Proof of Darwinism( fossil records)

Question

What logic do anti-darwinists provide for refuting the proofs( by proof I mean the fossil records) of darwinism ?

Is it the missing links?

If yes then , what do they make of the fossils which are present?

Note : I'm not being hostile to the anti-darwinists, I'm just very curious.Also I really want to see it directly from an anti-darwinist (i.e. answer from an anti darwinist highly preferred)

If there's any problem in my question please inform me.

A terminological comment; Darwinism is a rather obsolete term, if you are referring to modern evolutionary theory. Sometimes it is used in contrast to the Modern synthesis or modern evolutionary theory. Especially by creationists, and in some popular use, it is seen as a general term for evolutionary theory though. However, it is rather inaccurate to label that as Darwinism, since much of modern evolutionary theory was completely unknown to Darwin (DNA, mechanisms of inheritance, Modern synthesis, much of EcoEvo etc). — fileunderwater, Apr 24 '18 at 12:28
Simply calling it Evolution or Evolutionary theory is better, when you are referring to the research field as a whole. — fileunderwater, Apr 24 '18 at 12:30
I would also downplay "theory". We never talk about the "theory of gravity". Evolution is the only series of facts that we insist on linking with "theory", which is misunderstood by non-scientists as some kind of guess. — Karl Kjer, Apr 24 '18 at 13:00
@fileunderwater actually I meant darwinism specifically, not the modern theory of evolutions, like the neo- lamarckian model of evolution, symbiotic model of evolution, mendelian evolution etc. — tryingtobeastoic, Apr 24 '18 at 13:16
@fileunderwater darwinism is actually pretty controversial , watch this----------https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riqCx84rhfY — tryingtobeastoic, Apr 24 '18 at 13:17
@KarlKjer This is a fundamental problem. Scientists have a complete different meaning for the word theory. For them a theory a system of scientifically proven statements. For the "lay public" it is seen as an unproven hypothesis. — Chris, Apr 24 '18 at 13:34
@user545735 Darwinism is not controversial at all. Only people who don't understand evolution think it is. — Chris, Apr 24 '18 at 13:35
Also, if you link people to an hour long lecture on a topic, they probably don't have time to listen to it all. It's better to summarise your points in writing. — Jam, Apr 24 '18 at 14:03
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because, on a scientific websites, one cannot list nonsense, undefined "arguments" from creationist philosophy. If you have a specific, well defined creationist argument, we can debunk it for you but we cannot safely list and explain what is nonsense. Unfortunately, the website nonesense.SE does not exist for you to ask your question. — Remi.b, Apr 24 '18 at 15:46
@user545735 If you are asking specifically about the historical theory Darwinism, you first need to define exactly what you mean by that, and how it differs from modern concepts of evolution. Everything expressed in The Origin of Species, 6ed? The question then also becomes an exercise in the history of science. — fileunderwater, Apr 24 '18 at 18:32
The word "Darwinism" is antithetical to science, because it implies a system of beliefs ("-ism"). Science is not a system of beliefs, but a method to test hypotheses and data. Scientists don't "believe" in evolution or climate change. They simply find that all the data are consistent with these explanations (theories are explanations that fit the observations and cannot be falsified). — Karl Kjer, Apr 24 '18 at 19:03
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not a question about Biology, and hence off-topic here. — stochastic13, Apr 29 '18 at 03:49

score 2 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 16 '20 at 11:19

I'll try to approach this topic academically and undogmatically since skepticism is essential to scientific discourse. However, bear in mind that as of $2009$, $97\%$ of scientists believed in evolution (Pew Research Center, 2009). Although I can't find how many scientists were surveyed, nor what disciplines they studied.

I've not given many citations, since I'm questioning the counter-arguments to evolution, and not necessarily providing my own specific claims. I'll also avoid discussions in comments since this could be a contentious topic.

1. Missing Links

In theory, if there aren't fossil records forming a complete chain of species from early hominids to humans, then this could cast doubt on the theory of evolution. But the fossil records are convincing and there are many of them (Wikipedia, n.d.). Also, if there truly is a missing link and there is no relation between humans and early hominids, then why do their skeletons look so similar? And why did humans suddenly come into existence? Is there a better rational or empirical explanation?

2. Skepticism of Existence of Fossils

One could propose that there are no fossil records, or that they have been faked. But why would anyone want to make any fake fossils or lie about them? What possible conflict of interest would they have, and why would this benefit them? Why would tens of thousands of scholars want to support this theory? How does this explain how scientists are still discovering new fossils? If anything, a paper that shows that evolution is false would be groundbreaking and give instant publicity to whoever publishes it.

3. Inaccuracy of Techniques: Radiocarbon Dating

A variety of scientific techniques have been used to garner information about the fossil records. One such technique is radiocarbon dating, which tells us how old the fossils are. If this technique is inaccurate, we could be wrong about the fossils and they might not form a chain that leads from early hominids to humans. But the technique is broadly accepted. Also, how would this explain the fossils - why would humanoid fossils with such odd shapes occur at random points in time? The shapes of these fossils don't look like typical human mutations.

4. Skepticism of Age of the Earth

Another counter-argument proposed to evolution is that the age of the fossils doesn't allow for their beliefs of the age of the earth. But the age of the earth is accepted by the geological community to be ca. $5\;\mathrm{bn}$ years old (Wikipedia, n.d.).

5. Summary and Micro/Macroevolution

A related counter-argument to evolution that I'd like to cover, but isn't directly related to the accuracy of fossil records is that of microevolution vs. macroevolution. Some people argue that we can only see evolution on minute scales, and not on large scales. But then if a population does have small-scale changes, and there is a higher probability individuals with certain adaptations surviving, then wouldn't these micro-effects sum, over millions of years, to produce large-scale effects?

In my opinion, the counter-arguments for the fossil records of the fossil records for evolution are rather flimsy, which suggests that evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the evidence we've observed.