True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

And yet you probably accept many theories that are based on evidence that is inconclusive and not absolute, such as the Theory of Atoms or the Germ Theory of Disease. What you are saying is that we shouldn't teach science. Period. Because they are still in the ground. We have only searched a tiny, tiny fraction of the Earth for fossils. Here are 29 predictions and evidences for the theory of evolution:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent I get the feeling that we will address your questions, and you will just ignore it.

I can almost guarantee that this isn't true. It has all the markings of something you made up. I doubt that you know a single biologist who is doing scientific research.This is the problem. You are making stuff up and expecting people to take it seriously. You were asked to discuss what was on those webpages instead of just posting bare links. This isn't a religious position. It is a position taken by those who want an informed and productive discussion. You are free to use outside sources as long as you discuss the evidence found on those pages, and show that you understand the evidence. Dawkins isn't even close to the forefather of evolution. I don't know why people treat him as such. People like Ernst Mayr, Douglas Futuyama, and Stephen Jay Gould are much more important figures in the development of the theory. Even then, science doesn't work through authority figures. It works through evidence.

I may skip a few steps, but this is it in a nutshell.Primates evolved from a common mammalian ancestor. Mammals evolved from a common synapsid ancestor. Synapsids evolved from a common tetrapod ancestor. Tetrapods evolved from a common vertebrate ancestor. Vertebrates evolved from a common eukaryote ancestor. Eukaryotes evolved from a lineage going back to the first life forms.

It is misleading to put any fossil in a direct line of ancestry because you can't determine such relationships from fossils. Even if you dug up two human fossils you could not determine if one was the ancestor or descendant of the other.What you can do is determine what features the fossil shares with other species, and then arrange those fossils in a cladogram according to their shared features. In a cladogram, no species is directly ancestral to another. For example, this is a cladogram for hominid species:

Fossil data is not the only data there is. DNA data is extremely powerful, and it clearly shows that all vertebrates share a common ancestor, all the way back to the ocean.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Again, fossils aren't the only evidence. The DNA evidence on its own has proven evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

How do they refute the DNA evidence?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."--Queen Gertrude in Hamlet