Aguest: (peace to you!)
The greatest of love and peace to you and yours, too, dear bohm!
You ask for specific things in your post that those who believe in evolution will object to, and i will give you three.
Okay!
1. misunderstanding what evolution is all about. ... Evolution tend to go towards less generalized forms. So when you critisize evolution because these things do not occur, its like saying "gravity is wrong because the moon only go around the earth and not mars".
I understand what you're saying... and I was generalizing and shouldn't have, I know. While you may think that what I stated "is like saying"... it really isn't. I understand that the moon goes around the earth because of it's proximity to the earth... and earth's gravitational pull on it (though, I do find it interesting, even somewhat contradictory, when folks say "there's no gravity in space"... yet, the moon... and earth... are "in space"). But my point is still valid: if we started from one entity... and all came from that one entity in the manner that evolution theorizes. Whatever "it" was... evolved... eventually... into what is now a lion... and what is now a bull. Yet... well, I will discuss that "yet" momentarily...
2. Counterfactual statements. You wrote: "If evolution is a fact, why don't genuses and kinds still evolve?". But they do, they do! Who told you otherwise? It just happends very gradually, over millions of years, so what is it you expect to observe that we do not observe?
IMHO, that is speculation... as to what "happens very gradually, over millions of years." Because no one has been around millions of years to so observe... and thus state with certainty (well, except One, okay, two... and so I prefer to listen to what that One says occurred). But if nothing has "happened" in, say, the 10s of thousands of years that we KNOW man has existed... because we have evidence, including writings, my common sense says I should pretty much stick to that... unless someone who WAS around... can vouch for something else "happening." Again, there is One... or two...
3. Strained explanations. On the subject of humanoid fossils you wrote: "What of fossil skulls that "suggest" that humans and other hominines originated from the same common ancestor? My common sense says they've ruled out the highly likely possibility of nothing more than common deformity and/or mutation... due to many things, including lack of nutrition, environmental conditions, and the overall health of the mother... so many, many years ago. I mean, imagine if scientists 10's of 1000's of years from now found the skeletal remains of someone who had, say, severe rickets, should they conclude that we were all bow-legged... or rode horses? I know, I know, we have documentation now. Well, I haven't seen any cave drawings showing the humans dragging their knuckles. Until I do... I have to stick with the "evidence" - they all stood upright from day one."
Then why dont you write nature and tell them that more than 100 years of paleotology need to be redone because they have missed such an obvious explanation?
Because (1) I don't care enough to (anymore than I care to write to the WTBTS and tell them of the obvious explanations they've missed), and (2) they wouldn't believe/agree with me, anyway, but consider me "arrogant", so that (3) they would utterly dismiss what I have to say... and the Source from which I receive it. So, what would be the point, truly?
I find it arrogant (for lack of a better word) that you -I assume you have never read a textbook on the actual remains- believe you can invalidate thousands of archeological and paleotological finds with a speculation you have not tried to validate against the actual evidence.
See? And you aren't even in their league!
What if an atheist who had never read any of the sources of the new testemony or biblical archeology believed they could all be explained away as a complete fabrication made in year 240, and that was just a "highly likely possiblity" christians had missed for the last thousand years because they had been to dense to figured it out by themselves?
I dunno... what if? I mean, I would suggest they also go to the true Source... but I wouldn't lose any sleep if they chose not to...
You introduced the example of a scientist from 1000 years from now, lets work with it. Suppose scientists 1000 years from now find 100 skeletons of random people (women, children, men, old and young) from a very large area. What is the likelihood that ALL 100 will have a brain capacity just a little above that of a modern chimpanze?
I think that would depend upon a few things: first, the "largeness" of the area. Second, their community environment during that 1,000 years. If, say, they had all existed in a fairly aboriginal/tribal community... yet, the chimpanzee had been worked with to develop greater technological thinking abilities... I would say the likelihood would be pretty good. If, on the other hand, the chimp had been left to itself, either in the wild or perhaps a "zoo" environment, yet the people were part of a community that had advanced their thinking abilities through challenges presented by their needs and/or observations made on what occurred previously... I would say slim to none. Or maybe I have that backwards - I dunno... my husband's off today and rumbling around distracting me. But I think you get my drift: it would depend on several factors and variables.
What is the likelihood they will ALL show the same signs of severe rickets (including the infants, and the young and strong men)?
The same it would, for example, the prevalence AIDS among millions of people in certain (large) areas of Africa...
What is the likelihood that NONE of them will show a somewhat normal human with normal human brain capacity and stature?
Depending on what you mean by "normal"... please see my response, above.
Is this the scenario you find highly likely?
I'm sorry, dear one, but one "Toumai" skull fossil (which is probably an extinct species of chimpanzee or gorilla genus and has absolutely nothing to do with the homo genus, but since one "notable" professor "suggested" that it may be a direct ancestor of humans - albeit, many other "professors" disagree - who can argue?)... or one "Lucy" skull fossil... doesn't make the scenario you're trying to create. And to my knowledge, there's pretty much only been one... of each... "discovered."
Sorry, dear one, but the "evidence" hasn't convinced me. I get that it appears more reliable to you and others than what I have come to know by means of faith... in Christ... from whom I receive what I do. I get that... and I don't fault or take issue with you for not understanding.
I do, however, sometimes take issue with folks who purport to have studied, even taught, the Bible... for years... yet, have no clue as to what's actually in it... or not, though. I happened to cast a brief minute of the Tyra Banks show the other day (I was flipping through the channels) and overheard one 19-year-old young lady say that "the Bible says you're not supposed to marry outside of your race - at least, that's what my parents and grandparents say it says." Yikes.
Anyhow, I hope I've explained. If not, let me know where I'm not clear and I'll take another shot. In the meantime, peace to you and yours... and happy whatever-it-is-you-folks-celebrate-if-anything!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA