Let me give you an analogy; stop me if you've heard this story before. The King of Scotland has been found stabbed to death in the castle of the recently ennobled Thane of Cawdor, a man with an ambitious and strong-minded wife. DNA from sweat stains found on the daggers matches the DNA of the thane and his wife, and DNA from traces of blood on their hands and their clothes match the king's DNA. Video recordings show the thane creeping furtively along the corridor leading to the king's bedroom, staring fixedly at a point in mid-air in front of him and clutching at an invisible object, and then, some time later returning from the direction of the king's bedroom. There are also video recordings of the thane's wife walking in her sleep, going through the motions of washing her hands, and saying, 'Yet here's a spot' and 'Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.' Do you think that any jury in Scotland would fail to convict the thane and his wife on the DNA evidence alone? Do you think that the absence of a video recording of the actual murder raises serious doubt about the thane's guilt?
OK, let me go over this again -- with a fine toothed comb. (No, I didn't hear the story, sounds like? Shakespeare?) But anyway, the King of Scotland has been found stabbed to death in a castle of Thane of Cawdor, who had an ambitious and strong-minded wife. DNA from sweat stains and blood, etc., are found on the man and his wife. A video shows the thane creeping to the king's bedroom, clutching an object, then later returning. Then the man's wife was walking in her sleep, washing her hands in motion, and saying things like: Here's a spot or there's a spot.
I have to agree with shunyadragon here -- (while I consider it POSSIBLE I would figure the two -- maybe? -- or maybe just the husband -- were guilty or complicit in the murder of the King--would I convict? Maybe. I would not anyway be on a jury with the death penalty because -- I could be wrong if I convict and would not want to be responsible for an erroneous decision. Since I worked for lawyers, I know for a FACT yes a fact, they can lie and make up or embellish stories.) I see your point but yes again, I do not say that some populations have not emerged, or evolved, but -- I don't "know" that. And when I say it is possible or likely that some types have evolved, yes! I don't believe a dinosaur evolved in long term to birds. And plus, please explain to me about how similar DNA is from one early form of evolution to another later. Obviously it will have to be a simple explanation.