John Paul, you make it seem as if all we know about morphology and genetics is beside the point when it comes to tracing lineages. If DNA evidence can reliably determine paternity in humans, isn't it to be expected that we'd consider it persuasive evidence of common ancestry elsewhere in nature?
You forget that forensic and circumstantial evidence is accepted in court. To convict someone of plagiarism, a DA doesn't have to have eyewitness evidence of the copying process, just persuasive evidence (like spelling mistakes in the same places, for example) that two written artifacts are too similar to be considered separate acts of creation.
If you're shown two genomes that have overwhelming similarities (especially mutations in the same exact spot in the genome, like the one that wrecked the vitamin-C gene in both humans and all other primates), you don't expect us to throw away everything we know about the DNA copying process and accept that the two artifacts are completely separate creations. We have good reason to suspect common ancestry.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall
™ Version 4.2
