well, i beg to differ: we have found proof via old skulls and bones that humans have changed over the years. another problem is it's becoming harder to find bones and remains of humans millions and millions of years old. i believe the farthest back we have gone is 4.5 million years to track "upright man".
Actually, this may not be as correct as you think. A few years ago Scientific American had what amounted to a series in the letters section based on a letter that was entitled *Our anomolies are showing* in which some one pointed out that if all evidence is presented, it appears the Evolutionists have been less than forthright with finds. There are *perfect human* remains that are unbelieveably old. By perfect human is meant *within the scope of modern human*, we still have giants and dwarves, even *races* as such, if you want to call them that.
I believe the anomolies were at some point collected in a book called *secret archeology* or *hidden archeology* or somesuch, and it made quite a wave, since it traced *perfect humans* to some very ancient time. The point is that while evolution is undoubtedly a force, it is not the only force, nor does it explain everything, or even come close. The amount of data that has to be *fixed*, to use a current political term, is quite in line with Bush's push to war. Evolution is comfortable to the person searching for a perfect scientific model, and evidence has been fittted to the theory, instead of being taken at face value.
Even in modern times, there is almost complete proof that the Sphinx was eroded by water, which makes it somewhere in the 15,000 + years old range. Still, archeologisats insist it was built during the period of 2500 BC.
As for the *poof* theory, there are other options to merely *poofing*. There are many many intact traditions of races before humans. So many that many scientist have to admit that SOMETHING is up with them.
The Piri Re'is map is an excellent example of SOMETHING going on. It has two curiously anomolous features. It is accurate (in all but a modern sense) in its portrayal of the Antartic coast line WITHOUT ICE, and it is accurate only if you imagine it is based on observations from a certain point, which has to be several thousand miles above central Egypt. Curious. Yet the map is there, it is very old. How do we explain this?
And it seems the further back you go the more questions are raised. Clearly, to engage a purely evolutional stance requites a bit of head in the sand research, and the usual *they are crazy* claims against anyone who disagrees.