I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that evolution does not stand or fall based on these discoveries.

SPLAT.

I even said "surprise: evolution is more complex than you thought it was" in my very first post in agreement with the notion that it is incredibly naive to believe that it all depends on some elusive "missing link" that will make or break the work of hundreds of millions of independent scientists.

This whole "missing link" stuff is nonsense that that scientists shouldn't even be paying attention to

But more importantly, if you think the need to find these things is in any way requisite for the evolution theory to stand, you must not understand it very well.

Even if we'd never find even a single fossil from here on, we'd already have seen enough evidence of that fact by now to know both micro- and macroevolution are true.

First of all: as it stands right now, evolution is undoubtedly valid. Following Darwin's theory, and even quite some time before then, we've been finding evidence that supports evolution on numerous occasions and in locations all around the world. We've found countless fossils that fit in perfectly with previously obtained evidence based on physique and estimated time frame. We've been able to reliably explain what we see in nature based on the theory, and we've even seen evolution occur in real time on several occasions, the example of E. Coli spontaneously developing the ability to metabolize citrate and keeping it in later generations being just one of them.

There's a mountain of evidence, gathered by independent researchers around the world and throughout the ages, that supports evolution; probably as big as the one pertaining to gravity.

You are eager to dismiss my E. Coli example as being "like a YouTube commentary", but strangely enough it seems like you're more interested in figuring out the "usefulness" of evolution. Guess what: the crap you attribute to "the evolutionists" about the theory supporting or endorsing racial supremacy is not only horribly offensive to us but also completely apocryphal. It's the kind of theory that someone who does not understand evolution would come up with to try and hurt those he disagrees with by associating them with something reprehensible. In reality, the only evidence that has been found in concordance with this subject is that two randomly selected people from the same race are, on average, more genetically diverse than two people from different races. In other words, there is absolutely no genetic and thus no evolution-related proof of what you're saying. What you are identifying as the "racial supremacist theory" that is "perfectly supported by evolution" is, in fact, just some random nonsense you made up to explain a number of correlations that, as Steel mentioned, are best explained by environmental differences.

No sane person in the world of science holds that people who belong to a minority are more stupid than those who belong to the majority because they have a lower IQ on average; it's because minorities tend to live under worse circumstances, have less money, have less access to healthcare, have less access to media, and have less diverse social connections. (Allegedly. These things are incredibly hard to validate, which is another reason why no scientist in his right mind would try and bring evolution into the debate.)

aahhahaha climbtree you don't understand evolution at all

Evolution says nothing about "all fossils". All it explains is how genetic material can change with successive generations.

Here's a better analogy. Fact: Woody Guthrie makes folk music. Theory: Woody Guthrie is a folk musician.

How does one disprove this theory? All you need to do is find one jazz song by Woody Guthrie, as then he will become a "jazz and folk musician". However, every single "lost recording" or bootleg that has been found was in fact folk music. Does this mean we need to find every recording he ever made, or even obtain information about every song he's ever played even if it was not recorded, before we can validate the idea that he was a folk musician? All we need to do for it to be scientific is build a model with which we can reliably test and explain the observed facts.

Evolution is similar. Fact: species can change from one generation to the next. Theory: the ideas that describe the modern evolutionary synthesis form an account with which this fact can be accurately and reliably explained.

All the fossils we have found so far help further the case for evolution, but are not necessary for the theory to stand.

I don't have a lot of time right now so I'll elaborate and address your other points later.

It's funny.
No matter how many next to perfect explanations you guys throw at him, he just comes back with some silly new argument in an attempt to convince himself he is right.

seriously though he doesn't understand that science has to be falsifiable though. I zoned this topic out until I just accidentally clicked it but the dude doesn't know falsifiabilty. the core tenet of every scientific theory.

this is just a not very clever restating of the "IT'S JUST A THEORY" argument and I'd argue that by engaging it on any level you add legitimacy to it. sort of like how if I find some guy who believes we should all shove fruit in our ass in order to get our toxins out and then an actual scientist and pit them against each other, anyone watching thinks both have some degree of validity. adding verisimiltude to otherwise specious bullshit is not something you should enjoy doing!

luckily almost no one is reading this topic anymore and the few that are know climbtree loves to troll so!

this coming from the guy who has routinely spent eight pages arguing with shep about nothing

You've said this numerous times. I'm not sure if you realized it yet, but what you think has nothing really to do with how the world of science operates. Nobody cares about what your twisted mind thinks is "logical".

And in case you didn't notice, some of this science stuff is really, really quite difficult! For a theory to be acceptable, it doesn't necessarily need to be understood or thought of as "logical" by everyone. I don't understand special relativity. Does that mean I should think of it as untrue until I do fully comprehend it? To quote the philosopher Skinner, that sort of paranoia can get you in the loony bin! (Feel free to hammer me about "faith" in response to this.)
Although this is an extreme simplification, yes, that's somewhat how a valid theory would look like. Granted, of course, that all the terms used in the theory ("folk musician") are accepted and it is subsequently proven that his songs indeed belong to the folk music. One should prove not that the proposition is right, but that it cannot be wrong under our current understanding. Also, it should mention how the theory can be invalidated: when his first non-folk song is discovered, he is no longer a folk singer. When we assume that all who exclusively make or have made folk songs while they were alive are or were folk musicians, and we prove that Woody Guthrie has only made folk songs, we can hold that he was a folk musician.

Of course the problem is that the analogy doesn't really work as scientific theory because you can't experimentally verify the data, which, in retrospect, makes it a kind of insane and incomplete example, but let's ignore that for now.

Technically, it's possible for the theory to work even if only one [folk] song is known.

Caveat: I haven't ever actually written a complete and valid scientific theory, so anything I say is bound to be an extremely simplified or lacking explanation of this topic, but I think I'm right about the fundamental philosophy here, even if Woody Guthrie is a terrible example.
Stop right here.

The problem is you're making a claim that's entirely different from the Woody Guthrie one we made just now. One that's incredibly hard to believe. For it to be equal with the previous example, it would have to be: this letter here was sent last thursday because that's what the date in the header states (what other way is there to check?)

Of course, when comparing it to evolution, it would be even better to claim "ALL letters in existence are sent last thursday because I have a letter here and it was sent last thursday". That would also be perfectly valid if you could prove it. However, your theory would also have to state "this theory becomes invalid when the first letter is found that was not sent last thursday" and then it sort of explodes.

This is what evolution is. All "letters" are claimed to have been "sent last thursday", which might seem "illogical" to you, but we've yet to discover the first letter that wasn't sent last thursday.

However, your theory would also have to state "this theory becomes invalid when the first letter is found that was not sent last thursday" and then it sort of explodes.