On blindly following Darwin about human fossils.

In the comments of one of the blog posts I was admonished about something that I "knew".

In the scheme of things as you very well know... Homo Sapiens relative to the time line of other creatures virtually appeared overnight,

It's odd because I don't think I can acceptably be said to know things which are false.

That doesn't even include Ardi, or Kenyanthropus or closer relatives like the Denisova hominin which bred in with modern humans (Neandertal style).the human tree is actually really really diverse and we have fantastic fossils for a lot of them. A lot of the finds are due to looking more often for the human line, but they certainly didn't pop out of nothing. Interesting some worm species never leave fossils and so as far as fossils are concerned they might as well have been created yesterday. But humanish things have been around and quite common for 7 million years.

When called on this comment, I was again admonished:

Wise up my friend go check on the evolution of Homo Sapiens again. Don't just follow poor old Darwin like a slave. Oh sorry what he says suits you so you will naturally disregard any other truths or scientific facts in this regard.

But, oddly Darwin had NO HOMINID FOSSILS! Really it is hard to be enslaved to Darwin when I'm following the evidence to the most reasonable conclusions and Darwin at most figured Africa was the best place to look. He was right because that's where the earliest and best were found. Starting with Dart's Tong Child who was only a few years old before he got attacked and had his eyes pecked out by an eagle. But, it seems remarkably crass to call me a stupid, claim to have been about as dumb as I was as a kid, pray for me, and regret ever thinking that I was a reasonable person. Oy.

I'm being told to check the evidence again? But, I thought he said there was no evidence? That as far as fossil records were concerned humans might as well be nematode worms?