[Cicero]

Well, I have problems with the general theory of evolution, too. A good deal of it doesn't make much sense, scientifically. There is minor evolutionary development within species, certainly but after a century and a half of looking, they still haven't found any proof of evolution from one species to another.

In this case, they find an embarassing discrepancy with the way things should be among humans, according to their theory. So, they posit an "extinction" event to explain this embarrassing discrepancy, although there is no scientific evidence for it whatever. That's not science. It's what used to be called "saving the appearances." That is to say, desperately thinking up new theories to explain why your old theories don't fit the evidence.

As I understand it, DNA evidence suggests that all the human races probably go back to something that looks suspiciously like a single female ancestor--a woman whom some scientists jokingly refer to as "Eve."

[Doctor Doom]

they still haven't found any proof of evolution from one species to another.

Creationist Myth #244 "There's no proof of speciation."

[Doctor Doom]

Observed Instances of Speciation