proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

I predict that no matter what you are presented, you will find a way to dismiss, hand-wave or otherwise ignore it.

Which is precisely why I originally said it's a waste of time trying to present you with anything.

It is a waste of time to present me with opinions. It is not a waste of time to present me with verifiable evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

And, hand waving doesnt make the evidence go away. I do understand, these type of crude defense mechanisms, do offer temporary comfort.

Rhetoric is not evidence and hand waving will not make it evidence.

 

[xianghua]

Why not? We have shown you how Eohippus evolved into the horse and zebra over millions of years. We have done that by pointing out a whole series of intermediates lined up by the date of the fossils. Why isn't that relevant?

Mutations and natural selection.

Why not. That is the very point, that the Eohippus evolved into the horse through a long series of different species. How can we show to you that the horse descended through a long series of species, if you will not allow us to mention different species?



The fossil record is inadequate for showing each and every species and each and every change in a species. That is because few animals become fossils. But on a broad scale, the pattern of evolution is clear from the fossils. For instance:

and again here is a fossil that predate most of those fossils:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

a fossil in the wrong place again. again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. but in this case you just claiming for missing fossils that we dont find yet. the problem is that in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. as for the rest of your claims i will response to you later.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Then why does he say, "not connected by their ancestors by a series of intermediates?"

Because he's talking about species arising from a direct ancestor, not longer term evolution which goes through multiple intermediate species which are found in the fossil record. Which if you actually read what he wrote instead of posting quotes without understanding them, you'd know.

What was tiktaalik before it was taktaalik? Don't forget to include the evidence to support what you have to guess about.

Your language strongly suggests that you have no understanding of evolution at all. Tiktaalik wasn't anything before it was tiktaalik, it arose from a parent species, which would have been another type of lobe-finned fish.

Finding fossil is not evidence of evolution. Not only must you link them together, you need to start with evolution's unprovable guess as to what the first life form was, how did it originate, and what did it evolve into?

Evolution does not depend on any way on what the first life form was, or how it originated. You are confusing different theories of different things. Even if we do not know what the first living thing was (and we don't) there is still overwhelming evidence that evolution has happened and is responsible for the variety of life we see these days.

I have not said or suggested Mayr doubted evolution. In facd he also said, "the fossils are the most convincing evidence fir the occurance of evolution."

My reading of your post is that you were trying to create that impression. If that reading is wrong, then the question is whether it's my fault for reading it wrong or your fault for not being clear enough. Since you don't mention or imply a comparison of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium in your post, I feel the fault is primarily yours.

It is amusing that what is "woefully inadequate" is the best evidence for evolution. That seems to be an oxy-moron.

That's a rather silly statement. The best evidence for evolution is the sum total of all individual lines of evidence: morphological, genetic, fossil, etc. Before we had genetic and molecular evidence for evolution and cladistic analysis, we had to rely on fossils. It's noteworthy that overwhelmingly these more powerful methods of analysing family relationships have confirmed the family trees created using morphological and fossil evidence. Very importantly, fossil evidence confirms the evolution of life from simple to more complex and the emergence of taxa, genera, and species over time when combined with geological evidence. It is in no way 'woefully inadequate' to support evolution. No matter how much you quote mine.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

and again here is a fossil that predate most of those fossils:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

a fossil in the wrong place again. again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong order should be evidence against it. but in this case you just claiming for missing fossils that we dont find yet. the problem is that in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. as for the rest of your claims i will response to you later.

Try reading the article. Which I did.

The fossil is not 'in the wrong place'. It simply shows that the evolution of whales seems to have taken less time than previously suggested. I.e. 4 million years rather than 15 million years. The existence of the fossil is not in any way in conflict with the theory of evolution. It's only in conflict with the theory that the evolution of fully aquatic whales took 15 million years. Which isn't that newsworthy a theory to be shown to be (likely) wrong

 

[AnotherAtheist]

In the study of ring species of salamanders, the salamanders remained salamanders. No evolution, no new species. It is unlikely the study included all families of salamanders and I believe some in the study could still mate and reproduce.

From this reply, it seems to me that you do not understand what a ring species is, but went on

If you think there is genetic evidence for evolution, you don't understand even the basic laws of genetics. Genetics actually refute evolution. There is no molecular evidence and certainly geographical distribution or geology has no ability to cause a species to evolve.

Funny how geneticists overwhelmingly agree that genetics provides very strong evidence for evolution. Since you seem to know more about genetics and evolution than trained geneticists, perhaps you could give use your rebuttal for all the evidence here: https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf

Here is a perfect opportunity to produce some of this evidence and prove me wrong. Because links never provide evidence, I have quit reading hem. Feel free to cut and paste any evidence presented in any site you prefer.

There's a link with evidence above. You don't read links do you? Well, that says more about you than the evidence. The evidence is there. Just because you screw your eyes up and refuse to read it doesn't make it go away.

Evolution preaches we evolved from apes. That is just as absurd and totally unprovable.

Given the huge amount of evidence that both we are an ape, and that we evolved from common ancestors with other apes, that you find this 'absurd' shows that your thinking is not at all constrained by any need to be consistent with reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Rhetoric is not evidence and hand waving will not make it evidence.

Agree, but you just described your own behavior. Quite the projection.

 

[pitabread]

It is a waste of time to present me with opinions. It is not a waste of time to present me with verifiable evidence.

You've been presented with evidence. You made excuses so that you could ignore it.

Nothing you will ever be presented with is going to get through to you. You won't let it.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you ever provide any verifiable evidence other than the usual evo hand waving rhetoric?

Have you ever thought of going to look at the evidence yourself? Who are you that we should hand it to you on a plate? You go on as if you had a better explanation for the diversity of life which it was our responsibility to disprove.

 

[Uber Genius]

If a person is blatantly copying something someone else wrote, at the very least they can do is either link to the source or reference it.

It's not *that* difficult.

Forum dude. Stop pretending.

Not publishing here.

This is just your lame excuse to mock someone (ad hominem attack) to draw attention from the poster original point. You are creating a red herring about copying and it seems to work as the uneducated quickly "agree" not recognizing your intent.

 

[Speedwell]

Forum dude. Stop pretending.

Not publishing here.

This is just your lame excuse to mock someone (ad hominem attack) to draw attention from the poster original point. You are creating a red herring about copying and it seems to work as the uneducated quickly "agree" not recognizing your intent.

Technically it's a violation of forum rules but not worth getting worked up about, IMO. Creationists do it all the time, but most of us are familiar enough with creationist propaganda sites to recognize the sources. We just sneer and move on.

 

[2tim_215]

No, since they made these translations BEFORE the "increased knowledge" of the last days which unlocks God's scientific Truth in Genesis.

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Are you trying to tell us that ancient Hebrews had the increased knowledge of the people of the last Days before Jesus returns? Spending their lives studying the meanings of ancient Hebrew words does NOT make a correct interpretation of Genesis. Here's an example:

Tell us WHEN Humans had dominion/rule over Angels as Gen 1:28 states.

Gen 1:28 doesn't say anything regarding man having dominion over angels.
Genesis 1:28(KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
He gave man dominion over every living thing "residing" on earth. Angels do not reside on earth, they reside in heaven. What Bible are you using?

Tell us WHEN ALL animals were vegetarians as Gen 1:30 states.

Before the flood (which is what is being stated in this verse (although the word "flood" inst' being mentioned, but it's clear that it's before the flood takes place.

Tell us WHEN God looked upon His creation and said it was very good. Gen 1:31

You cannot explain since those verses are not fulfilled until AFTER Jesus returns. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

So you are saying basically that God didn't give us the knowledge to even understand Genesis (which btw is the key to understanding the gospel which is meant for the whole world to understand) until these last days? So when Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16 that He would build His church upon the rock of the revelation (He is the Christ the Son of the living God) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...He must have been lying because He couldn't have built His church until these "last days" which means anything prior to today... the gates of hell has been prevailing against.

God knew more than 3k years ago that in the last days the increased knowledge of Science would confirm Genesis. He also knew that ONLY by faith, which is a Gift of God, Eph 2:8 can one be born again Spiritually. That is WHY there are so many denominations since not just one group has all the answers. This means that there are Christians in most groups, who are saved by Faith, as a gift of God.

I think it is awesome that God chose to reveal His Truth in the discoveries of Science in the last days. IF you don't believe me, then tell us HOW God is going to expose His Truth in Genesis to atheists, agnostics or phonies, since ALL of them are flesh. Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon ALL flesh:

Tell us HOW unbelievers will have God's Spirit, which is the Spirit of Truth, bestowed upon them, if you can. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

No magic at all, although I can see how some might think it so.

As always, you predict wrong. You seem to think that humans are the only creatures on Earth who are, or ever have been, capable of reason? The simple truth is that we aren't -- although we are apparently the best at it.

Being the smartest one in the room doesn't make you the only one in the room...

Thanks for confirming that there is NO evidence of implanting the superior intelligence, which ONLY God and Adam have, Gen 3:22 into any other creature. God gave creatures just ONE way to change the intelligence of their offspring and that is through inheritance. Godless evolution falsely assumes that God's superior intelligence can be magically evolved. That is the biggest false assumption in Science and requires Blind Faith in the concept of "godless evolution".

 

[rjs330]

Maybe, but I suspect that most Christians worldwide know no more of the Bible than the liturgical readings.Not exactly, no. I believe in God, as you say, because of the witness of others. I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Christ for much the same reason. I believe as it is taught in scripture, not solely because it is taught in scripture. But I believe in the authority of scripture because of its divine provenance, not because of its adherence to any particular literary genre. Why do you put it the other way around, unless for the reasons I said? I certainly can't think of any other.
The poster I was responding to declared that if Genesis was not 100% accurate literal history he would throw his Bible in the trash and never darken the door of a church again--this despite the fact that the Bible would still be a divinely inspired book.

That is sadly true. And a primary reason why Christians get so confused. It leaves man in charge of what scripture says. They just believe whatever they are taught. It's why we had the inquisition and the dark days of the church. People didn't or couldn't read the scriptures to see what is actually taught.

You see we do the same things here. I believed because of what I heard. I believe what I am taught because I study the scriptures myself and measure to see if what I am taught is correct. Those that taught you about the ressurrection learned that from scriptures. They were not there. They don't really know what happened, but they believe it is true because the scriptures support the teaching. If the teaching is wrong we can know that because of scripture.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Tell us WHEN Humans had dominion/rule over Angels as Gen 1:28 states.

**** Gen 1:28 doesn't say anything regarding man having dominion over angels.
Genesis 1:28(KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

He gave man dominion over every living thing "residing" on earth. Angels do not reside on earth, they reside in heaven. What Bible are you using?

Scripture doesn't say "residing". I use the KJV which clearly shows that Angels move upon the Earth and that Humans will have dominion over them, as I posted.
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels?

Aman:>>Tell us WHEN ALL animals were vegetarians as Gen 1:30 states.

*** Before the flood (which is what is being stated in this verse (although the word "flood" inst' being mentioned, but it's clear that it's before the flood takes place.

False, since Isaiah 11 shows that Lions and Bears will become Vegetarians AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign for a thousand years. Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Aman:>>Tell us WHEN God looked upon His creation and said it was very good. Gen 1:31 You cannot explain since those verses are not fulfilled until AFTER Jesus returns. Amen?

God sees the end from the beginning. Isa 46:10 Can you honestly tell us that God says it is very good, when more than 20k babies will die in the next 24 hours of hunger? God will NOT say, it is very good until it is perfect. He wouldn't be God if He said such a thing until it was brought to perfection, as He will, at the end of the present 6th Creative Day. Amen?

 

[Speedwell]

Those that taught you about the ressurrection learned that from scriptures.

They learned from people who taught them, all they way back to the Apostles themselves.

They were not there.

Neither were the men who wrote the Gospels (with the possible exception of John). They wrote what the Apostles taught them.

They they believe it is true because the scriptures support the teaching

And because they have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to sustain the tradition. That's what being a Traditional Christian means.

If the teaching is wrong we can know that because of scripture.

Exactly. That is why were given them.

But I notice that you focus on conflicts in the Western Church, as if Protestanism was the highest expression of Christianity. Christendom is much larger than that.

 

[Aman777]

If Homo habilis such as KNM-ER 1470 were part of the "prehistoric people" that mated with humans, why do we find a number of habilis fossils before 1.5 million years ago, but none after that? How can we have mated with Habilis when they had gone extinct a million years before the first human?

It's the fault of the false ToE which mistakenly teaches that Humans descended from the common ancestor of apes. Humans were made on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 Every other living creature was made from WATER on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Adam is the common ancestor of ALL Humans since only God and Humans Gen 3:22 have the highest intelligence of any other living creature. Today's Humans (descendants of Adam) have the superior intelligence of God AND the genetics of prehistoric people (sons of God). Gen 6:4

 

[Aman777]

I'm sorry, but without a clear definition of what a "kind" is in the creationist model you can't say they are clearly different kinds.

Kinds are the two kinds made by God (The Trinity) and God the Son (Jesus). Jesus made temporary creatures (common ancestors) who were subject to Death. God the Trinity makes immortal creatures who will live forever in Heaven. God the Trinity created all living creatures from Water Gen 1:21 while Jesus makes the temporal common ancestors of these creatures from the dust of the ground. Gen 2:19 and Gen 2:4-7. Amen?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here are some interesting facts about human fossils. Did you know that the hominid fossils are so guarded that they are virtually beyond all access by the very scientists who study human evolution and bring us most of the literature about it?

-_- of course they are heavily guarded, do you know how many people would want to destroy them? A person has to have quite a bit of authority to handle these fossils. Same goes for most dinosaur fossils as well. However, it's not like these fossils weren't analyzed by the teams of people that discovered them alone. They have to be verified by outside people, otherwise they could be fakes. There's a creationist guy, I can't remember his name, that claims to have fossils like Precambrian rabbits, but he won't let a single other person, creationist or otherwise, analyze them. I don't know about you, but I would be outraged if such fossils existed, and the person in possession of them wouldn't provide even a sample to one other person in the world to confirm their authenticity. Because, honestly, fossils are pointless if they can't be confirmed to be genuine.

There is some notion out there that these fossils are all just readily available and thoroughly studied by scientists but it’s not true. Did you know that Paleoanthropology is a science that is quite literally always one step removed from the evidence it is supposed to be based on? Oh sure they have “casts” of the bones with which to study, but did you know that the notion that these “casts” are a true representation of the original fossils is also false? A fact that was proven in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NY decided to have an exhibit of the original fossils. Display cases where made to fit the “true fossils” using casts of the original fossils so that when the originals were brought in they would have special cases to go in. The funny thing was that when the originals where finally brought out for display, none of them fit in their cases. Not a single one. My point here of course is to ask the question, “How can we know what to believe about human evolution when the scientists studying it don’t even have access to the actual evidence?”

-_- you know little of cast making. The casts of fossils are always a little larger than the real thing. That, and one has to be extremely careful not to make errors and to check for imperfections. However, this doesn't mean that casts are outright useless, it just means that if one is not careful, they won't come out currectly, and inevitably they aren't going to be absolutely perfect replicas regardless. Not sure why you think that they have to be perfect replicas, though.

Here is another interesting fact. Did you know that almost 4,000 hominid fossils had been discovered by 1976 but yet only 40 were put on display at the exhibit mentioned above in 1984?

Probably the most stable and interesting ones. A lot of hominid fossils are just teeth or partial jaws, and plenty are in no state to be put on display. Plus, not like they are all owned by the same groups.

But oddly the organizer of the event, Ian Tattersalt, was quoted as saying that they had more than half of the entire human fossil record under one roof. That was clearly untrue.

That may have been true in terms of species representation. It's not like every one of those 4,000 was a different species. Looking at the Smithsonian page, there are 17 different species listed as being relevant to the human evolutionary tree, so there must have been redundancy even among the 40 on display for it to only be representative of half the species.

A good portion of the very important fossils were never even brought out to be put on display. Why? Today there are over 6,000 hominid fossils, and yet we hear from paleoanthropologists all the time that “there are sparse few.” It seems to me that what they more likely mean is there are sparse few that fit within their evolutionary view.”

"Sparse few" may refer to specific species. Sure, we do have a large number of hominid fossils, but that doesn't mean that each relevant species has equal representation within the fossils collected. For example, over 1,000 of those fossils belong to Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis. Orrorin tugenensis is represented by a little over a dozen fossils, and there are only 9 Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossils (all of which are cranial fossils). Some of them indeed are few in number.

Many operate under the misguided notion that we can trust what the scientific community is telling us about human evolution.

There's no legitimate motivation for the ENTIRE scientific community to lie about evolution. I'm going to be a part of this scientific community relatively soon, and I absolutely would not lie for the sake of any theory.

But how quickly they forget things like all the doctoral dissertations that were written between 1908 to 1953, on the famous Eoanthropus fossil (aka Piltdown man) before as you know it turned out to be a hoax which went undiscovered for more than 45 years.

Lol, Piltdown man was always suspected to be fake, even in 1908. It was confirmed to be fake in 1953 through a recently developed chemical test at that time, and through the years it has become more and more difficult to fake a fossil, to the point that it's almost easier to just find a real one.

Or about Pithecanthropus, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 who claimed until his death that he had found "the real missing link." But it was discovered that he had kept a big secret for 30 years. In that same dig, in the same area and level he had also found two very fully human skulls which obviously could not have descended from a specimen that existed at the same time.

They were Homo erectus skulls, and the femur and skull cap the guy found also belonged to that species. He was viewed as a kook for his claims to begin with. He was making the fossils out to be more dissimilar to modern humans than they actually are. FYI, all species in the genus Homo are called humans in paleontology. I know, it's dumb, but you should know that "human" fossils aren't always Homo sapiens.

Or about Sinanthropus, who was also claimed to be a missing link by the scientific community, but also kept secret that it better fit within the range of being fully human than a missing link.
However they finally released this information after ten other fully human remains were found at the same site.

The historical reason I find that it wasn't labeled as Homo erectus in the beginning was that the other discovery of Homo erectus that came before it was dismissed as a deformed ape, lol. Then, a war broke out in the region, making the fossil hunting in the area put off for a few years. A rather unique set of circumstances. I think people often forget the pervasiveness of evolution denial during that time period.

Or what about Homo Habilis announced in 1964 (and widely published in National Geographic) to be the oldest link in human evolution. But actually was assembled from disassociated bone fragments.

-_- the first fossil of the species was fragmented parts of a lower mandible (which still holds thirteen teeth, as well as unerupted wisdom teeth), an isolated maxillary molar, two parietal bones, and twenty-one finger, hand, and wrist bones. The labeling of the species was heavily contested within the scientific community for over a decade, and wouldn't be resolved until more Homo habilis fossils were found. There was even debate within the team that discovered it, but you are acting as if the entire scientific community just accepted it as Homo habilis immediately.

And then there’s the famous Australopithecus aka “Lucy” found in 1974, and publicized to be the oldest missing human link. However many mainstream scientists today are confident that Lucy is no more than an extinct type of ape.

Lol, you are saying that as if humans aren't apes. And you name not 1 of those mainstream scientists for me, that makes fact checking your claim almost as hard as it is empty. Lucy has intermediate traits between human and chimpanzee with an almost even divide between the two. However, you'll notice that no fossil species is treated as if it is a direct human ancestor, because we can't perform the necessary DNA test to determine that (with the exception of Neanderthals, which turned out to be close cousins to our species). And I mean that for scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals, not entertainment pieces from Time magazine and the like. They spout baloney all the time.

And what about Ramapithecu, also promoted as an ancestor to humans but later found to be only an extinct type of orangutan.

You mean Ramapithecus. The initial claim that it was likely a human ancestor was when the "first" fossils of it were discovered in 1932, and it was later revived in the 1960s to much debate and criticism. Once more fossils were discovered, people realized that it was the female of the species Sivapithecus, which has traits more suggestive of it being an orangutan ancestor than a human one. Heavy debate in terms of fossil finds is fairly common, and taxonomy often is altered after more fossils are discovered. You mentioning this entirely upsets your position: it was the scientific community that fixed the error. Your position would suggest that they should have hidden the fossil away and doubled down on it being a human ancestor, but that's not what happened.

Are we getting the picture yet? My intent here is not to slander mainstream science, but rather to demonstrate that my extreme skepticism of paleoanthropology is very much warranted.

That's fine, but you can't assert fossils are entirely unreliable AND demand fossil evidence in support of evolution at the same time. Remeber, it was YOU that demanded transitional fossils. If you aren't going to accept fossil evidence at all, then why did you waste time asking for it?

I know what you are going to reply to all of this, so allow me to beat you to the punch-line. Your about to say that that is the beauty of science is its ability to correct itself…right?

It's one of the better aspects of science, but you jumped the gun, because I wasn't going in that direction. But I kinda have to in order to respond to stuff in your post, sigh. Honestly, I wouldn't care about the fact that the bible and other religious texts aren't self-correcting if everything in them was actually correct.

So here’s my question to that common response, “Exactly how many uncorrected errors exist in science today?” The answer of course would be that we haven’t a clue.

Sure, we don't know, but over time, it gets a more accurate, bit by bit. Also, you don't even want to know how many errors the bible has that people don't make any effort in fixing.

I mean if we knew something was an error then we would correct it and it would no longer be an uncorrected error…right? So here’s my point. If we have no way to know how many uncorrected errors exist then logically we can’t know if science’s “self-correcting” system is really all that efficient.

-_- name a better system. We know the scientific method isn't perfect. Heck, it wouldn't matter if it was, because WE are imperfect, so our application of it would inevitably have errors. However, religious texts like the bible just sit there with uncorrected errors that they demonstrably have. I'd much rather a system that makes an attempt to find and correct errors than one that jumps through hoops to try to deny that they even exist.

Perhaps you are pretty confident when you look at the parade of skulls presented by the scientific community as evidence for human evolution.

Nah, DNA evidence is way better, you asked for transitional fossils, so I provided some. No more and no less. Quite frankly, I could live with fossils not even being brought up in these debates. Unless you found a Precambrian rabbit, because that would be awesome.

But I am sorry I have no confidence in them at all.

-_- then don't ask for them in debates. It's as dishonest as it would be for me to demand examples of people praying and surviving through illnesses as proof of deities. I obviously don't view that as valid evidence for the existence of deities, so I shouldn't waste time demanding crap I wouldn't find convincing just to go on a tangent about how unconvincing I find it to be.

There are three main problems that I can point out, with the fossils and have already demonstrated these problems above. The first is that fossils are often selectively excluded if they do not fit the evolutionary scheme.

No, you named a fake (Piltdown man) that was suspected to be fake on the grounds that it didn't fit with the other hominid fossils that had been discovered before that point, and it turned out to be fake. Then, you named an incorrectly identified fossil that eventually had the identity fixed thanks to additional fossil finds. Neither of which were actually hidden away, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be able to just look them up so easily. I'm actually more excited that the one fossil is more likely to be an orangutan ancestor than a human one. Transitional fossils for the other apes besides ourselves are actually super rare.

The second is that some fossils are downgraded and made to appear less human than they actually are.

Lol, what? The orangutan ancestor? Male Sivapithecus fossils were discovered before the partial female ones that were incorrectly labeled as a different species, and trust me, the skull doesn't look anywhere near human. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Sivapithecus_sivalensis.JPG
The error occurred due to the small amount of fossil worked with, the lack of females of that species discovered before, and the species dimorphism between males and females of that extinct species. It happens, heck, there are a few species for which we only have male or female fossils, and it is suspected that the other gender has been misidentified as a different species (not usually mammal fossils, though, it's a more common problem with reptile and fish fossils).

And the third is that some fossils are upgraded to appear more human like. One final thought here on the self-corrective nature of science.

Lol, why "downgrade" some fossils to appear less human, and "upgrade" others to appear more human? That doesn't even make sense to me, especially not the "downgrade".

In 1911 the world was presented with Neanderthalensis (aka Neanderthal) as another species of sub-humans. It was published as a brutish beast and became the classic icon for the notion of the cave-man concept that indwells much of the thinking of society today.

Lol, as if the ideas of people 100 years ago invalidate modern science. Also, despite having slightly larger brains, Neanderthals weren't as smart as our species, thanks to a larger portion of their brains being dedicated to sight (as indicated by their significantly larger eyes). They also practiced cannibalism... a lot. That's actually why we have DNA from that species; the process of consuming the bone marrow of their brethren helped preserve the genetic material.

It was later discovered that these people were every bit as human as you and I are.

Human in that they belong to the genus Homo, but genetic tests make it indisputable that they are a different species from ourselves.

They were just a little more sturdily built and also several suffered from a disfiguring disease caused by diet.

Nope, that's complete creationist propaganda. We have over two dozen Neanderthal skeletons, and their DNA to boot. They aren't the same species as ourselves. Also, the disease you are thinking of is rickets, and here is what that does to a skeleton http://www.natural-history-conservation.com/2012/bowedjoseph.jpg
Note the extreme lack of symmetry in the skeleton, and the bendy leg bones. Now, here's a Neanderthal skeleton next to one from our species https://i.pinimg.com/736x/df/3f/6d/...b1be02--evolution-science-human-evolution.jpg
Notice how it doesn't have the strange leg deformities. Plus, rickets is a disease that is the softening of bone thanks to a lack of vitamin D, phosphorus, or calcium. Neanderthals have far thicker bones than our species. The only similarity between a Neanderthal skeleton and a Homo sapiens skeleton with rickets is a conical rib cage, but in the case of our species, it's much less exaggerated even in advanced, lifelong rickets.

But the thing here is, that the “correction” of this error did not come until 1957, some 44 years after the damage had been done. And people had become so accustom to thinking of them as merely “cave-men” that that view has persistently stuck. The brutish display of the Neanderthals wasn’t even removed from the human evolution display in the Field Museums of Natural History in Chicago until the mid-70’s, almost 20 years after it was known to be wrong. And even then they didn’t totally remove it. They merely moved it to the 2nd floor, along side a huge Brontosaurus, and relabeled it, “An alternate view of Neanderthal.” (So much for self-correction).

XD XD XD you say that in a paragraph in which you mention Brontosaurus, a huge example of self-correction twofold. The original fossil was the result of accidentally putting the head of one species on the body of another in the 1800s, and after that error was caught, there was a century of people thinking no such organism existed after people concluded that both body and skull belonged to the genus Apatosaurus. And that second error wouldn't be corrected for a century, because as it turns out, the head and body are different enough to be in separate genera, and thus the genus Brontosaurus is used once more.

copied from notes taken from a book entitled Bones of Contention.

Oh dude, you couldn't even use your own brain for this post? Makes me sad I wasted time replying to it on your request. But, in summary:
1. I don't consider fossils to be the best evidence for evolution in the slightest.
2. You were the one that asked for transitional fossils. If you were never going to consider them valid evidence, why the heck did you ask for them? Did you presume I and others only supported the theory thanks to fossils?