Humans DID evolve via evolution as science currently teaches

Thank you Con for your response.I must make a correction to my post from round 2.**Correction**Not all isotopes are radioactive, only the ones that are losing energy along with having an imbalance of protons and neutrons; potassium 40 is still a radioactive isotope, so the rest of my information is unaffected by this correction.**End of Correction**I maintain that the way science currently teaches human's evolution is correct, because of the fossil and genetic evidence that I provided 2nd round...with that said, on to Con's contentions.Con claims:"With the [burden] of proof on Pro, it can't just be said that evolution is likely to have happened or may [have] happened."My response:Ok.Evolution has happened, is currently happening, and, for the foreseeable future, will continue happening; genetics from the past are in our current DNA, current humans are in fact transitional forms, and we have no reason to believe that evolution is halting. Con asserts:"without evidence of those large transition moments, evolution cannot be proven either..."My response:I hope Con will respond to my next few questions honestly.1. Con, do you believe that Spanish comes from Latin?Yup, I'm making a linguistic argument to prove evolution.Personally, I believe that Spanish is in fact a Latin language, because Latin pre-existed Spanish in history, and there are many homologous structures of Spanish, like grammar, root words, syntax, sentence structure, vocabulary and subject-verb agreement, that indicate Spanish descended from Latin.2. So Con, I would then ask you, do you know of a major transitional language between Latin and Spanish?Do you know of Splatin?Perhaps you've come across Latinish?Comparative linguistics has yet to find these transitional languages, and frankly they are unnecessary when attempting to determine if Spanish descends from Latin.However, we have enough evidence through grammar, root words, syntax, structure, vocabulary and subject-verb agreement to indicate a descent of Spanish from Latin.In case it wasn't clear, I'm making an analogy between Latin-->Spanish and Ape-->Human.Like we have historical data, grammar, sentence structure, vocabulary, and subject-verb agreement that indicate Spanish is a descendant of Latin, we have as much radiometrically-dated geological samples, chromosomes that show fusion, homologous anatomic structures, and genetic similarity that indicate Humans are descendants of Apes.We don't need Splatin, the "large transition moment" between Latin and Spanish, to determine the evolution of Spanish...Spanish is a modern Latin language.But here's the best part.We don't need the intermediary fossils between humans and apes, but we have them. 1. Homo Florensishttp://www.pnas.org...2. Any of the Pleistocene Homininshttp://www.pnas.org...3. Theropithecushttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...These are all major intermediaries, and though I've argued they are unnecessary given the genetic evidence alone, we do have them and they confirm the genetic evidence and the predictions of evolution with respects to humans.Con asserts:"Science fills in the gaps with their best guesses..."My response:...and mountains of geologic, genetic, fossil, and historical evidence. Con continues:"There is a huge flaw with science filling in those gaps because they are operating in a bias way. They are taking point A and point D and then saying point B and C must have taken place. "My response:I'll run with the ABCD analogy.A=humansB=hominins C=hominidsD=hylobatidae https://en.wikipedia.org...We'v been able to make the connection between A and D because of the genetic and fossil evidence; this is simply not a guess at all.Con also tries to "offer some information," which is merely the direct quoting of a biology text, a lecture, a book, and something from The Guardian; there wasn't much of Con's own words here.But I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Con's first quote, round 2.Con was trying to demonstrate the gaps in the fossil record/science's knowledge of human evolution, so Con quotes:"These gaps do not indicate weakness in the theory of evolution itself"My response:I agree. I feel like Con may have slipped up here, because this quote seems to contradict Con's claim of gaps that damn evolution's correctness, and it seems to affirm the resolution. Some might consider this a form of concession...I might be a part of that some. Also, I'm aware that this may be one of Con's first few debates, so I'm going to throw out a hint here...Con, what are your thoughts on Chromosome 2 and the fossil evidence that I provided 1st round?On to Con...