longer than "tens of thousands of years". "Testing" is a more encompassing term than "experimentation". To give an example, a test of evolutionary theory is the prediction that the transition from fish to amphibians started during the Devonian. Indeed, after years of work, Tiktaalik fossils were found in Devonian rock. Evolutionary science is full of tests like these. As I understand it, you also do not consider astrophysics to be a science. There are many transitional fossils, including Tiktaalik. The transitional fossils for cetacean history make a quite lovely series. All fossils of a given species are "very similar" for the simple reason that the species labels "are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation", to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil . What aspects of the Cambrian explosion are you talking about? There is much we don't know about it, but nothing which forces us to reject well-established evolutionary theory. Modern humans evolved from archaic humans starting about 200,000 years ago. Archaic humans evolved from Homo erectus, which evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Australopithecus, etc. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos was about 10 million years ago. The common ancestor of humans and the non-ape monkeys was about 29 million years ago. This is far longer than the 10k years you mentioned. For that matter, we have found human remains from Combe-Capelle, La Brea, Cheddar, and Kow Swamp which are about 10k years old. Are you seriously proposing that humans "jumped" into existence 10K years ago and within 1K years were found from North America to Australia? You write "Monkeys have the intelligence according to tests of a 2 and 1/2 years old". But "monkey" isn't a species name, so what you wrote is meaningless. "Monkey" has multiple meanings. Humans are part of the family of Old World monkeys, so yes, humans are monkeys. However, apes, including humans, are traditionally not included as a monkey in that sense, making "monkey" a polyphyletic term. All told, your critique shows no real knowledge of the evolutionary theory that you are trying to challenge. I would much rather have inconvenient facts than the fabrications you presented. |