Name of vessels that supply blood to the heart?

Yes it does. Does your body depend on bacteria in order to survive? Yes it does.

Does the human genome illustrate our entire evolutionary history? Yes it does. (Research Cell Biology and Genetics).

Are all living things based on carbon? Yes they are. (Basic organic chemistry).

Are all elements heavier than hydrogen made in stars? Yes they are. We are all "star dust." (Research cosmology/astronomy/physics).

We share a branch on the great family tree with all other primates. We share an even larger branch with all mammals, then all vertebrates, then all animals. There is no dispute of this, only willful ignorance.

All living things share a common ancestry with the earliest single cell organisms. Denying this is pointless. It is a fact accepted by all the major religions, and even most Christians.

Only fringe funD fanatics refuse to learn about it, therefore they don't understand it, and revile against it. They make all believers look like dunderheads. Is that your goal?

Are you afraid of knowledge? If you actually want to learn, this is the best website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...

The Tree of Life is a major supporting evidence for evolution. If all life is related, then it should exist in a "Family Tree." Thus, evolution predicts the existence of a Tree of Life.

The Tree of Life is a family tree, of which every single living thing that has ever existed on the planet is a member. The existence of the Tree of Life (if true) would mean that the differences between living things would be organized into a nested hierarchy, such that two recently separated species would share numerous characteristics, of which a portion would also be shared by all species sharing a more distant common ancestor, of which a portion would also be shared by all species sharing an even more distant common ancestor; and so on. The Tree’s existence would also mean that two species branching from a common ancestor should be located in places that populations of the ancestor could have reached.

It also means that the fossils we find should fit into the general pattern of hierarchical similarity, location, and timeframe established by the Tree. Finally, the hierarchical patterns of similarity established by present and past species on the Tree should be roughly the same regardless of whether we are comparing morphological characteristics, or genes, or non-coding DNA, or endogenous retroviruses, or proteins. We say “roughly the same” rather than “exactly the same” because various processes such as convergent evolution or fluctuating population sizes can somewhat throw off the hierarchical patterns established by the different traits being compared.

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/ha/a_tree.html .

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/section1.html#morphological_intermediates http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14952-missing-link-fossil-stuck-its-neck-out.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 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/ . Then ask yourself, what testable predictions does creationism make, and what evidence (if any) supports those predictions.

While you’re at it, you might also want to ask yourself what mechanism creationism posits for how modern species came to be. The mechanism of evolution is well-tested and makes sense. The genes present in populations change over time because the individuals in those populations die and new individuals are born, and on average individuals with genes that are advantageous in the given environment will tend to produce more progeny than individuals with genes that are not.

The mechanism of creationism is nonexistent. “Goddidit” is not a mechanism. – Cirbryn.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.