Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

"I do not know about polystrate fossils. Could you explain them in more detail?"For example, a tree trunk goes down many yards through multiple layers of earth, or "millions of years" of earth. The tree should not have existed in particular layers. It goes against everything evolution claims. Like human fossils being found next to dinosaurs. Care to explain those while you are at it?"Eventually, one of the E coli's population exploded because it developed a mutation that allowed it to not only break down the sugar into energy, but the other non sugar compounds in the incubator into food as well."You only told half the story. What you "forgot" to tell is that the altered organism is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the E. Coli less fit in an environment without that specific solution. I would hardly call that evolution."DNA already verifies that we have a common ancestor with other animals simply due to the similar strands of DNA in all organisms."Do you know what animal our DNA is closest to? A pig! So tell me, how do you know we evolved from an ape when a pig is our closest relative? Looks like neither the fossil record, nor DNA is on your side." Must I refer back to the Miller Urey experiment where inorganic materials managed to form into organic compounds such as amino acids?"HA HA HA! Did you seriously just reference that?? Modern scientists reject (I repeat) REJECT that experiment because it actually shows that abiogenisis is NOT possible. This shows you do not know what you are talking about. Even an amateur grade schooler wouldn't reference that. Here's why.The Miller-Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below.Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine. The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, "The total yield was small for the energy expended." The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (-CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.And, scientists cannot even explain the presence of O2 in our atmostphere! The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earth’s putative primitive atmosphere was then widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen. They believed this because laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by oxygen. Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the "fact" of chemical evolution is used as "proof" of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O2 in the earth’s early atmosphere rely heavily on speculation. The fact is, They still don’t know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose. It was believed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of much more complex life units called proteins—the basic structure of all life. Although widely heralded by the press as "proving" that life could have originated on the early earth under natural conditions (i.e. without intelligence), we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred.In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.But I must digress. Thank you, THANK YOU for giving me the debate. By being so crazy as to actually cite the Miller Urey experiment, you just lost the argument. Because I'm going to cite it throughout the rest of the debate. LOL!