Your link is nothing but bold faced unsupported (in the least) story telling. From your link, for example
"
Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years."
They did not show why the millions of years were claimed, let alone offer any evidence or support. As for fossils of man, they don't even know what a man fossil is half the time. Since man was not claimed to even be here that long, they must be referring to supposed ancestors of an as men...etc etc etc. Pure fable.
You are being completely unreasonable. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because they don't include the specific evidence in a short summary of evolutionary science, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You make yourself look foolish by refusing to go the extra step and do a simple online search to learn more about the evidence they base the 6 million year claim on.
Also, "man" is synonymous with "human". "Human" refers to any member of the genus "homo". So, obviously enough, the ancestors of homo sapiens (us) are included.
Homo is the genus that comprises the species Homo sapiens, which includes modern humans, as well as several extinct species classified as ancestral to or closely related to modern humans, most notably Homo erectus (from Homo - Wikipedia).
But, to provide an answer to your "question" about them looking back at our ancestors 6 million years ago is because our oldest known ancestor was
Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Year of Discovery: 2001
History of Discovery:
The first (and, so far, only) fossils of Sahelanthropus are nine cranial specimens from northern Chad. A research team of scientists led by French paleontologist Michael Brunet uncovered the fossils in 2001, including the type specimen TM 266-01-0606-1. Before 2001, early humans in Africa had only been found in the Great Rift Valley in East Africa and sites in South Africa, so the discovery of Sahelanthropus fossils in West-Central Africa shows that the earliest humans were more widely distributed than previously thought.
Here's how we know how old the fossils are (
https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24):
How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks?
Scientists combine several well-tested techniques to find out the ages of fossils. The most important are Relative Dating, in which fossils and layers of rock are placed in order from older to younger, and Radiometric Dating, which allows the actual ages of certain types of rock to be calculated.
Relative Dating. Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks that formed when eroded sediments piled up in low-lying places such as river flood plains, lake bottoms or ocean floors. Sedimentary rock typically is layered, with the layers derived from different periods of sediment accumulation. Almost any place where the forces of erosion - or road crews - have carved through sedimentary rock is a good place to look for rock layers stacked up in the exposed rock face.
These rock layers formed from sediments deposited in a lake. Click to zoom. Photo courtesy of Rod Benson,
www.formontana.net.
When you look at a layer cake, you know that the layer at the bottom was the first one the baker put on the plate, and the upper ones were added later. In the same way, geologists figure out the relative ages of fossils and sedimentary rock layers; rock layers, and the fossils they contain, toward the bottom of a stack of sediments are older than those found higher in the stack.
Radiometric Dating. Until the middle of the last century, "older" or "younger" was the best scientists could do when assigning ages to fossils. There was no way to calculate an "absolute" age (in years) for any fossil or rock layer. But after scientists learned that the nuclear decay of radioactive elements takes place at a predictable rate, they realized that the traces of radioactive elements present in certain types of rock, such as hardened lava and tuff (formed from compacted volcanic ash), could be analyzed chemically to determine the ages, in years, of those rocks.
Putting Relative and Radiometric Dating Together. Once it was possible to measure the ages of volcanic layers in a stack of sedimentary rock, the entire sequence could be pinned to the absolute time scale. In the Wyoming landscape shown below left, for example, the gray ash layer was found to be 73 million years old. This means that fossils in rock layers below the tuff are older than 73 million years, and those above the tuff are younger. Fossils found embedded within the ash, including the fossil leaves shown below right, are the same age as the ash: 73 million years old.
If you require more evidence, please make your questions more specific. But, I am happy to provide further evidence if you are interested and open minded at all.
Point out this evidence. Where, what?
The following provides the thousands of human fossils found that all support the theory of evolution. Just for example, when you look at the different species of humans throughout the ages, there is a clear, undeniable progression of changes leading up to modern humans. And, all of those changes can be explained with genetic mutations over long periods of time. And, the changes can be explained by natural selection, as humans were evolving to better suit their changing environment.
There is a lot of information on this evidence that is very easy to find and understand. I urge you to take some time and actually study it.
The fundamental forces and laws govern how atoms behave. Science cannot prove these forces existed as we know them in the far past. I can support this anytime by having anyone try to show they were.
Hoo ha.
Well, that is just silly. Couldn't I just as easily say that you can't provide any evidence that shows atoms behaved differently in the past, so, therefore, atoms did not behave differently? You are doing nothing more than using a logically fallacious argument, a non-testable hypothesis. The fact that time machines don't exist and we cannot go back and test how atoms behave in no way evidences your claim that atoms behaved differently.
Just to educate you on the subject:
Argument From Ignorance or Non-Testable Hypothesis
This is the fallacy that that which has not been proven false must or is likely to be true; however, the fallacy usually applies to concepts that haven’t yet been adequately tested or are
beyond the realm of proof. Our legal system protects us from this fallacy under the presumption of innocence guideline – “innocent until proven guilty”. Religious beliefs are founded on this "fallacy", but remember that a religious belief is, by definition, based on
faith, rather than empirical proof or mathematical logic; that's what the phrase "leap of faith" refers to.
So, in other words, you are unable to point to any reasoning behind your belief that atoms behaved differently in the past. So, why do you buy into it? Is there any reason why you think that atoms somehow behaved differently? How did they behave differently specifically?
