[Does so]

"...Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Olduvai Gorge 30 years in vain for..."

Have you read how he did it? He went back, year after year, to search for bones that had been eroded from the soil by wind and rain. The missing link (or links) will emerge eventually. A million years or so of volcanic soil-building takes awhile to erode.

Leaky hardly searched in vain: much has been found, catalogued and added to the physical encyclopedia of our origins.

"...Man did not come from apes..."

The answer to that is at the end of your fingers. If you look, you will see various shapes. The preponderant shape is the "arch" type fingerprint. The lower anthropoids you dismiss so readily also have "arch" type fingerprints. Like humans, they, too, can be positively identified through fingerprints.

Why do we share so many physical attributes, and even some emotional attributes? (Like loneliness) Why have fingerprints been retained (IMO) for humans, or why are they shared in the first place?

Criminals who have had their fingerprints removed are hardly physically handicapped in any manner that I can see. Their ability to manage hand tools is unimpeded.

We hardly need them on our palms and feet, but there they are! Why should they be so similar—even down to fingerprint shapes?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Man did not evolve from apes. Man supposedly has a common ancestor with apes...

Just like I said... You need to study evolutionary theory a little more in detail...

[betty boop]

The answer to that is at the end of your fingers. If you look, you will see various shapes. The preponderant shape is the "arch" type fingerprint. The lower anthropoids you dismiss so readily also have "arch" type fingerprints. Like humans, they, too, can be positively identified through fingerprints.

For this "evidence" to be dispositive, you would need to show that a similarity of form necessarily proves common descent.

It may well be that Nature, ever parsimonious and efficient, uses only a finite number of "forms" in biology. Indeed, IIRC from Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science (2002), the number of general biological "body plans" that have be observed in Nature, directly or though fossils, is amazingly small, 14 or so.

Perhaps some would argue that the paucity of general body plans is yet further "evidence" of common descent. But that would be a circular argument that can prove nothing except some people are pre-committed to this doctrine, and the faulty line of reasoning used to defend it.

In short, for common descent to be "true," we need to show a bit more than formal resemblances among species.

I'm not "against" the idea of common descent. I just don't think the way the problem as typically imagined by your standard neo-Darwinist is particularly illuminating. FWIW.

[metmom]

Have you read how he did it? He went back, year after year, to search for bones that had been eroded from the soil by wind and rain. The missing link (or links) will emerge eventually. A million years or so of volcanic soil-building takes awhile to erode.

What great faith.