Not to go off topic here, but how do creationists deal with the fact that human embryos exhibit certain stages of evolution during prenatal development? We call this ontogeny recapitulating hylogeny... where the development of the individual goes through some of the characteristics of the animals lower in the evolutionary development.
In the example of humans, the common ancestor of humans and monkeys had a tail, and human embryos also have a tail at one point; it later recedes to form the coccyx.
Another example can be found in whales. Whales, which have evolved from land mammals, don't have legs, but tiny remnant leg bones lie buried deep in their bodies. During embryonal development, leg extremities first occur, then recede. Similarly, whale embryos have hair at one stage (like all mammalian embryos), but lose most of it later.
Not only is ontogeny recapitulating hylogeny observed in humans, but it is also directly paralleled in other species. What more, this process can be clearly identified in images taken of early stage embryos, providing direct evidence--the lack of which creationists lament endlessly--and leaving very little ambiguity to interpretation.
What say you?