bump for creationists to argue against this evidence and to admit that the common lies expounded by creationists are clearly and obviously false.
Necrosis,
Sorry it took me so long!
Why would creationists argue against this evidence? You know creationists accept evolution. I think the confusion is in the terms used. In evolutionary biology, the meaning of the term "macroevolution" has changed over time. So when creationists and evolutionists argue about macroevolution, the two sides mean different things by that term. There is a similar problem with the meaning of the term "new species" or just "species".
The bottom line is that creationists do not accept that two different "species" such as chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.
Here is a quote from Answers in Genesis which better explains what many creationists accept or do not accept about evolution, without using the term "macroevolution":
"Particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite “macro” changes that involve no new information, e.g., when a control gene is switched on or off."
I myself would tell you that I am not a creationist, but then again, how do you define the term "creationist"?