It has been said that majority of scientists look at evolution as something factual. One of the prominent evidence they prefer to emphasize with is the archives of fossil records kept as proof of evolution. For example, they institutionalized hominid fossils to purport human evolution through alleged fossil changes between similar species, such that they thought its a gradual changes of one species on transitional points toward becoming a human being, that is a man.
Let us see on these evidences.
End of Article.
There you go. They have shown different bone structures of different kinds of hominids. Notice the similarities of it as shown though it has differences yet they call these differences as the gradual changes these hominids took in that evolutionary line to becoming man.
Simply put, they were saying, that humans came from an ape-like ancestor and has evolved gradually as seen through that process of fossil changes until it become man. Therefore these different kinds of hominids are the transitional points to becoming man.
The problem is, there is a missing link. There is no convincing proof or anything publicized to show that indeed there is evolutionary relationship between these allegedly gradual changes. It has not sufficiently show, direct relation between these bone structures. What they have shown are similarities and differences between bone structures but is that conclusive enough to be reliable? What if, these hominids are unrelated in terms of evolutionary process? What if, these different hominids are different species as distinct and unrelated and having existed as an unevolved species? Unevolved in that manner of ape-like to human evolution.
Science has no answer for such questions. Fact is, it assumed the transitional links. They have not yet shown any evolutionary relationship between these hominids. They claim it as gradual change but where is the proof of relationship?
Nothing, if we are to consult the fossils.