It is simply not possible to PROVE evolution with fossils.
There are too many counter explainations, and the fossil records don't usually contain a lot of complete skeletons.
The fossils are too old to extract DNA.
There is lots of evidence that can be used to support the theory of evolution. None that proves it.
You can put up pictures of skulls, but those scientific names gave are based on the idea that if it look like a human but different, it must be part of the fossil record showing evolution.
At most they might be able to provide evidence that there was a different species of that more closely resembled humans than apes in the past. They can't prove evolution.
We do not yet have the means to prove evolution, and almost impossible if not impossible to disprove as well. Maybe that will change as we learn more.
A simple, honest fact. Why do so many seemingly intelligent folks get all worked up denying it?
I have no problem with Evolution and ID being objectively discussed in schools. What I do take issue with is when either is claimed to be THE truth. Example, my daughters (Christian school) Science book states matter-of-factly that "Evolution is a lie".
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory
at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favor of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist.
This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alledged human fetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods.
The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork
Science, University of Helsinki ---
English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research,
University of Alberta)
http://www.antievolution.org/features/evohumor/storkism.html