lols nice, although it still doesn't tell why we are here for.

A few years back, after a hunter was charged with shooting a polar bear/grizzly bear cross when he only had a grizzly bear hunting licence I started to think that humanoids may not have had an ancestor (or missing link) species in the way that people imagine it. Basically, imagine Africa as a continent being full of pre-human apes that have adapted to their environment as best as they could, and then (for some reason) these species start heavily inter-breeding; being that the mortality rate would be very high for a variety of reasons, the random mixing of traits would result in offspring that were both dramatically more successful and unusually unsuccessful. Within a very short period of time (a couple hundred years) all of the distinctive species could be virtually eliminated in favour of one dominant species.

This video may be worth watching. It may be bias, but he makes a good argument....

So essentially you believe that rapid evolution occurred? I can see your point when you look at animals like dogs or horses, who rapidly evolved in a matter of a few thousand years when put under new, more extreme, circumstances. Inter-breeding with high mortality rates and high mutation rates would possibly cause rapid evolution.

However, I would personally refute that and say that human evolution occurred over millions of years, but that recent evolution has occurred at an exponential rate due to changing environments such as civilisation and migration.

I’m not (necessarily) saying that mutations would occur rapidly because of inter-breeding (although that might be possible); I was actually thinking that rapid inter-breeding from a wide variety of diverse groups could lead to a consolidation of beneficial mutations. If you took any animal and put them into a particular environment for 1,000 in a reasonably isolated fashion they will probably develop some traits that make them better suited to that environment. After this, if you took several of these different distinct groups and inter-bred them I wouldn’t be surprised if the result was something much different than the other groups; and if enough of these traits that were beneficial in these isolated environments were beneficial in general you could (potentially) think of this as a super species (and it could lead to the elimination of all of the variants rapidly).

Dogs were domesticated by humans, that's why they changed so dramatically fast. Same goes for other animals and crops. 

Yeah, I know. That's why I said it.

That’s kind of my point ...

You could probably look at evolution as being a phenomena which can cause a species to split into multiple "Sub-Species" which can (potentially) on their own evolve until a superior species emerges that replaces them, and it can also cause multiple "Sub-Species" to converge where the new cross-breed can (potentially) replace the original species. A large portion of discussion on evolution tends to focus on diversion, where conversion is also entirely possible.

Up until recently humans didn’t (really) have the possibility to introduce new traits to a species (and we’re still very limited in our ability to do this) so we picked traits from different individuals and groups of a larger species and combined them into a species which was of use to us. Humans could have undergone a similar process of consolidation of traits, but rather than it being caused by another species it could have simply been because diverse groups of pre-human apes had a variety of different mutations that made them each better suited to life on the ground; and because of this they were fruitful, multiplied, and (through population growth and migration) had greater interaction with other (similar) groups. With the change to life on the ground acting as a evolutionary force, it is likely that these variations that improved life on the ground would rapidly emerge as dominant traits in the new cross-breed population.

"Super Evolution" is completely illogical. For those who don't know what it is, it is an idea by biblical creationists that after Noah's Flood, each kind branched and speciated in 4,000 years into all the species that exist today. First off, the definition of kind is unknown and is generally used by creationists for subjective reasons to win an argument due to the fact that no one knows what it is. Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization, claims "kind" to be similar to the scientific term "family". The problem with this is that there are over 12,000 species of ants that are classified(there are potentially 22,000 ant species), meaning that at an average, 3 new species of ants should emerge every year. This has never been observed by science. Speciation takes long periods of time, unless of a freak accident which causes an animal to move into a new environment, and this would have to happen for every animal we know today. 4,000 years is not enough time to have the diverse life we see today.

Not to mention the obvious genetic bottle neck that everything would've moved through. The cheetah went through a major genetic bottle neck some thousands of years ago, and it's had major implications for the species as a whole. If every living thing went through a massive genetic bottle neck (saaay....2 of every "kind" whatever the hell a kind is), then the biosphere would look like a very different place than it does now, and our genes would look drastically different.

It's pointless to argue with people like slimebeast about evolution, they are a product of their culture, not their education. Try covincing a 90 year old white southern man that black people are equal to white people. Not to say that religious people are racists, that is not the parellel I'm getting across. Rather the point is it's just drilled in culturally, no matter how common sense it may be to the rest of modern society. Trying to argue with religious people as a means of convincing them is an act of beating one's head against a wall. When they are 90 years old and it's considered as obvious as black white equality that evolution is true, they will still say that god made all things according to their kind. It's just part of the cultural. The only beneficial reason for having the argument is to continue moving the cultural zeitgeist in the direction of reason, so that next generation will think it's wierd that you'd take a myth written by an ancient primitive race of mysogenistic  genocidal barbarians as being a fact, just as todays children think it's wierd that any body would have a problem with having a black president. So argue if you want, but be fully aware that your target isn't the one you're arguing with, but culture as a whole. Getting the information out there so that everyone still capable of reasoning can see it.