So what do we find? The Tree of Life is continually vindicated by study after study. Morphologically, humans are most similar to other apes, and some of those similarities are shared by monkeys, and some of those are shared by all primates, and some of those are shared by all mammals, and so on. We could as easily find the same treelike pattern starting from house finches, or from any other species. Comparisons of DNA sequences confirm and provide additional information regarding the treelike organization shown by morphological comparisons. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200… An important point to remember about DNA comparisons is that only about 2 percent of the genome codes for proteins, and another 2 percent regulates transcription, so that leaves about 96 percent of the genome essentially independent from morphological considerations. So we can't argue that DNA must be similar because morphologies are similar. They are independent tests. Independently derived models of the tree tend to converge and reinforce one another, including models based on many different DNA sequences http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/… , models based on endogenous retroviruses http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/… , and models based on fossils http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/… . Essentially, wherever we look, however we look, the Tree is there.
If the Tree is real we would also expect to find at least some examples of fossil species that could have been common ancestors of major branches, and we’d expect to find them in specific geological strata. We do in fact find them, and they are where they ought to be. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/… http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14…
These are just a few basic predictions of the theory of evolution and some of the evidence supporting them. See here for some more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .