Evidence for Evolution?

According to evolutionary anthropologists, modern humans have been in many parts of the world, such as the Americas, for only tens of thousands of years.

In other parts of the world, such as Australia, the oldest human civilisations, they say, are only fifty thousand years old.

Going back further in time than that, modern humans occupied only a relatively localised region of the globe, such as parts of Africa, they say.

They also believe that the evolution of the modern human was already complete by 100,000 years ago, or maybe even by over 2million years ago.

So if they are right, it means that no direct evidence for the evolution of the modern human from our alleged ancestor will be found in the whole of America, or the whole of Australia, or in the Pacific, or in most of Asia, nor in much of Europe and the Middle East - but only in some local regions, such as somewhere in Africa.

If a skull fragment is found in America, or a fossil in Australia, or a tooth in parts of Asia, or tools in the Pacific, or any other form of hard evidence in parts of Europe or the Middle East, none of it is hard evidence of the alleged phase of evolution which linked modern humans with our ancestors - because  the evolution of the modern human was already complete before humans arrived in those parts of the world. Any true, hard evidence that may exist, can be found only in a local region where modern humans allegedly existed far, far longer than merely tens of thousands of years - such as in an area in Africa, according to their model.

That really narrows down the geographical corridor from which any hard evidence for human evolution can be admissible. 

I think the average non-scientific public imagine the theory of evolution to be founded on an innumerable multitude of hard evidence such as skeletons and fossils and tools littering the globe. But in reality, only what's found in, say Africa, could be evidence.

And what is actually found in Africa? What hard evidence proves the link beyond a shadow of a doubt? The answer: nothing, so far. I find that astounding.

Another thing that amazes me is the extent of revision that takes place in these fields of science. For example, estimates of the timeline for human migration to some places of the world can change by a factor of up to ten. That's an enormous discrepancy if I'm meant to have confidence in their methods.

Despite such uncertainty and changeableness, many non-scientists have not only accepted what was originally asserted but some of them even taught it to others. But now later those original assertions in which they trusted are rethought by scientists. And they're not small changes. They are pivotal changes. 

Seeing it's so difficult for scientists to be sure about the timeline of human migrations around the world (which happened relatively recently, in comparison to the proposed timeline of human evolution) how much confidence should I have in scientists' timeline for the alleged evolution of the human which was completed so much longer ago and which began (from a single cell) allegedly over 2billion years ago.

To my mind, the very fact that a previous assertion can be rethought, shows that the evidence for the original assertion was never quite there. 

You can't rethink whether or not electricity can be useful for making light.

You can't rethink whether or not wings might be useful at providing lift to an aircraft.

You can't rethink the distance between Burleigh Heads and Surfers Paradise. 

These things are now observed everyday by a multitude.

But the fact that scientists can rethink how long humans have been in certain parts of the world - and by such large factors - and so pivotally - shows that they only had theories before but not practical evidence.

A lot of the assumed evidence is not independent and is circular. One science is said to prove evolution, but that science proves it only if another science is true - yet that other science itself begs proof. And so on.