Since I'm pretty sure English is not your first language, and you have no training in scientific lingo, let me try to explain in normal language.
RAZD and Coyote said that scientists have found "human-apes" in the fossil record. So, these creatures existed. That means you are wrong.
Rahvin and Huntard and others said that "human-apes" did not survive until today. We are not sure why they didn't survive, but, they didn't.
But, there is no rule that says more "advanced," or more complex or more intelligent types of creatures will survive better than simpler or less intelligent creatures. If there was such a rule, don't you think plants and mushrooms and jellyfish would have gone extinct long ago?
How many orangutans were killed in World War II? How many gorillas have been killed by the Black Plague? How many chimpanzees have been killed by grizzly bears?
The answer is, zero; because these are not pressures that the apes have to deal with. These are pressures that could kill us off, but not the other apes.
Does this make it clear to you how a "less advanced" species might survive while a "more advanced" species does not?
You really need to read some more about science: your knowledge of science history and philosophy is full of errors.
D-N are all diffrent races of humans as suggested by the name homo.
When you see two words in a scientific name, the first one (Homo, in this case) refers to the genus. A genus is a group of species (lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars all belong to the same genus, Panthera). The second word refers to the species. So, erectus, habilis, ergaster, sapiens, and neaderthalensis are different species, not different races.
We have small short pygmees, We have very tall races as well. Some people are big, some are small, some short. Some tall.
These are not the differences used to classify hominids. Scientists classify Neanderthal and H. erectus as different species because features in their skeletons are not found in any modern humans, from pygmies to giants.
Examples are the shape of the hips, lack of a chin, a muzzle, the shape of the jaw and the roots of the teeth, the size and shape of the cranium, etc.
And, this is not just a random choice or assumption on their part: the differences between Neanderthals and modern humans are comparable to the differences between tigers and lions, or between horses and zebras. We have actual evidence that these types of changes distinguish species.
Since recreations of extinct homonids are not to trust on. ( Especially when media is evolved. Just look at archapitetus piltdown nebraska man)
There is no such thing as "Archapitetus."
And, it has already been told you that the only reason we know that Piltdown and Nebraska Men were frauds is because scientists found it out. This is a good reason to trust scientists on this issue.
I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that science always has the answers. But, I am going to tell you that we will eventually sort out our own errors. We always have, and we always will: that's what science is designed to do.
But if Darwin was never borned, noone would get the idea to say it belonged to a diffrent race.
Not true. Alfred Russell Wallace also came up with the same idea on his own.
Furthermore, Darwin didn't just come up with the new idea like Mohammad or Buddha did: his idea developed out of the common scientific ideas of the time. The idea of evolution was around before Darwin was born: Darwin was just the first one to come up with a good explanation for why evolution was happening.
My point is since apemen is more advance than modern apes,orangutans, and many other types of monkeys,then (Why is it there is no other ape men living today?)
Would you also argue that humans are more advanced than, say, moths? Or, are they more advanced than jellyfish? Flies? Slugs? How come these things survived when "more advanced" things died?
The existence of "more advanced" species does not mean "less advanced" species have to go extinct to make room.
Every species adapts to a particular environment. Then, the fate of the species is tied to that particular environment. If that environment changes, the species must adapt to it; if it cannot, it will go extinct.
The environment to which chimpanzees adapted was different from the environment to which Neanderthals adapted. The Neanderthal environment changed such that they could no longer survive. But, the chimpanzee environment remained similar enough that the chimps could survive in it.
And the story is the same for every species: change happens, and some species are affected more than others. It has nothing to do with who is "more advanced" (whatever that means, anyway).
My interpretation and theories suggest there was a great variety of non human primates with flat faces and rounded skull caps just like there is today.
I agree with you. My interpretation of the data is also that there was, in the past, a great variety of non-human primates with flat faces and rounded skull caps. I think my interpretation differs in that I have also observed another pattern in the data: there seem to be some among these non-human primates that look a bit more like humans than others. Do you agree with me that some of these non-human primates look more like humans than others?
Your researchers have no clue what the flesh looks like on a fossil.
If this is your stance, why don't we ignore the flesh for awhile (since you seem to be the only one discussing it anyway) and focus on things whose appearances "our researchers" demonstrably do have clues about (i.e., the bones themselves). This will be sufficient to demonstrate some things.