Ativan, regarding randomness:
A mutation occurs because of various traceable causes. So it ain't random in the sense of "by pure chance". It's not like evolution is flipping some cosmic coin with these mutations.
How does that cause, to which mutations are traced, choose where in the DNA make change(s)? Does this cause think this and that spot in DNA is good spot to make this and that type of change?
No, the change is not engineered, it occurs based on errors in copying DNA. Some of these errors end up resulting in changes which give that organism an advantage in its environment, which is how adaptation works over several generations.
And don't forget more important things which you so obviously try to avoid.
Not trying to avoid anything, I just skim through this thread.
You still have to respond to those: So far we may have evidence that there are species some of that are closer to humans and some of them are further to humans. This could mean a lot of different things which you have not ruled out yet.
Paleontologists do take into account that a given fossil may be an already existing species, may be a genetic mutation of an already existing species. There are several ways a paleontologist or paleoanthropologist can determine whether or not this is the case.
For example, certain changes in skeletal structure cannot occur with only one generation's mutation; that is, a genetic disorder. For such changes to occur, multiple mutations and adaptations have to "stack" onto each other over multiple generations.
A sea anemone, for example, is not going to sprout an advanced eye in one generation, because the mutation which produces a cluster of basic light-sensitive cells must come first before any advanced eye may evolve.
If you did not then I can always assume that those fossils are nothing but the fossils of current human or ape species that have not been studied well.
That would be jumping to a conclusion if you truly believe that you are dealing with inconclusive evidence.
Let's go to the next questions: today if have many different primates. Some of them have much more resemblance to humans then others. Still more are quite distant from us. All of these are discrete species that are not human ancestors for sure. Now a cataclysm happens (or for some other unknown reasons) and many of the species die out. Some of them survive. 50 000 years pass and there's this renewal of darwinian heresy. Scientists find the bones of those species. Surely, some of them are closer to humans and some of them are further in their skeletal anatomy. There are also species from our time that has survived cataclysm. Now some scientists make clearly fallacious claim based on the living and dead species anatomy and he makes this false conclusion exactly because of the same reasoning that you did. Now if you understand what is said here how can you assure me that given findings is not due to similar event?
For one, because we can date fossils. Another, because those surviving primate species closest to humans show divergence from the hominid line which could only occur over an amount of time which would demonstrate they were not pre-human ancestors.
In other words, they show excessive divergence from our common ancestor away from us, which prevents them from being eligible to be ours.