No fossil evidence for human evolution

Lucy - The skeleton of a three foot tall chimpanzee.
Heidelberg Man - Built from a jawbone that was conceded to be human.
Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.
Peking Man - Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all supporting evidence has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man - At the 1958 International Congress of Zoology, Dr. A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that his famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
Newguinea Man - Dates back to 1970, found just north of Australia.
Cromagnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man.

>>20
Lol, because taxonomy is so exact and constant...
It's not. Actually, taxonomy is a social construct (with a basis in genetic reality) which the architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis decided to keep. Especially at population (subspecies/race) levels, things have been changing a lot and will continue to do so. STRUCTURE-based studies are, though, finally giving a good idea of what's going on.
Its not like entire kingdoms have been rearranged in the last few decades.
There's still a debate about a lot of things, actually.
However, if I'm not mistaken, you are merely talking about the name then? In that case you're wrong, a trinomen is for subspecies, as much as ever. Or at least it still was so in 1998 and I am unaware of new regulations in that regard.
[This is drivel unless you put forth more papers for the discussion as it is your argument that needs proving.]
Read the majority of Milford H. Wolpoff's papers on human evolution. Then read Erik Trinkaus's papers on human evolution. I don't know how many of them are online though.
A simple model can almost never explain complex systems where we don't have very much data... 
Wow that explains so much.  The sheer chance of convergent evolutionary pathways at roughly the same time from different species resulting in a 'species' (individuals that could interbreed) is ridiculous.  It's a possibility, but remote at best.
Saying that modern humans replaced the Neandertals with little or no gene exchange is even more fucking retarded, an easy cop-out solution to a complex issue and countering emerging evidence. Together with h-bd denial it makes things even more simple. Also your explanation of MRE is a completely false and misleading, multiregional evolution is about the same species evolving into modern humans through recurrent gene flow.
>>23
So you actually believe in a refuted model of human evolution and say people who pointed it out are not worth bothering with? If YECs *are* worth it in your mind, then it's solely because of your inability to debate much else. By the way, why do you call people who don't believe in disproved RAO fairy tales neo-eugenicists?  This is just icing on the cake of tautology, silliness and unsubstantiated assertions. In fact, to leftists science seems to be a tautology and not a process.