*Puts serious glasses on*
I'd argue that evolution in such a manner is more or less null when we got modern mammals that weren't supposed to exist appearing aside their "ancestors", the geological table being disproven by later horses showing up before their ancestors in Brazil. And said horses and whales do not descend from three toed badgers and land animals. These facts have not been held by the scientific community since the 70s but are still pathetically taught in the textbooks. Could there be evolution? Maybe, but it is still a theory among several other explanations so we'll likely never know.
It's more or less speculation at what happened and what did not, so until then, anything is game. There has never been any transitory species discovered or proven, specifically in the case of people. Today, they are finding out that wait a minute, there were multiple variations of humans in existence at one time and that Australopithecus isn't even related remotely. What else is wrong or different?
Evolution, in the general public's and a few of wishful thinking scientists' minds, is pretty much something out of a fantasy novel. Traits do not emerge ex nihilo and it relies on an outrageous withholding of disbelief, like watching a Michael Bay film. If people really paid attention to Darwin's actual words and views on evolution, there wouldn't be as much of an idiocracy concerning the subject.
When taking modern geology and anthropology into perspective, much of the claims really don't hold as they might have a century ago and need to be taken account of. So until we find definitive proof of any form of origin, we might as well do what we want with prehistoric creatures and not be so stringent on scientific accuracy based on speculation and speculation alone. Why sweat over it?
*Takes serious glasses off*
Though in a way, descending from lizards seems awesome. :castlerock:
