>>Things aren't either completely True or completely False based on evidence like a light switch marked "on" or "off". Truth and evidence are like a scale from 1 to 100.
So true. We're talking more about what's "likely" than what's "true."
>>I want to see those transitional species that are between monkey and man. The "they disappeared" excuse just won't cut it.
It's not quite accurate to say they "disappeared". They died off, but they left evidence of their existence.
>>They were supposed to be the superior species and they are nowhere to be found.
This is also not black and white, this "survival of the fittest" stuff. It really means "survival of the fittest in their environment at present". But environments change, sometimes rapidly. Competition changes. Think about automobiles. Could you have sold a hybrid car in 1965? If it wasn't huge and fast, nobody was interested. That environment has changed, so what would have been an inferior car is now a superior one.
The environment can change much more quickly than creatures can adapt to it. And if two different creatures are competing for the same resources in the same area (as two or more types of pre-humans would be), it's understandable that one type could win out over the other. It wouldn't have to be that way, but it's a believable scenario.
>>the superior transitional species dying off and the inferior species surviving, namely monkeys.
Monkeys have a different environment than humans. Humans have adapted to their environment, and monkeys to theirs. Remember when I said that humans aren't more "highly evolved" than other creatures? Humans arent "superior" to monkeys, we're just better adapted to OUR environment. (If you pit a human against a monkey in a living-in-the-trees contest, the monkey would surely prove superior.)
>>You see this doesn't make sense, because a brown haired 5ft tall person can quite happily mate with a 6ft tall blond person and produce beautiful babies that have charachteristics of both.
The poster that made this point was talking about "species" being an arbitrary line that we humans have drawn between animals. The point was that we could've drawn that line anywhere we wanted. We chose to draw it based on mating. Two types of creatures that can't (or won't) mate are called two different species, but that's just our label for them.
>>If we have evolved and adapted to our environment, why are we all still living together doing our respective jobs?
I don't understand this question. Can you rephrase it for me?
Dave