Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

So what is the common ancestor of humans and chimps?

There is plenty of fossils found in every state in the U.S. of the Pleisocene large mammals: Saber Tooth, Puma/cougar, American Lion, horse, dire wolf, mammoths, mastodon, Cheetahs, some marsupials, Giant beaver and many more.
They have not found any fossils of gorilla and found very few of chimp fossils but yet have found all the different species of human/ape.

What I meant to say that there are no fossils found in Africa for the gorilla and the chimp. Yet the U.S. has many fossils of these large mammals that once existed here.Many of the fossils that represent the human lineage look more like chimp skulls then human.

The Theory of Evolution would not be a hot debate if they had just left it as "change' over time. The problem comes in when they state they have the evidence that backs up the details of their theory.Genetics at this point can only say that we share many protein sequences with many different species in the genes that are involved in development of body plans and its system of regulation mechanisms. A blind study of different samples from different species will not determine who those samples belong to that identify the subject.They can sequence your genes but it cannot tell them what you are going to look like so by stating this is evidence that connects each species in a tree model is not conclusive.There are many contributing factors that are believed to be involved with morphology changes in life forms over time. There is no such thing as A+B=C to define life's processes. This makes it impossible for science to solve the mysteries of life.Human beings are not qualified and are limited by their sensory abilities that prevent them from being capable to study life in its intricate details because we can''t see it up close.We can only observe the results not the actual process of how it got there. This is why we have many theories that attempt to explain these actual processes. The theories are validated as long as the results remain predictable. The conflict arises and the debate continues in defining the process based on opinions.

There is no man made device or machine that is built to make decisions. Every step is designed to work if all of its parts are working properly in the order of how it was suppose to function.In a living body form of life it is regulated in all of its parts and systems that also allow it to function without any other mechanism required to operate it. The problem of accepting this as developing by randomly attracting all of its components together by circumstances that allowed this organized system to emerge as the end result over time without any directed mechanism with the ability to communicate its direction is going to be met with disbelief.If we are going to accept the fact that mutations are random and no living entity is exempt from this rule and every individual in a lifetime will experience a large number of mutations in their genes that eventually kills you if predation doesn't get to you first then the word "mutations" doesn't explain evolution very well.When people generally are trying to understand how species can change into another species with a different body plan over time, they don't want to hear the word mutations. Especially when all you hear is how mutations causes disease factors in populations.At this point in time, science cannot identify any mutation specifically to a gene or a set of genes that can be connected to its morphology that is evidence of one body plan emerging a different morphology structure of another body plan and give its identity of those creatures.The point is by using the word mutations as the answer for changes then the entire genome is nothing but mutations, therefore it would be impossible to identify differences in any of the genes in that we all came from a common ancestor.How would you identify when a gene became neutral, deleterious, or beneficial without a set of genes in their original form to compare it too? We do not have the first body plan organisms genetic sequences as the base of your comparison group.Genetic studies are producing too many false/positive results which indicate the model that is being used is worthless. Until most of the biodiversity has their genes sequenced and logged that perhaps more meaningful patterns will emerge.Sometimes the best response is to say,"We just do not know enough yet to make any solid determination regarding mutations"

Taq responded that the differences between species is the differences in DNA sequences. At some point for speciation or descent with modification, differences in the DNA sequences must change within the species population.if epigenetics is not a factor, what specific mutations in the germ cells would modify the offspring to create a new generation of slightly different appearance from their parents?

You are talking about two different aspects of it. No we are not clones of either parent but a combination of both. That is not what I am referring to here. I am talking about the point when the appearance changes in morphology that defines them as another species.

Perhaps you should not exclude all of the other species when you use chimps and humans to state your argument of mutational differences or similarities.