Well i'm not sure if we have DNA evidence showing the evolutionary steps the same way that the fossil record does but if you're asking if we have DNA evidence demonstrating common ancestry then yes, very much so.
I actually just finished giving an example of that to Random3838 if you want to check it out.
lol i guess i'll take that as a compliment? Those are 100% my own words, not even copy/pasted from a previous post and even the pictures are assembled by me. You won't find that anywhere else on the internet.
But would you like to comment on the content?
Gotta be honest with you: You're coming off really confrontational here...
Well using DNA, i don't know how we'd identify the specific ancestor population from which humans sprang without having a member of that population whose genome we could compare.
So that's why we go into comparative genomics. Comparing genomes. With that in mind, would you like to discuss the actual DNA evidence that human and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?
You're dodging the question. These skulls represent a continuum of human evolution. So in the same way that you consider humans and chimps to be different, many of the skulls represented here are not human either. But if you're looking for evidence of a non-human transitioning into a human then the fact that you can't look at these skulls and see where the non-human skulls stop and the human skulls begin should prove to you that this transition is real.
@Pikachu what difference does it make. At a quick glance on my phone it is actually hard to tell. But you believe we are like a tree. One cell started it all. We share 60% of our DNA with strawberries. And you claim we all decended from a single organism. Without addressing how it came into existence. And I agree evolution is real and constantly happening. That is a function of the the whole universe. But not the evolution you seem to be pointing too. And no one knows for sure
Oh you're having trouble telling where the cut off is, hmm? Almost as if there's a progression of anatomical features between animals that are distinctly non-human and fully human animals.
lol i don't expect you to be able to identify the diagnostic features of these skulls that allow paleo anthropologists to identify different taxa. The difference it makes is that you want to pretend there is no evidence for a transition between species, that there is no evidence for humans arising from non-humans...and the fact is that your gut instinct looking at those skulls is that you're really not sure where animal stops and human begins...because the skulls represent a continuum of unbroken evolution.
@Pikachu those are all humanoid. if not tell me. obviously not fish. didn't we come from fish in the water? and if not and I am wrong about how far evolution goes that is still fine
lol agreed. They all resemble humans physically...in the same way a chimp resembles a human physically. But the fact that there is no obvious cut off between human and non-human demonstrates even to the layman that there is a smooth progression, a smooth evolutionary record between non-human apes and humanity.
I'm going to give you a tip: You're arguing from an ideological stance and not a scientific one. That puts you at an immediate disadvantage in this kind of debate. In order to attempt to overcome your handicap you need to take the time to familiarize yourself with the body of research and the evidence presented by the other side. Saying things like "Well it aint no fish" might serve as [i]something[/i] to say when you find yourself backed into a corner but they're not serving to put up an actual fight.
I say this because the more one learns about what evolution theory actually says rather than what they've been inoculated against, the more one realizes that it is simply a fact.
